Breaking News: Obama Calls For Gun Confiscation!!!


We have often been told by gun control advocates that “nobody is coming to take your guns” and all they wanted were “common-sense” gun laws.

However, the gun control reforms they have called for lead inevitably toward national registration of all firearms, which will inevitably lead to confiscation of firearms, which in turn will result in a second civil war or outright revolution.

Belying this end goal, President Barack Obama recently called for America to emulate the strict gun control laws passed in Australia nearly 20 years ago.

Speaking of the horrific 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur that left 35 people dead and many more wounded, Obama said, “It was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.”

What Obama deliberately failed to mention was what happened after Australia outlawed guns, which was a coercive mandatory buyback of weapons and forced confiscation of firearms from those who resisted.

Bearing Arms pointed out the enormous difference between Australia and the United States: Australia had approximately one million firearms to worry about confiscating from a more or less willing population, while the U.S. has upwards of 300 million firearms held by a population that is dead-set against giving them up.

In fact, as we have clearly seen in both Connecticut and New York, gun owners have remained staunchly opposed to even registering their firearms, so willingly turning them in or sitting back and allowing them to be confiscated simply isn’t going to happen.

Essentially, by calling for America to follow Australia’s lead regarding gun control, Obama has called for America to follow the lead of the colonists in 1776, who were finally pushed into sparking a revolution because of gun control and confiscation of firearms by the British Crown.

Related:  (Watch) Trump Just Brought The House Down With His Response To Dallas Police Shootings!

Any attempt at national registration, and the mass confiscation that would inevitably follow, will only result in widespread bloodshed and quite possibly an end to America as we have known it — for better or worse.

In other words, “shall not be infringed” means leave our guns alone.  And we are serious about that.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you will never comply with any registration scheme or confiscation and will never willingly hand over your firearms.

  • taylorcraftbc65

    Which is WHY Texas is listed as “HOSTILE” for the upcoming “War Games” called “Jade Helm”, Piano Man.

  • Andrew Gulak

    Molon labe motherfucker

  • james

    Reasons for listing us as “hostile” are of no cosequence. Does not mean a thing, my friend. This Nation needs us far worse than we need them. Been that way for over 150 years. That is why we pretty much do as WE see fit. We have right of secession. Do you? My flag always flys at same height as U.S. unless you live here, yours does not. It is RESPECT of Natio to Nation. Do not even know why I am bothering with you. Look up these simple facts, facts our 6th graders know, by the way, then get back to me. The Fed does not “dictate” here. They ask permission. We are NOT same as you. Think about that for a while.

    • James Fleury

      You “have” no such “right of secession.” The Civil War set that insane thought of a “state’s right” in the gutter where it belongs. Spouting off at the mouth like most Texans are well-known for (and laughed at, incidentally) does NOT make it so. To wit: In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” The majority opinion struck down the Texas Ordinance of Secession, calling it “null,” and crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the “perpetual union” of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States. Chase did leave an opening, “revolution or the consent of the States,” but without either, secession could never be considered a legal act.

      • james

        Researched this and found you to be correct, technically, however the wording of said document is somewhat ambiguous and legal scholars are in disagreement concerning this. Fact remains, though, that Texas does have the right to divide into five seperate States, should we choose to do so, and only after popular vote of Texans. Do not ever see it happening, though, nor do I see, nor ever have seriously considered, secession a viable option.