Mass shootings, politicians, and what Americans do

In the aftermath of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Democrat candidates, to no one's surprise, have come down hard on police-state measures, starting with banning and confiscating privately-owned firearms.

A favorite demand is to expand background checks—never mind that these mass shooters, and those of recent years, bought their guns legally and therefore passed such checks. Another is an “assault weapons” ban—never mind that “assault” weapons function in the same way as tens of millions of other semi-automatic rifles that would remain in circulation.

But the Democratic presidential candidates went further. It is not enough, they insisted, to expand background checks or limit types of firearms going forward. What is needed is to take guns away and to make it harder for law-abiding Americans to own them. They at least get credit for being more honest about the left’s gun intentions.

Texas’ former Rep. Beto O’Rourke said he is now “open” to a “mandatory” government gun-buying program—a polite way to describe confiscation of entire classes of firearms. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker highlighted his plan to require every American to obtain a federal “license” to purchase a firearm. Responsible gun owners would have to submit fingerprints, pass an interview, and take safety courses to obtain even a .22-caliber long rifle. And they’d have to repeat the process every five years.

California Sen. Kamala Harris has vowed to ignore Congress and impose gun regulations via executive action. She’d ban certain firearm imports and sue gun manufacturers for “negligence,” among other things. As for former Vice President Joe Biden, CNN asked him if gun owners should worry that a Biden administration “is going to come for my guns.” He answered: “Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period.”

And how Americans responding? They are buying more guns, especially "carry" handguns:

Gun sales are surging after the weekend mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, fueled by first-time buyers seeking pistols they can carry with them for protection. ...

We checked in with Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s largest, and Marketing Director Justin Anderson explained the trend to us.

“While we have seen a measured rise in sale of certain tactical rifles and accessories this week, most customers are looking for concealed carry handguns,” Anderson said.

“Just this week we have fielded hundreds of calls from people that have never purchased a gun before. Our concealed carry training classes are filling up quickly. People are realizing that even a trip to Walmart isn’t safe these days and they want to be able to protect themselves. Remember that nothing stops a lunatic bent on carnage better than a law abiding citizen with a gun. I continue to urge people to get a gun, get trained with that gun, and carry, always,” he added.

Here are my questions for Democrat candidates who, like Beto and Biden, want prohibition of private ownership of guns, or at least some kinds, to be mandatory. (Eric Swalwell also said he would, and would do so by using the US military if necessary.)

1. Will you obey the takings clause of the Constitution and pay each owner surrendering a gun the fair market value of each gun?
    
2. By "mandatory," do you mean that law-enforcement officers will enforce the ban by force and without consent?
    
1. Last November, Maryland police officers shot to death a man whose firearms they came to confiscate under a "red flag" order. I want to know how many Americans you are willing to see killed and maimed by police in order to successfully ban the guns you say you want to ban.
    
2. By that, I want an actual number, stated somewhere between zero and 327 million, the present population of the country. No weaseling around with, "Well, we do not want that to happen and we hope everyone cooperates," blahblahblah. There will be some Americans who will not surrender the guns voluntarily. Are you willing to see them killed by police because they refuse? If yes, then how many?
    
3. Also, how many law-enforcement officers are you willing to see killed to enforce the ban?
    
4. If you are not willing to enforce the ban by force and without consent, including the deaths of American private citizens and law enforcers, then you do not have a "mandatory" ban, so explain why you use that word to describe it.
    
3. Because you want to mandate bans of at least certain kinds of firearms, explain what is the Constitutional right that the Second Amendment guarantees. Are there any firearms that you pledge zealously to protect the rights of Americans to "keep and bear"? 

Sound of crickets chirping in 3 ... 2 ... 1.