Quote of the day—Star-Ledger Editorial Board

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference… Mandatory gun buybacks.

Do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.

Star-Ledger Editorial Board
September 19, 2014
What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks
[H/T to Sebastian.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

“Mandatory gun buyback.” What a way with words they have. It’s amazing how much deception they can pack into three words.

It isn’t a “buyback” if the buyer didn’t own the property at some previous point in time.

It isn’t a “buy” of any type if it is mandatory. It’s compensation for confiscation.

How is what they are proposing any different than a “mandatory First Amendment buyback”? I’d be interested to see their reaction to being told they were being compensated, say $10K, for their First Amendment “privileges” and then informed they were being hysterical when they complained. On their way to prison, of course, for violating the ban on free speech.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Star-Ledger Editorial Board

  1. Wait a sec…. They want to make mandatory gun “buybacks,” while at the same time referring to being worried about gun confiscation as “hysteria”?
    The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

    • To the extent that cognitive dissonance is being used as a weapon, absolutely. “Mandatory Gun Buyback” is a clever use of cognitive dissonance.

      http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

      It works on victims of course, giving them a psychological “way out” when submitting to the unreasonable. It’s a buy-back. You’re being compensated. It’s mandatory anyway. It’s for the children.

      And of course it also works on the perpetrators. You’re not confiscating personal property; you’re buying it. Its not wholesale theft; it’s redistributive change, social justice. It’s not murder; it’s “racial hygiene” and so on. You’re being brave, strong, courageous in serving the Fatherland. Some of the things you’ll be asked to do may be very uncomfortable, but your bravery will prevail, and you’ll be doing the whole world a huge favor by killing those people over there.

      CD is a powerful weapon in this all-out psychological war, and it works practically every time it’s tried.

  2. It isn’t “compensation” if the funds provided come from the taxpayers, i.e. those people whose guns are confiscated.

  3. Also remember, this is NOT Fringe behavior.
    http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/their-words/

    Joan Peterson is on the board of directors of the Brady Campaign, and the head of Minnesota’s Joyce Foundation AstroTurf.

    She openly said she’s 100% fine with door-to-door confiscation, so long as there was “compensation” and it wasn’t CALLED “Confiscation”.

    She said this YEARS ago, and is still in good standing with those organizations, as well as has been rubbing elbows with Shannon Watts et al.

    Criminalization of ALL Firearms IS their end game. PERIOD.

    • And they seem to think that this distinction matters.

      Confiscation is their goal, confiscation is what they want, but if they don’t call it confiscation they think we shouldn’t complain about it.

      Oh and we can’t mention slippery slopes or how certian policies would make this end goal easier.

      I mean you have the same people dreaming about how wonderful confiscation would be turining around and demanding registration who then get all wounded fawn when you point out that registration would make confiscation a lot easier.

      • I think the distinction matters because obfuscating an ugly truth may make it easier to fool the uninformed. Just remember “final solution”.
        As for registration, it’s obvious that the only logical purpose of registration is facilitating confiscation. But in any event, you don’t need to explain that logic; it is sufficient simply to quote the people who are pushing for it, because they are talking about confiscation as the explicit goal.

      • Ah. Yes, of course. The end goals as far as your guns is concerned. But having the subjects be defenseless is a stepping stone, not an end goal.

  4. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
    There is no philosophical difference between Gun Buybacks and Book Burning.

  5. Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.