The Nefarious Nature of Gun Buybacks

by

Thursday, November 14, 2019


Confirming what many conservatives have been speculating for years now, on September 12, 2019, it became clear that the Democratic Party has declared war on the Second Amendment. During the third presidential primary debate, candidate Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke proclaimed, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, you’re not going to be allowed to use it against your fellow Americans anymore.” Beto made it clear that if a Democrat becomes President in 2020, the federal government is—in fact—going to actively pursue restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights. 

What many on the left historically have called “right wing talking points” has now become openly endorsed by many of those seeking this nation’s highest office. These candidates don’t want to simply “clean up the streets,” or as Beto says prevent us from using them against our fellow Americans, they want to superimpose a lifestyle and worldview unto all Americans that places the state and federal government as the ultimate authority in their lives. Their intention is to weaken the populace so that we cannot defy them. How do they intend to do this? Through what is commonly referred to as a “buyback program.”

Optional buybacks actually occur quite often throughout the country—the keyword here being “optional.” A federally mandated buyback, however, is what many Democrats are currently proposing. 

It would involve the federal government compelling private citizens to relinquish their property under threat of force. Meaning, if they do not comply, millions—of otherwise law abiding—citizens will become felons and could face prison time, hefty legal fines, or some other arbitrarily outlandish punishment. 

The federal government leveraging the use of force against Americans to compel them to part with their legally obtained firearms is repugnant. Furthermore, the term “buyback” is insidiously misleading. It directly suggests that you as an individual do not actually own your firearm, and that it is the far-reaching generosity of the government that has merely allowed you to keep it. It implies that your rights are relevant only as long as the government decides to honor their existence.

The belief that Americans enshrine the right to bear arms to utilize lethal force against our countrymen in cold blood is ludicrous. American citizens may use their firearms for several popular uses such as hunting, sport, and self-defense, but the purpose of the Second Amendment is neither recreation, nor just for personal usage. It enshrines and guarantees the right of the populace for defense against enemies both foreign and domestic. It was written with the direct intention of empowering the people to cast off an overreaching government that does not respect their rights.

The concept of a mandatory gun “buyback” betrays many core ideals of this country. Disarming the populace to solve a criminal issue is not only unconstitutional, but is also antithetical to the notion of natural rights.

Furthermore, gun buybacks simply do not work. Those that willfully part ways with their firearms at the behest of the government are not among those that are likely to commit violent acts with them in the first place, and the types of guns that are usually “sold back” to the government are either in poor condition or are typically not the “assault weapons” or “weapons of war” that Democrats tend to place at the center of their rhetoric. Mandatory buybacks, however, do a fantastic job of bringing visibility to communities that are actively publicizing the disarmament of their citizens.

We live in an era of hyper-divisiveness, this much is clear to anyone that watches the news. With what seems like a constant flow of mass shootings in recent years, we ought to be actively finding ways to protect and preserve the lives of our countrymen. With this being the case, it should be apparent that the federally mandated gun buybacks proposed by many leading voices within the Democratic Party will not have their intended effect.

How could they? They are based upon the false premise that Americans would rather bleat like sheep for safety than roar like lions for liberty. They assume that roughly a quarter of the United States’ population will relinquish their most reliable means of defending their homes, families, and selves without so much as a peep.

Mandatory buyback programs betray our nation’s foundational beliefs and they put American lives at risk.

Samuel Mangold-Lenett is a native of Cincinnati, Ohio and current student at the University of Cincinnati studying English Literature and Political Science. Having a deep passion for the Midwestern United States, Sam is dedicated to uplifting the men and women that are too often overlooked by mass media and popular culture. Sam is also the Editor-in-Chief for the Cincinnati Republic, an alternative conservative media outlet that is based out of his home town.

The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.


Share This

About Samuel Mangold-Lenett

Samuel Mangold-Lenett is a native of Cincinnati, Ohio and current student at the University of Cincinnati studying English Literature and Political Science. Having a deep passion for the Midwestern United States, Sam is dedicated to uplifting the men and women that are too often overlooked by mass media and popular culture. Sam is also the Editor-in-Chief for the Cincinnati Republic, an alternative conservative media outlet that is based out of his home town.

Looking to Submit an Article?

We always are happy to receive submissions from new and returning authors. If you're a conservative student with a story to tell, let us know!

Join the Team

Want to Read More?

From college experiences to political theory to sports and more, our authors have covered a wide assortment of topics tailored for millennials and students.

Browse the Archives