Nobody is talking about taking away your guns, say Democrats and liberals who talk about taking away guns. It's the single most over-used and under-true trope in politics, save maybe for "I feel your pain."
But although the politicians say that on TV, and the anchors and reporters at outlets like CNN swallow it whole and accept it on its face as true (with some exceptions) the truth is that a lot of them actually are talking about taking away and banning guns, and they have been for a long time.
a long time, including as far back as the year 2000, when 2020 Dem hopeful Senator Cory Booker was still only a councilman in Newark. But this isn't just a flashback, it's connected to this week. Watch:
"I know, in my urban environment, I see little to no need for guns at all, and I think that the availability of guns and the ease with which even young people can get their hands on them is just horrendous, and I would, if I had the power to do so, I would. In fact, we're even looking towards making, doing some local level handgun legislation. I'm going to take every step I can to get guns of the hands of those who commit crimes or those who might commit crimes."
Booker went on to become to become the mayor of Newark, and in office did go for a variety of measures regarding guns and gun ownership.
He was asked about the issue just this week after publishing his gun control proposal, and pointedly would not answer whether he would prosecute or imprison people who didn't comply with his policy. Booker called guns "weapons of war" in that interview, the same language as fellow 2020 candidate Eric Swalwell uses, but unlike Swalwell wouldn't say outright that he'd jail gun owners.
What he did say, tellingly, was that his goal was to keep guns out of the hands of people who commit crimes, as well as "those who might commit crimes." That might is pretty important. How does he know who is going to commit a crime?
Well the flashback video may be from 2000, but his new proposal is from this year, and it contains his apparent answer to that question. How does he know who "might" commit a crime? Because of the "interview" with the government you'd have to go to in order to own one.
Applicants would need to pay a fee; submit paperwork, a photo, and fingerprints; sit for an interview; pass a comprehensive background check; and go through gun safety training to get a gun.
By the way, after all that the license is only good for five years. Even my driver's license lasts ten. But no, nobody is trying to stop you from owning a gun, or take away the guns you have. Nope.
Gun control extremists tried to take over a vigil being held for the young hero who died saving others in Colorado last week when two teens with troubled, left-leaning backgrounds opened fire in the STEM school in Highlands Ranch. The students who actually endured the shooting were not on board with the activists who tried to turn it into rally, with some even shouting "mental health" to indicated their belief that the root problem isn't the tool but the reasons people use it for evil.
Democrats who pander to that group of activists try to have it both ways. They work for the banning of guns while saying "nobody wants to ban guns." They want to make it look like the fact of their efforts is a conspiracy theory, so that they can keep walking that line and trying to have it both ways.