You know, the slippery slope argument gets invoked a great deal, and honestly, its not exactly resonating with anyone. It feels tired. I am not entirely sure what to do about that without getting a dog whistle out, but that’s not the point of today’s post.

As often as pro-rights activists claim “no more” and “Molon Labe” and “Registration leads to confiscation” there is an equally passionate call from our colleagues on OUR side of the aisle saying “nobody is coming for your guns” and proclamations of support for the Second Amendment.

The problem? Well, the folks clamoring the loudest, those with influence and sometimes even power, actually are calling for confiscation, and even are conceding it as a goal. Loudly. Loud enough that you have to be willfully ignorant not to hear it.

The New York Times now (in)famous front page editorial claims:

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

and closes with:

yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

That’s pretty direct, and while they seem to indicate its just certain guns, “dangerous” guns, that’s a pretty direct call for confiscation.

Of course, that’s just an editorial in one of the largest circulation newspapers in America. A loud voice, but an outlier, right?

Unless you are a professor at a prestigious university, penning a piece for a little known, seldom read website like the HuffPo

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

Not just especially dangerous guns, all guns are dangerous, right?

The New Republic has had some sensible reporting, surely?

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

Of course, Hillary Clinton recently said of the Australian Confiscation laws:

I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it, or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.

But perhaps the most telling, is this bit from 1995 after the initial AWB was enacted by the architect of the ban and one of its most “powerful” proponents, a sitting US Senator from California:

For those who don’t want to watch the video, the money quote:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

So, please, lets have a little intellectual honesty and not parrot the claim that “nobody” is interested in coming for our guns.

That is demonstrably not true. They may not be able to accomplish it, but its not for lack of desire, or even attempt.

The next time one of your friends on Facebook says “they are not coming for your guns” please share this with them.