A question on investmesment

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tech

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
383
Location
Central AR
I know most of us buy guns because we love them. That being said I see many of us have quite a few months worth of allowance money tied up in our toys. If in fact the goverment inacted some legislation calling for the confiscation of our toys. And assuming some would turn them in, would they recieve compensation for loss of property? I am not looking for a pry my dead hands away answer, just wondering how the goverment would handle a persons financial loss.

Thanks for any answers to my goofy question.
Mike
 
tech...

"I am not looking for a pry my dead hands away answer, just wondering how the goverment would handle a persons financial loss."

I think that each person's answer to that question would depend upon their view of the government in the first place.

Myself, I think that a government that would confiscate our "toys" as you call them would not be very worried about matching any reimbursement to the actual value of the firearm.
 
"Oh, sorry for your loss! We do hope you won't grieve too long. We are the GOVERNMENT after all."

Don't hold your breath for a governing body of any kind to be fair to you if they are not afraid of you.

That's what the second amendment is all about!

Was it Thomas Jefferson who said, "When the government fears the people, this is liberty. When the people fear the government, this is tyranny."?

Why discuss it here in the United States? Go to Canada, Britain or Australia and LIVE it! (See paragraph below for how we get to LIVE it HERE.)

I know, tech, you said to skip the "pry it from my cold dead fingers" replies, but I cannot fathom the urge to even DISCUSS TERMS OF SURRENDER!

If you truly wonder how the government would handle your personal financial loss, look at the Ruby Ridge case, Waco, the Bob Stewart (of Maadi-Griffin fame) case and hundreds of "Tax Evasion" cases that have been documented quite thoroughly in the last decade or less. What about the couple who were gun show organizers who had their house raided, their kitten stomped to death, and EVERY scrap of paper or magnetic media removed from their house by the fine folks from "No-knock-warrants-R-us, inc." (BATFE, more commonly known as.) And with no charges even FILED!

Let's not even go back to the civil war days to ponder this subject!!!

Sorry, I'm in a JBT hunting mood. (Jumping-Bunny-Thumpers, for all of you who thought I meant something else!)
 
Well I hold the opinion the government would confiscate with no regard to reimbursing the loss of the citizens. I was wondering how it was handled in Australia and the UK anyone know?

Mike
 
We'd probably get paid an approximate scrap value of the metal. If we're lucky. When laws drive certain weapons to become over-inflated in price (have you shopped around for an M16 recently? Something that sells for $400-800 on the open market can go for tens of thousands of dollars in our current political climate due to restrictions on the manufacture of new full-autos for non-governmental usage.

At best for the Title II crowd, Uncle Sam would say "Well, that 30 year old M16 is worth about $300 to us, so here's the money and be on your way. Oh! A suppressor! Here you go, sir, $10.50 - just because I like you."
 
Yes I understand what everyone else is getting at. I just wonder how a person with say 5k invested in guns would react to having 5k taken away. I guess they do it all the time immanent domain and all. But 2nd amendment rights aside how would Americans react to losing their property large scale.

Mike
 
But 2nd amendment rights aside how would Americans react to losing their property large scale.
Click to expand...
Why do it on a large scale? Why not just do it piecemeal?

You know, start with things that most people can agree are "dangerous" like machine guns, sound suppressors, destructive devices and so forth. Then move on to "assault weapons" and then to handguns and sniper rifles and then to "military style" bolt action rifles and then to everything that's not a single shot and then to anything that uses a cartridge and then to possession of any amount of black powder. Step by step, just like they've been doing for years. Apply that to confiscation and they're good to go.
 
cordex, I follow your train of thought. I am looking at removal of assets. California has some screwed up laws concerning firearms. I would expect them to be the first to say turn in your sks's and evil assault weapons. But how will they compensate the citizen for their loss of asset? Was this done in Australia and UK when they disarmed the citizenry?

Mike
 
I would think, where the government is concerned, the "eminent domain" ploy would come into play. A gun is no different than dirt (real estate) in this instance.

You could go to court, of course, and seek proper reimbursement. But don't go to the bank until you get the money. The government has infinite patience where money is concerned, and they will outlast you almost every time.

There is a distinct difference between real estate and guns . . . you can't move real estate. Guns can "disappear" but good old dirt can only turn into mud.

Actually, I think, when the federal government attempts to disarm the people, that's when the revolution will really begin. And that's what the Second Amendment is all about.
 
What would be a fair price to offer for my confiscated guns?

That would be like determining a price for bying my son.

My freedom is not for sale, at any price.
 
Well I guess my train of thought is not only should we be actively defending our second amendment rights head on. There are also other lines of defense that we need to explore and exploit. I don't think the government could bear the financial burden of compensating the citizenry. Furthermore I don’t think the citizenry is ready for asset seizer on a grand scale

Mike
 
FPrice,
Please understand there was a reason for the choice of the word toys. There is a large segment that I think are not anti gun per say but view guns as toys therefore seeing the removal of such toys as an inconvenience to the owners at best.

Mike
 
"...the government would confiscate with no regard to reimbursing..." That's exactly how our rectal orifi intend to do it. The agenda of the current party in power is to ban the private ownership of all firearms. If it takes 50 years, that's ok by them. Then, when there are few shooters left, it'll be "Turn 'em in." No compensation of any kind. Our registry and all the stupid permits is just one step towards it. For a new shooter to get them costs around $500 Cdn. No previous experience of any kind matters.
 
in australia the sheeple were given 'fair market value' of their firearms. Forturtunatly for the .gov aussies own so few firearms (relative to the US, of course) that it didn't break the budget. Here in the US 'fair market value' of the hundreds of millions of guns, would be in the billions, not chump change.

atek3
 
Why would it really matter how much they paid for your firearms? Even if they paid $10,000 a piece for them, where do you think the government gets their money from?

Selling weapons to the government is at the very base level, absurd. They are picking your pocket in order to pay for items they are forcefully taking away from you.
 
c.b.

Your point is well taken. My point however is that the very thing they are trying to enact would enrage the citizenry on several levels. Politically and financially and we should look at appealing to all of them.

Mike
 
I don't think the government could bear the financial burden of compensating the citizenry.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are a lot of guns in this country. The cost would be staggering.

And liberties aside for a moment, what would be the point? Any compensation due would be paid for by the taxpayers. So in essence, we would be compensating ourselves. :scrutiny:

Historically, U.S. gun control laws(the federal ones at least) usually just cut off the source. You can own what you already have (assuming you duly register of course), but no new purchases will be allowed. Politically, this the best way for the two faced to appease the most voters.
 
DMK,
Yes we would be paying ourselves back. But once again I don't think the country could bear the financial burden. Also people aren’t going to go for large-scale asset seizer. I think these things would be useful tools in our war for rights. As for cutting off supply... I see them going after the ammo harder.

Mike
 
I think these things would be useful tools in our war for rights
Click to expand...

I don't. Negotiating the cost of confiscation is so far down the road that it doesn't even bear mentioning. Because after all. 2nd amendment/ Duck Hunting enthusasts like Kerry don't want to 'take our guns away', they just want 'common sense gun-violence prevention laws'. :barf:

atek3
 
Yes atek3 I figure there is a good chance I am wrong. I was just working around an intellectual exercise and wanted some feedback from some of the most objective people I know so threw it out here. I find it helpful to see things from others points of view. You know.... Mrs. tech thinks I am wrong quite often.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

4
  • Locked
Facebook Purges Pro-Gun Accounts
2 3
Replies
61
Views
4K
SaxonPig
S
Y
  • Locked
Group protests possible ban on toy guns by handing out toy guns
Replies
6
Views
865
swingset
S
J
  • Locked
So why were the anti's pretty much dormant the last two decades?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
benEzra
benEzra
M
  • Locked
Guns and Fires.....questions on insurance.
Replies
13
Views
1K
Meta
M
Z
  • Locked
Hurricane evacuation....what do you take vs leave?
Replies
10
Views
761
Robert
Robert
Back
Top