Gary North thinks it is highly unlikely, for several excellent reasons. In his comments at The Tea Party Economist (which he unashamedly uses to promote his subscription service, GaryNorth.com), North reminds his readers that he’s been watching efforts to confiscate guns fail to gain significant traction for more than 40 years:
I have watched the gun control movement become a major voice against gun ownership over the last 40 years. What has most impressed me is this: this movement has been unsuccessful in disarming Americans.
He notes, as I have, that whenever there is a mass shooting like the one in Connecticut there is something fishy about the incident. I have written about the various unanswered questions which each of them raises: the shooter had to have outside help, outside financial assistance of some kind. Often there is evidence that the shooter is not alone, but the official investigation never goes there.
North thinks that the common link is drug-related:
These mass murderers are almost always on prescription mood-altering drugs. The mainstream media rarely mention this.
He also notes that the media is anti-gun, consistently:
But when someone defends himself, it’s never mentioned:
In contrast, every time some elderly lady shoots an intruder who had invaded her home, there is a brief story about this in the local newspaper. I have known for over 40 years that reporting in the major media is skewed in favor of the gun control movement.
This has been going on for at least 40 years. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into law by President Johnson. It was unconstitutional then, it’s unconstitutional now. It has succeeded in creating a national registry of gun owners. I’m on that list. It lays the groundwork for confiscation (see the original Red Dawn movie for that). But North hasn’t seen anything that actually threatens our ownership of guns: there are just too many of us, and the manpower it would take to enforce confiscation would be enormous:
There is more registration than was required 40 years ago, but there has been no concerted effort to move from gun registration to gun confiscation. With computerization, the possibility exists, but the manpower required to enforce such a ban of weapons would be astronomical.
North doesn’t mention a salient fact: such efforts to confiscate would cost many lives as so many gun owners, like me, know exactly what’s at stake. Their motto is: it’s better to die standing on our feet than to live on our knees.
North thinks any such law would be unenforceable:
Some laws are inherently unenforceable. We know that the laws are unenforceable among urban gang members. Gang members are among the best-armed civilians in the world. Gangs have more firepower than most local police departments.
There is no way in the United States that the federal government could gain access to the weapons of the country without threatening extremely high fines or other penalties. It is unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that would authorize some system of draconian imposition of fines or jail sentences for violators.
That last point is probably North’s strongest against confiscation: the money. The insiders running the government want to take away the guns but that costs money. And they don’t have it. Nor will they be able to get it from Congress.
There’s more to his thinking and more to his article. And he would like you to subscribe to get the rest of it. But I’ve hit the highlights. I think he’s right. Despite Obama’s best efforts, confiscation isn’t a present reality.