There is a lot of rhetoric right now about it, but consider the sources.
Extreme liberal Presidential Candidates who are trying to resonate with their specific voting supporters - and opening their mouth too soon on the national level. Both support bans and one is now on record saying the Australian Confiscation with compensation should be considered. Nice out, by the way, as spending $100 per gun still exceeds $33 Billion in direct costs, plus administration, hiring people to oversee it, etc. HUGE boondoggle and no better than the gun "buy backs" which bring in every piece of junk out there.
It also totally ignores that people won't cooperate, which goes to forced turn ins- they don't know who has guns, and ATF records at the FFL level aren't easily obtained and are largely hand printed, too. Seizing them makes for a big signal something is up.
Then it would take house to house searching, which would imply it's compliant - we'll pass over the issue of armed resistance for now - and would take experienced teams looking into every nook and cranny of the construction and foundation with scanners, plus ground radar, to check off the house as being cleansed of firearms. It would take days to clear a block of houses. There aren't even people to even start doing that job. Let's not forget how much we searched in Vietnam or Iraq trying to find arms caches - it's a thankless task with very low returns. That's why when one is found it makes news.
An outright ban? Under who's authority? It does NOTHING to get the guns out of the hands of the public. They would still be out there, and that's the whole point, to take them out of the hands of the public.
Not to mention those of us old enough to not care about being incarcerated - free meals, free health care, good associates all living together where? Most jails are already overcrowded, can your state take in another 10,000 detainees who are all in need of some kind of eldercare, medications, etc? Who oversees that?
As for the compensation to pay us under the Australian model of confiscation, is $100 a gun enough? Not hardly, lawsuits and demonstrations will skyrocket. And where do we get $100 a gun for the 330 million out there - $33 Billion dollars? Why YOU, of course. They forced a mandatory tax hike on the PUBLIC to underwrite the expense.
Ask your anti gun friends if they really want to pay for that. Most tax issues are not handled well in open elections, much less the .Gov telling you it has to be paid and you have no choice.
There's not going to be any bans, AWB, or confiscation that will be effective. NY already estimated 75% of the guns that fall under the SAFE Act aren't being registered. The majority of the Sheriffs there are in print as stating they will not enforce it whatsoever. That is already open defiance. Trying to force more compliance isn't going to make stick.
After all, what are they going to do? We have the guns, which is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended, and it's working.
If you want to buy some lowers now, the price is justification. Just keep in mind that when things do get tight it was the bolts and barrels that were hard to find, and you had better already stocked up on ammo as the shelves went bare in military calibers.
