Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense, National Security and More

Would Joe Biden Spend $100 Billion to Ban “Assault-Style” Firearms?

Assault-Style Firearms
Image: White House.

This week our neighbors to the north could soon see their right to own firearms greatly reduced, as Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called upon Canada’s federal government to launch a long-promised buyback program for “assault-style” firearms including AR-15s.

Canada’s Gun Buyback Plan, Explained 

The buyback program is just one part of a suite of new gun control measures that were promised by federal Liberals in the 2019 campaign. Under the plan, some 1,500 different types of firearms could fall under the classification of “assault-style” even as the term is not a legal classification. Already fully-automatic weapons, as well as high-capacity magazines, are banned in Canada.

Trudeau had originally proposed to introduce the legislation last spring, but the buyback program was impacted by the novel coronavirus outbreak. Now the PM has called for efforts to move forward and introduced Bill C-21. It would give a two-year amnesty period from May of last year to those who own those newly banned firearms to turn them over to the Canadian government.

According to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC), Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said the government would be able to determine a cost when it gets a sense of how many firearm owners would seek compensation. It was estimated that some 150,000 to 200,000 of the assault-style firearms would be surrendered with an average compensation of $1,300 ($1,000 U.S.). The estimate was that it would cost the Canadian government $300 to $400 million (Canadian) to buy back the firearms.

President Joe Biden has called for a similar ban in the United States, and there are now estimated to be upwards of 10 million AR-15s in private citizen hands. To buy just those firearms back could cost the U.S. government – by way of taxpayers – $10 billion.

What a Biden “Assault Weapons” Buy Back Might Really Cost

While the $10 billion figure above might seem like a lot, that number depends on what Team Biden bans as an “assault-style” firearm, a term with a meaning that varies across the United States.

Given those issues, it isn’t even clear what long guns and sporting pistols would fall into Biden’s “assault weapons ban.” That could include every commercial modern sporting rifle – AR-15s, AR-10s – but also commercial AKs, HKs, SIG Sauers, and countless other platforms that are semi-automatic and feature a profile that remotely resembles a military rifle but functions completely differently.

Factor in historic firearms including the Soviet Bloc SKS rifles, FN FALs, and other firearms sold as surplus, and the number of potentially banned guns could exceed 100 million and could be as many as 200 million. At an average price of $1,000 the cost to taxpayers could reach $100 billion.

While still a far cry from the $1 trillion Covid relief package, a question must be asked where this money would come from – and the only logical answer would be raising taxes. It is conceivable some liberals out there might not mind paying a tax to “get dangerous” guns of the streets, but in the end, it would be law-abiding gun owners who have to pay increased taxes to fund this purchase, essentially negating the proceeds they received from a “buyback.”

Then it is possible that the United States could grandfather in those firearms, and use a tactic that Canada may adopt. As CBC reported, “Those who keep their blacklisted weapons would have to abide by strict conditions. They would have to agree not to use the weapons, to import or acquire any more of them or to bequeath them to anyone else.”

It would take decades – perhaps longer – before that had any meaningful impact on the usefulness of guns. But it could be adopted in a way that when the owner passes away the firearm is thus handed into law enforcement. For gun owners that would be a mixed blessing – they could take a cue from Second Amendment supporter and former NRA head Charlton Heston who famously said, “from my cold dead hands,” but even that would take decades for the government to finally have a complete ban of private ownership of the guns.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on

Written By

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Suciu is also a contributing writer for Forbes Magazine.



  1. Roger Grant

    February 19, 2021 at 9:09 am

    This shouldn’t cost anything. Right now there are NO assault style firearms on the market. All military assault style weapons are unlawful for civilians to own and the supply inventory is tracked very closely.

    Why tilt at windmills?

  2. itsy_bitsy

    February 19, 2021 at 10:40 am

    At whose pocket is this money aimed! Because when democrats come out with huge dollar giveaways the money isn’t meant for a project, it’s meant for democrat pockets. ALWAYS!!

  3. Casca

    February 19, 2021 at 9:03 pm

    Biden is insane and hates America and Americans and by all indications himself!
    Every one of his policies is designed to cripple, to impoverish to destroy America,and Americans….and in Congress they are apparently playing the game for the Deep Pockets of the Oligarchs, oblivious to or don’t give a damn about their support of the destruction!

  4. Kestrelbike

    February 20, 2021 at 4:50 pm

    The author of this article has missed the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t matter if Dementia Joe offered $100,000 per firearm he wanted to buyback- my personal safety/security and that of my immediate family’s that only *I* can guarantee with the parity of a firearm, Is.Not.For.Sale.

    The primary reason I have firearms is to protect against criminals who would wish to do me harm- be it home invaders justifying defense with deadly force, or individuals acting against the law with intent to harm me, on behalf of the government itself. Don’t forget: the past century saw about 100 million deaths of largely unarmed civilians, perpetrated by their own governments. And these governments were overwhelmingly socialist/communist.

    Why would I accept money in exchange for said firearm(s) if I would then have no way of defending myself nor that money anymore?

    The Constitution does not “permit” me to own a firearm. It simply acknowledges and affirms that I have the Natural Right to defend my life, liberty, and property as self-defense. This Natural Right is given by powers higher than any government (God if you believe in Him, or Nature at Large for you atheists out there). So, Chicanery Joe doesn’t have any premise or standing to offer or enforce a buyback- these firearms were never his to begin with. He should listen to his pal, pot-smokin’ barry soetero: “You didn’t build that!” True Americans did, for True Americans.

    God Bless America.

  5. Glypto Dropem

    February 22, 2021 at 11:47 am


    These are the people referred to in “all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC…” and need to swing from a rope or be lined up against a wall. I would be more than happy to pull the trigger or the trapdoor lever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.