Quote Originally Posted by noobium View Post
an immediate confiscation is merely expensive. What you'd see - and what you have seen in places like ny state - are laws and policies that give police authority and ability to search and seize for any number of imagined offenses, and if a gun happens to appear, they are liable for all manner of penalties (whether the gun was legally possessed or not). This would be coupled with effectively a ban on the sale of any new legitimate arms (in force in ny). Eventually enough of the populace is disarmed that violent force can be escalated further without fear of reprisal against the police.

I believe the greed for power and abusing random people outweighs greed for money the arms industry isn't sending to hrc of all people. Conservative and some democrat greed maybe, but the super establishment have way more money coming from people who want this, the bloombergs and their ilk, who have a vested interest in a controllable population.

As bishop said, outlawing guns works in every other country. There is no reason to assume it can't happen here, implemented in a similar manner. The laws as they are currently written allow for way more control than most people think, if states are pressured into accepting it. Seeking ways to use lawsuits to effectively ban guns, or overriding state laws, is the kind of move obama and hrc want, since state-level bans don't stop interstate arms travel. That is the definition of "taking away your guns" for all intents and purposes - it is the only meaningful gun control that obama could aim for, anything less would be superficial - and obama sure as hell wouldn't spend the political capital on such a project, considering that this one issue brings republican votes by the droves (again, even though republican elites don't really care and happily vote for new restrictions so long as they're on some other group. The nra doesn't help by being complicit in race-baiting cowardice and supporting every invasion of privacy they can think of to tighten the noose of a police state).

As you can probably tell though, enacting gun control to a sufficient degree isn't necessarily the only goal - all that is needed is to move the political debate into narrow terms that allow for an othered group to be scapegoated, so that enough ordinary people participate and encourage the scapegoating, so that class warfare is directed between the lower orders. It is of vital importance that guns aren't pointed towards police or agents of the state, and especially that those arms are not backed by civil society questioning the actions of elites. Arms reduction however is useful to maintain the absolute advantage of police power over civil society.
tldr