BenK over at the AoSHQ linked this story this way, "Remember You Stupid Right Wingers, The Dems Don't Want To Take Your Guns." That perfectly sums up the article. But I want to point out something that should be obvious, but still needs to be pointed out. The hostile tone the article takes toward gun-owners.
You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up." Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation. See, ABC said so, so it must be true.
But maybe we should make our own determination. When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do. So let's look at those proposals.
Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks." Essentially this would do nothing. Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole." Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist. If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check. Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL. Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway. And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."
In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult. They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally.
Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size. First, as the memo points out, this is just silly. Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining. That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare. Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.
Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away. What then? Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it. It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines. If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.
Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons." We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger. "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary." It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle. Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15. Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.
And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.
At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer. Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves. None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets. None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used. None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals.
If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry. That is the only option.
Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying. Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it. Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades. This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns. It is proven by how little coverage those events get. It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year? All three with 10+ victims? Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).
Liberals want to take your guns. They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright. And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys. Thus the article.
ABC is lying to you. The White House is lying to you. They do want you disarmed. Don't believe different.