Tucker Carlson "Goes There" On What Gun Confiscation Means

General General Discussion
1

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/05/tucker-carlson-gun-confiscation-proponents-risking-civil-war/

During the December 4 airing of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson asked gun control proponent Mark Glaze if he was ready for the civil war that would follow any real attempt to confiscate firearms in the U.S.

He (snip) asked Glaze what he would be prepared to do to people who do not willingly hand over their guns.

Glaze said, “I think you, at a bare minimum, fine them severely for it and build an incentive for them to [cooperate].”

Carlson looked at Glaze and asked, “Are you ready for the civil war that would ensue if you try to take people’s guns?”

My take: It’s surprising for a mainstream media personality have the guts to even breathe the notion of a civil war if guns are confiscated. It’s an ugly prediction that no one really knows would come true or not. But I say, “Good on ya” to Carlson for at least having the courage to suggest it might happen. Too bad the article doesn’t post Mr. Glaze’s response. I wonder if there wasn’t a response. A search on Fox News’ website did not turn up this interview. Might be my Search Fu is not strong with this one.

2

Is this it?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=31-Rm8OJdLU

3

Tucker’s is the only news show I will regularly watch.

Edited to say it is really a commentary of current events show and not a news show per say.

4

There we go. Forgot it might be posted on YouTube.

5

Cool. Now I can go watch that Spetsnaz video again!

OT - it was a good interview. I don’t watch TC regularly however he seems fairly level headed and not bombastic like other MSM types.

6

He invites liberals on the show just to destroy them. That’s it. That’s his entire show. It’s great.

7

Awesome. I love that. It’s like every day at my house…

8

I like how he just laughs at the guy rather than trying to debate his asinine suggestions. I guess he realizes there’s really no point.

9

Glaze said, “I think you, at a bare minimum, fine them severely for it and build an incentive for them to [cooperate].”…“and eventually the supply will dry up…”

BUT HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHO TO FINE?

So let’s play this game… they have their national gun buy-back program for all the “evil” guns in exchange for like, a $100 Targets gift certificate or something (because we all know the gov will not be handing out $800-3k dollar checks to properly compensate people for their goods, and given the sheer number of guns currently in country, not to mention ammo and magazines [thanks Feinstein!] couldn’t afford to do so even it they would).
Per CT and any other states that have done similar things, there’s already a large portion of gun owners that have decided never to be caught on camera in a “turn 'em in would you kindly” line like that…So when their brilliant plan inevitably nets a FAR fewer amount of guns than they expected, what then?

Oh, right… you’d need more restrictions OR go door kicking, which would result in a body count (however high or low it would turn out to be in reality because you’d sort the talkers from the doers real quick), but TPTB are NOT dumb enough to let it escalate to a weapons free situation… So, more restrictions it is. As usual.

Let’s say a mag ban to go along with it. Great. Because at this point every gun owner without their head up their ass has a pile of them, and before that ban went into effect, you would not be able to find a magazine on a shelf in the entire country (see: 2013, when you couldn’t even find an M1 Garand on a shelf). So, you have the choice to either buy them back, with the same predictable result as the guns, OR go door to door (good luck…).
So the net result being, most folks STILL have their guns and magazines, they just can’t show them openly.

Ok, an ammo ban- stop them from being used, right? Ehhhhh , wrong. Ok, so maybe you could ban actual 5.56 and maybe x39, but you know how many hunting rifles run .223 and .308? Yeah. A LOT. So the handwringers can sit there all day and be like “they’ll track your ammo purchases”, um…no, not if you have a “good citizen” gun to go with it… Or you know… cash. Plus see the previous about not being able to find a box of ammo on a shelf in the country before that ban goes into effect.
Oh, so now they’d have to stop the “cash loophole” or the “bulk ammo” loophole, and require ID for all ammo purchases. Well, A) now you’ve pissed off the “sport shooters” too, B), so I’ll buy 2 8oz sodas instead of 1 16oz, and C) net result- most folks STILL have their “evil” guns, mags, AND ammo.

Then what?
At that point they’d either have to admit it’s all pointless (a laughable suggestion, we all know at that point the brakes are off and they’d just keep piling on more increasingly asinine restrictions), or things start going full Bracken…

Edit: And for the lefties who I know are skulking about here somewhere- I know you’re sitting there saying “well, at least now nobody can get the “bad” guns or use them”.
Um…no. Because you see, it’s simple- the only people who are going to hide their piles of guns and ammo are the people who would never have been a threat to society at large in the first place. The felons, the criminals, the nutbags, the Terries… all those people you think you’re saving the world from… THEY DON’T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOUR IDIOT LAWS! As we’ve already covered, you can never possibly get all the guns from the good guys, half of whom will even turn them in voluntarily, unlike the above criminal elements who for sure will NOT be turning in a damn thing, and those people WILL continue to use their guns, and you idiots will continue to pass more laws because you’re literally to stupid to grasp the sheer pointlessness of trying to “legislate criminals into righteousness”.
And if you still think I’m wrong, let me remind you that Columbine happened DURING your “oh so great” Clinton AWB, and the Bataclan massacre happened in a country with FAR more restrictive laws than we have. But hey, you do you… We of the “other side of the aisle” already know your incessant gun banning efforts have nothing to do with making anyone safer anyway.

Carlson looked at Glaze and asked, “Are you ready for the civil war that would ensue if you try to take people’s guns?”

And yet, I am sick of hearing about the “gun bans will lead to civil war” bogeyman.
The big “line in the sand” moment most seem to be waiting for isn’t ever going to happen.
It’s going to be hundreds of little lines that will instead be stepped over unnoticed or uncared about, as is already the case.
Personal privacy is dead, Free speech is dead, and the entire country is held hostage by the Federal banks and corporations, and their own obsession with media dictating their every waking moment, to name just the most glaring issues.
WHY DON"T I SEE ANYONE SHOOTING YET??? Has anyone read the “reasons” portion of the Declaration? Kinda starting to sound real familiar right?
And yet somehow there’s going to be this great Rubcion event “when guns are banned”? Bullshit.
Not to mention, most folks that throw out the “civil war” term really haven’t spent much time thinking it over…

10

Agreed. As long as the cable TV is hot and the beer is cold, Americans are likely to accept gun control incrementalism. It’s just a bunch of right-wing nuts that have AR15’s, right? What’s that you say? It’s “America’s Rifle?” What’s that? “This isn’t the 1990s when hi-capacity semi-autos were a ‘niche’ subset of firearms ownership?”

My take: until it comes down to the gauntlet being thrown own where you are a felon by the stroke of a pen (i.e. no amnesty), most people will either turn in their guns or hide them. Hardly anyone will “go to war” unless it’s already too late to avoid prison for owning what you own. Otherwise, somebody in California would have started something by now. What state was it where someone posted pics of long lines of people waiting to register their guns? THAT is America in the 21st century. Those old guys with powdered wigs were from a different America.

11

Likewise, neither do the folks who poo-poo the suggestion. They wave it off dismissively. Mmmkay…

12

I don’t disagree with one line of your post, but, what is the solution to this obvious problem?

13

Everyone wants to play gun grabbing Gestapo, but everyone wants to sit in the warm staff car while someone else goes Breach-boom-bang. This isn’t like putting the guy in the basement and thinking payroll will eventually work itself out.

14

And therein lies the rub. A cornered animal is unpredictable.

That state you mention was CT. Please don’t try to use New England as the litmus test for the rest of the country. I can assure you that where I live it would be viewed far differently.

15

I like to think people in states like Texas would be seceding from the union before they would allow a gun confiscation. My worry is that the millenials and subsequent generations just won’t see the value of the Second Amendment or see a reason to fight for it.

16

On that line of thinking, I was listening to the radio this morning on the way to work and they were talking about states or municipalities not having the right to ignore federal law. On illegal immigration most of us say “Nope, law of the land. San Fran can go f**k themselves, lower the boom on the bastards”.

However…imagine a federal law outlawing evil assault weapons being ignored by the political antithesis of San Fran/Berkley/Austin/Seattle, i.e. the great rural areas and Southern states. Makes for an interesting debate does it not?

17

Someone should wargame different outcomes based on the country’s political climate.

I have always had the opinion that when the US finally comes apart, it will be neighbor versus neighbor like in the former Yugoslavia. The government will simply referee the chaos and benefit from it through stricter controls.

Oops. Sounds like what’s going on in the country right now doesn’t it?

18

I think a civil war could very well happen under a gun confiscation/gun ban scenario and it would be the ugliest guerrilla war mankind has ever seen. You have an entire country filled with shooters, many of which are also educated, military trained- no one would feel safe anywhere. I remember the early to mid 1990’s when I was in high school that things looked they were going to kick off. There was Ruby Ridge, then Waco followed by Oklahoma City. My family was worried that things were getting out of hand. We used to go to this out of the way gun range where usually you might see one or two hunters sighting in their rifles. However at some point that changed and when we went there later- we saw dozens upon dozens of guys out there training in small squad tactics. This was way before tactical training classes were mainstream for the public. It just seemed like the entire nation from about 92’-95’ went from hunting Fudd’s of my grandpa’s generation to suddenly owning more military type rifles overnight. Simply, I don’t see anyone giving up their guns and if forced to do so- things would get ugly.

19

Everybody thinks you can “fine” people.

All you are doing is giving Joe and Susie Sixpack the same mentality as the Fellas
“I’m already a crook. What’s one more law?”

Dangerous proposition.

American Civil War II would make Yugoslavia look like a comedy of manners.

Step outside the office and away from the socialites and hang out at the local package store , honkytonk, or Taqueria for 8 hours.

That’s the America you are ultimately overlooking to your own peril.

20

Here we go again with the whole “millennial” BS.

Old people don’t have a monopoly on appreciating freedom.

People in their 20’s are more likely to own an AR than their parents. It’s the gun they grew up seeing everywhere. Younger people are also more likely to identify with libertarian views than their parents.

I’m not lining up to turn my stuff in and neither is anyone I know.