Mandatory Gun Buybacks

[Thibaut]

Bloomberg is a would-be aristocrat.
Aristocrats have always disliked the idea of an armed peasantry.

I don't think that Bloomberg cares about being considered aristocratic. I think that he is 5'8" tall, driven, very bright, really, really rich, looks much younger than his age and puts his money where his mouth is to prove his commitments. I am with his conservative stance on economic and foreign issues. He is a social liberal and that leaves me cold. I do listen when he speaks; however.

 

[Speedo66]

Now I'm not advocating anyone break the law but these laws seem ineffective and counter productive and I'm curious about the insistence of the gun control crowd in passing laws that restrict legitimate gun owners rights while doing nothing to hinder criminals.

Once they pass these laws, you are the criminal.

 

[Deanimator]

He is a social liberal and that leaves me cold.

Not when it comes to civil liberties. He's all in for "stop and frisk". That tells me whose doors are going to get kicked in FIRST during our version of Japan's "Great Sword Hunt".

 

[DocRock]

OK, I'll play. Michael Bloomberg, the biggest gun controller of them all, is surely not a communist. Quite the opposite. Ascribing everything bad to communism -- a moribund philosophy -- is sooo 1950's. Just as communism is moribund, so too is movement anticommunism. Get with the times. You're not going to persuade anyone in the gun debate by trotting out the communist bugaboo.

Suggesting that Communism is moribund when there is an entrenched Mandarin class inside the Beltway seeking to subvert the results of free and fair elections because the incumbent opposes the status quo supported by the Manadrins ( or apparatchiki), when there is a substantial majority of the elite within the Democratic Party that believes that the state should control vast swaths of the economy and have enormous control over the daily lives of Its citizens, when the Party is actively seeking to subvert the rule of law and the protections afforded citizens by the Constitution (the RKBA very much among them), and when California shows us that the Party is doing everything it can to stifle democracy and ensure one party rule, indicates that it is your powers of observation that are moribund. Soviet Communism may be dead, but it is alive, thriving, and a threat to our society in the United States.

 

[buck460XVR]

You are of course correct. The suburban Soccer Moms are not Party cadre. They are "fellow travelers" or, as the Party refers to them," useful idiots".

Around here we have "suburban soccer moms" that could probably outshoot/outhunt most posters here. The above is the kind of tripe thrown out by folks that cannot facilitate a legitimate argument and have to resort to belittling and calling names. IOWs, they have already lost the argument they were not prepared to make.

I do not support any form of mandatory gun buyback, but......if someone wants to give me more monies for a gun I do not want or does not work, than it is worth, they can certainly have it as long as I have the choice. As for Polls, it comes down to who is being polled. Most poll results are given with a plus/minus factor. Polls that are close are hard to call a certainty.

The facts are, we as gun owners are still a minority. Most polls if you want to agree with them, show only about 3 in 10 Americans own a gun. IMHO, the number of folks that want to take our guns away is also about 3 outta 10. That leaves 4 outta 10 Americans neutral to gun ownership and are the reason right now we still have our guns, despite what many want to claim the 2nd is worth. These 4 outta 10 folks as of now, feel our right as 3 outta 10, to own guns is more important than the other 3 outta 10s right to take them away. These 4 outta 10 folks is why the sentiment towards certain gun restrictions/regulations wains back and forth so much. Their mindset changes with the latest media coverage and what gun related violence has happened close to them recently. They are swayed by what they perceive as positive images. Many of those 4 outta 10 are soccer moms and their husbands. Calling them names and belittling is not giving them a positive image of us. Hello, it's not even a positive image to me. You want to keep your guns, use a convincing argument and show others respect. Keep the name calling and belittling to the playground for 3rd grade recess. While you might get a roaring ovation from name calling here on a gun forum, it does nuttin' to promote our cause, since it is nuttin' but preaching to the choir.

 

[DocRock]

The above is the kind of tripe thrown out by folks that cannot facilitate a legitimate argument and have to resort to belittling and calling names. IOWs, they have already lost the argument they were not prepared to make.

And yet, here you are, pursuing the very tactic you pretend to decry.

It is the burden of those who gullibly serve those who would violate the Constitution and laws of the United States to repair their image. You suggest that Rosa Parks or Dr. King had no cause to disdain those who told them they were not citizens possessed of equal rights with all others. You suggest that, in naming those intent on subverting the rights and freedoms fundamental to the American experience for what they are, I have done some wrong. I have not. It is right to name villainy. Your appeal to civility, if not to subservience, comes decades too late. There is no civility on the part of the enemies of liberty. There is no civility on the part of those who wish to see a citizenry subservient to a governing elite. They will crush your civility under the boot heel of "Progressivism".

Alas, I do not adhere to your passe notions of civility in these matters. Those days are over. And I bid you adieu.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I don't think that Bloomberg cares about being considered aristocratic.

He probably doesn't - in fact, he would likely take it as a compliment, and rightly so.
Aristocratic bearing is a positive thing.
Being an aristocrat - an autocrat who does not consider the will of those "beneath" him - is very negative indeed... .

 

[HighRoadRover]

The talk of confiscation/buy-back in Virginia next January hypothetically would put a premium on AR's that were not purchased through a FFL, e.g., a premium on AR's that are harder to trace. Some of these will end up buried in backyards after the law changes, and some may be sold to the highest bidder -- who, as someone else said above, is likely to be a criminal.

I live in Virginia -- I don't own an AR -- but I would be crushed by the proposed ban on magazines over 10 rounds. The very unsatisfactory response would be to sell off my hi-cap mags on the internet to a state that allows them, and buy 10 rounders. I would hate doing this, but I don't want to take the risk of a Class 6 felony in Virginia. (No point in burying them in the backyard, either, if you don't think the law would ever change back).

The gun banners would generate much less negative response to the proposed new bans if they grandfathered current AR and hi-cap mag owners. With grandfathering or not, my fear is that these bans are coming. Too many people live in the big cities, where only the criminals and the elites are allowed to have guns.

 

[larryh1108]

Buck, if we assume that your numbers are close to correct (30%/40%/30%) and they very well may be, then that 40% are the ones who eventually decide the future of gun ownership.
I personally feel there is a 10% closet gun ownership who own at least one, like having it for security but don't tell their friends and neighbors that they own one or support the rights to have one. These folks can say all the "right things" is their circle but they are the only one who knows how they vote in the booth. I really believe this.

Also, I also believe that there are another 10% or more on "our side" because they don't like the .gov abusing our rights... any rights. They see this end around the Constitution by politicians and they know that if the .gov takes away the 2nd, that every amendment is at risk. These people may not actually like the 2nd but also know it is the law of the land, like every amendment is, and that there is only one way to change an amendment and that is thru making another amendment to void it. Any and all attempts to eviscerate any amendment is totally against what we stand for, as a nation. These 10% or so do not want any BS with certain groups trying to out maneuver the other side when there is a specific amendment in place guaranteeing a right. Let the .gov ignore one amendment and it's open season on all of them.

That cannot happen with the processes we have in place. So, if we have a strong 30% pro-2nd and a hidden 10% hidden pro-2nd and another 10% pro-Constitution, that puts the scale at 50% in favor. There would still be another 20% who are fence sitters who can swing either way, depending on how the wind blows that particular day. For anyone to take away our guns/confiscation, it would take an amendment, not any political group or faction, money or not.

All in my opinion, of course.

 

[AlexanderA]

The talk of confiscation/buy-back in Virginia next January hypothetically would put a premium on AR's that were not purchased through a FFL, e.g., a premium on AR's that are harder to trace. Some of these will end up buried in backyards after the law changes, and some may be sold to the highest bidder -- who, as someone else said above, is likely to be a criminal.

Or a police undercover agent. Just to clarify, the proposed AWB in Virginia is not offering compensation or any kind of "buyback." You would have 3 choices: destroy them, turn them in, or remove them from the state. This would be like the bump stock ban, except you would have the option of removing them from the state. (This is not generosity on the part of the gun-banners, but a simple lack of jurisdiction outside the state.)

I live in Virginia -- I don't own an AR -- but I would be crushed by the proposed ban on magazines over 10 rounds. The very unsatisfactory response would be to sell off my hi-cap mags on the internet to a state that allows them, and buy 10 rounders. I would hate doing this, but I don't want to take the risk of a Class 6 felony in Virginia. (No point in burying them in the backyard, either, if you don't think the law would ever change back).

Storage units across the state line in West Virginia are going to be renting at a premium. That would be a stopgap until you could move out of state.

Ironically, they're not proposing to ban bona fide, registered machine guns. But it would be tough to use them without their belts or magazines.

The gun banners would generate much less negative response to the proposed new bans if they grandfathered current AR and hi-cap mag owners. With grandfathering or not, my fear is that these bans are coming. Too many people live in the big cities, where only the criminals and the elites are allowed to have guns.

Keep in mind that the proposed AWB, as published -- and indeed all of Gov. Northam's antigun program -- is their opening gambit. They expect it to be amended. I would predict that some type of grandfathering will make it into the final bill.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Some thoughts:

I was reading this article which states that a recent Rasmussen poll shows 51% of Americans support a mandatory gun buyback:

Gun shock: Majority support ‘mandatory buyback’ of AR-15s
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...majority-support-mandatory-buybacks-of-ar-15s

In the article they also point out that the response by gun owners to such information is to immediately start buying up guns and ammo.

So, if the response to a mandatory gun buyback is to buy more guns, either

1. The buyers expect to make money by reselling them back to the gov't, or
2. These people have zero intention of turning them in.

I found this while researching how many gun owners have turned in or registered their "assault weapons" in response to a post made by @AlexanderA recently regarding VA enacting similar laws after the upcoming state election.

Now I'm not advocating anyone break the law but these laws seem ineffective and counter productive and I'm curious about the insistence of the gun control crowd in passing laws that restrict legitimate gun owners rights while doing nothing to hinder criminals.

I would think the preponderance of evidence is on our side and any rational person would see that these types of restrictions are counter-productive in that they make a large portion of the populace suspicious of government intentions.

Nearly One Million New Yorkers Didn't Register Their 'Assault Weapons':
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...-register-their-assault-weapons/#50286a80702f

Connecticut Gun Law Ignored as Thousands Don't Register AR-15s:
https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/connecticut-gun-law-ignored/2014/02/13/id/552558/

How much has gun violence decreased in Connecticut since the sale of AR 15's were banned and magazines were limited to 10 rounds?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-has-...anned-and-magazines-were-limited-to-10-rounds

Many Circumventing Colorado High-Capacity Magazine Ban:
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/10/30/many-circumventing-colorado-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

Someone should tell them that a "mandatory" buy-back must specifically exclude all persons that are legally prohibited from owning guns.

It would violate their 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.....

So, the only one that this would affect would be the legal gun owners.

 

[Deanimator]

Someone should tell them that a "mandatory" buy-back must specifically exclude all persons that are legally prohibited from owning guns.

It would violate their 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.....

So, the only one that this would affect would be the legal gun owners.

But they don't hate CRIMINALS. They hate YOU.

It's a feature not a bug.

 

[Thibaut]

He probably doesn't - in fact, he would likely take it as a compliment, and rightly so.
Aristocratic bearing is a positive thing.
Being an aristocrat - an autocrat who does not consider the will of those "beneath" him - is very negative indeed... .

No. You were likely right. I was wrong. He would probably adore being considered the aristocrat and in his mind's eye; is. He has so much money and lives so far above the madding crowd. I wonder if he made the bulk of that money while Republican?

 

[OneFreeTexan]

63 posts... Have we solved anything?

 

[SharpDog]

63 posts... Have we solved anything?

Since all the polls are wrong we can all go to sleep tonight and not worry about our RKBA ?

 

[DeepSouth]

Since all the polls are wrong we can all go to sleep tonight and not worry about our RKBA ?

I can’t, working midnights.

 

[entropy]

They will crush your civility under the boot heel of "Progressivism".

Hence my sig line from 1984.

Buck460XVR-some suggested reading. We the Living, by Ayn Rand. It is semi-autobigraphical, about her experience in Russia before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In all Communist/Socialist takeovers, there is a tipping point where civility is stripped away. The most recent obvious example is Venezuela.
As for Bloomberg, he is one of those 'useful pocketbooks, er, dupes.'

 

[AlexanderA]

As for Bloomberg, he is one of those 'useful pocketbooks, er, dupes.'

On guns, Bloomberg is not a dupe, but an instigator. A self-important plutocrat, he's all the more dangerous because he truly believes that he's doing the proper and altruistic thing. He thinks he's saving us by taking our guns.

 

[buflow]

President Charlton Hesston said it best.
My fingers are old but not cold yet and still can pull a trigger.

 

[Ignition Override]

Their first, ultimate goal must actually be.....registration. This might take quite a while on the federal level. But DC politicians count on people being distracted as local states --gradually--accomplish the same goals, which accumulate and almost never change.
Either the ATF or local govt. agencies would then know who has guns which were bought after the laws are passed, possibly excluding many guns from being "grandfathered"/excused from registration.

But keep in mind: people in CA, NJ, NY, MA et seem to prefer Any type of extra, so-called govt. "control" to replace and remove present freedoms. They might allow registration to be enacted after one more unspeakable tragedy involving young people.
Their urban masses would be the first to appease and capitulate. Imagine the precedent and increased probabilities of a "Domino effect" in a few other states when registration, even with grandfathering, begins in one or two states.

California's cancerous growth in so many areas of govt. usually spreads to other states, and is also being carried by millions of "hosts" who move to other states.
My daughter-in-law is one of them, although she seems neutral towards guns.

 

[rust collector]

This thread started with a post focusing on a poll and speculation on the reaction to an undefined "buy-back". Step one is not to believe polls, as many have noted, because they are easily manipulated and thus are used to manipulate voters. Step two, however, is to get people who seem to be too busy or distracted to do their own thinking, to seek out objective coverage and to understand the many facets of this issue. That is the real challenge in an era of bullet points, video clips and TL;DR. I do not know the solution, but am determined to stay positive and not alienate voters.

 

[kcofohio]

Tell me the result that you want and I'll have someone design the poll to get you there.

I'm not kidding,

Polls are in some way made to lie, to those who don't want to see the truth.

A good quote I seen this article last week.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/come...s-2nd-amendment-perfectly??utm_source=twitter

“(I) don’t get mad at ’em, don’t hate on ’em,” he said. “Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn’t work out.”

 

[larryh1108]

While what he says has meaning and is the truth as we know it, there was a passage that was grayed out for some reason. It was barely readable.

Here is it:

I’ve given this a lot of thought,” he continued. “I don’t see any peaceful way to disarm America’s whites There’s only one thing that’s going to save this country from itself. Same thing that always saves this country from itself. And that is African-Americans. And I know the question a lot of y’all have in your minds is, should we do it? No matter what they say or how they make you feel, remember, this is your country, too, It is incumbent upon us to save our country. And you know what we have to do. Every able-bodied African-American must register for a legal firearm. That’s the only way they’ll change the law.

For a reason I can't explain, this quote made me uncomfortable. Is it the truth? Is it racism with a truthful ring to it? Is it said tongue-in-cheek?

As I read it, he is saying that the only way America will be disarmed is if every African-American legally buys a gun. If that happens, the law makers will surely ban them. Why does this offend me so much?

 

[buck460XVR]

Buck, if we assume that your numbers are close to correct (30%/40%/30%) and they very well may be, then that 40% are the ones who eventually decide the future of gun ownership.

That cannot happen with the processes we have in place. So, if we have a strong 30% pro-2nd and a hidden 10% hidden pro-2nd and another 10% pro-Constitution, that puts the scale at 50% in favor. There would still be another 20% who are fence sitters who can swing either way, depending on how the wind blows that particular day. For anyone to take away our guns/confiscation, it would take an amendment, not any political group or faction, money or not.

All in my opinion, of course.

While your above post mirrors my sentiments(and I only quoted a small portion), the bold sentence is where I have a slight difference of opinion. While I agree it would take an amendment for total confiscation, as we have seen in the past, it does not take that to make certain firearms/accessories prohibited. States(like California, so often belittled here) can make their own gun laws and restrictions that make gun ownership hard and much different that most of us envision. Again, the title of this thread and the attached link in the OP is about mandatory buybacks of a specific platform. While this could be challenged in the SCOTUS as unconstitutional, it's not the 2nd that is being challenged by it, but the interpretation of the 2nd. If after 20 years of small chipping away at our RKBA with restrictions on specific platforms and accessories, how much easier would an amendment be? IMHO, it's kinda like trying to keep ownership of your pit-bull legal, by not letting it run loose to bite the neighbor kids. Show the kids how friendly it is and that it's not your pit-bull killing folks.

Hence my sig line from 1984.

Buck460XVR-some suggested reading. We the Living, by Ayn Rand. It is semi-autobigraphical, about her experience in Russia before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In all Communist/Socialist takeovers, there is a tipping point where civility is stripped away. The most recent obvious example is Venezuela.

Civility, is relative. Someone can be polite as hell right up to the moment they put a bullet in your head. I'm thinkin' many of those folks that were led to the gas chambers actually thought they were getting a well needed shower/delousing before getting their new prison clothes. I wasn't arguing about being polite and nice, my point was we need to use facts and truths to defend our rights, instead of the bashing and name calling I see so much of here. Folks are not just "stupid" because they don't agree with us. "Stupid" is thinking they are. "Stupid" is turning folks off, that may be open to accepting our argument, before they hear that argument, because of how they perceive us and our own intelligence.

America is not Russia a century ago, nor is it Venezuela. It's going to have to change a lot before it is. That change is not going to come all at once as a coup, but over a period of time, one chip at a time. This is unless we have some major catastrophic event, like the eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano, or another WW. I see neutral folk's mindset on certain things like magazine capacity and certain platforms changing with the wind, but I also see many long time gun owners now supporting these things too, along with UBCs. Folks here want to call them "Fudds/Stupid". Little chips.......

 

[entropy]

Civility, is relative. Someone can be polite as hell right up to the moment they put a bullet in your head. I'm thinkin' many of those folks that were led to the gas chambers actually thought they were getting a well needed shower/delousing before getting their new prison clothes. I wasn't arguing about being polite and nice, my point was we need to use facts and truths to defend our rights, instead of the bashing and name calling I see so much of here. Folks are not just "stupid" because they don't agree with us. "Stupid" is thinking they are. "Stupid" is turning folks off, that may be open to accepting our argument, before they hear that argument, because of how they perceive us and our own intelligence.

America is not Russia a century ago, nor is it Venezuela. It's going to have to change a lot before it is. That change is not going to come all at once as a coup, but over a period of time, one chip at a time. This is unless we have some major catastrophic event, like the eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano, or another WW. I see neutral folk's mindset on certain things like magazine capacity and certain platforms changing with the wind, but I also see many long time gun owners now supporting these things too, along with UBCs. Folks here want to call them "Fudds/Stupid". Little chips.......

Agreed. We still, even with "Proud Boys" and such, are still by far the more civil side on the issue. And I also agree name-calling and ad hominem attacks belittle the attacker as much as the attacked. And of course someone can be polite as hell right before they put a bullet in your head; that's how 1984 ends, O'Brien leading Smith through a doorway, and the reader is led to believe (depending on the edition read) that Smith is killed from behind while O'Brien is walking him through that door.
Amongst those led to the gas chambers that thought they were headed for the showers, it's because they couldn't fathom human beings committing such an evil act. I believe none of us here have that problem. We know there is such evil in men (and women. No time to be sexist.) . I think what Doc Rock and I were trying to be sure you understood (and with the above statement along with many past posts I am convinced you do) that those behind the 2A efforts have been at this for multiple generations, and will not relent until they either get what they want, which is 1984-like total control, or are eradicated. They have the lack of reason of the masses (deliberately induced by them) on their side. We only have truth and humanity on ours. They sense victory and have slipped control of overt enthusiasm of some of their 'useful dupes', hampered by the dumbing down which has infected their camp as well as the general population (AOC, Beto, et. al.) to the point where they are starting to lose control of their own machine. Hitler found out that using unintellectual, emotionally charged rabble could be effective but there was a price to pay. Those behind ANTIFA (a solution to a non-existent problem) are learning this, too; they have become a liability to them, becuase they are not very controllable. (They are very trollable however....)

Indeed, the 'death by a thousand cuts' is still their primary strategy. However, as I mentioned there is a schism within the "progressive" movement, and though it can and should be exploited, it has to be done carefully, to expose the lunacy to those still capable of rational thought. And while there are some on both sides of the issue that want an overt Civil War, I am not one of them, and those that want it know not what they wish for.