Gun buyback program "worth considering"

Status
Not open for further replies.

H.m.B

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
179
Location
VA
Did not see elsewhere ... If inappropriate then remove.

Article in the Washington Post.

"Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton suggested Wednesday that Americans have too many guns in their homes."

"Last year, Mrs. Clinton said Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns was “worth considering” in the United States, comparing it to President Obama’s so-called “cash for clunkers” program."

I suspect that a lot of this is political pandering but it never-the-less underscores the importance of the upcoming election. Granted, there have been some successes in our corner, but with the loss of USSC Justice Scalio and the ever increasing anti-gun sentiment percolating, having a chief executive in the White House appearing to support these ideas cannot bode well for the future of gun ownership in this country.

Boy, have times changed ...

voter cave
 
The buy back in Australia was mandatory. Turn them in, get cash for them or go to jail. I suspect this is what she is talking about.

In my experience 99% of the guns turned in at voluntary buy back programs are junk. Many don't even work. I have a few propped in the corner that are better tomato stakes than rifles. If Hillary wants to give me $200 each for them she can have them. I'll use the money to buy more ammo or another AR.
 
That's about like saying China's "One Child" policy is worth considering. Or that Pakistan's anti-blasphemy law is worth considering. Or that the Chilean nationalization of the copper industry is worth considering.

It's pure hot air.

Might as well flapping her arms real hard to make her limo fly is "worth considering."

There is literally NO path from here to there. The time it would take for the national mood to shift so very far, and for the necessary politicians to be elected/unelected, etc., that if every RKBA die-hard gave up the fight tomorrow it probably still couldn't be accomplished within any foreseeable term of a possible Clinton II presidency.

They couldn't even pass a mag ban, or "UBC," in the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook. Federal level gun control is just a dead letter at this point. Pandering to their base, but no hope or strategy of ever implementing it.
 
Last edited:
Big difference between a voluntary buyback and an Australian style mandatory buyback. I personally have no problem with a voluntary program ... that's between the organizer and individual (for whatever reason they wish to turn it in) but somehow I don't suspect that's what she is alluding to. I mean, after all, she explicitly refers to the Australian mandatory program. Somehow I cannot see her vetoing a bill calling for a mandatory buyback with all the anti-gun fervor I'm seeing displayed with local political candidates in her party.
 
You know Sam, I wish I had your confidence. A part of me says that you're right but we're seeing changes take place today that are pushed/supported by the minority over objections from the majority. Look across the country and you see further restrictions being implemented against our side. Yes we have won some. Have lost some too. But I listen to some of the local pols in their campaign ads and their heated attacks and position on guns and the 2nd Amendment and it makes me wonder about how successful a minority group, with appropriate support from the DOJ, courts, and chief executive could ram something over us.
 
Ok, so keep working you butt off to stop them in their tracks, like the rest of us do, and you've done all you can do.

There's not much point in hand-wringing about a daffy comment she made that something is "worth considering" while she's out on the campaign trail trying to pretend, to her primary-voter constituents, to be left of Bernie.
 
Ok, so keep working you butt off to stop them in their tracks, like the rest of us do, and you've done all you can do.

There's not much point in hand-wringing about a daffy comment she made that something is "worth considering" while she's out on the campaign trail trying to pretend, to her primary-voter constituents, to be left of Bernie.

I don't think Fed control is dead at all. It's just hibernating.

But I do agree that this is pandering to the base. She also called on Bernie to turn in his guns to keep with Party ideology.

IOW, you're not a Democrat if you have a gun. :barf:

Ideally, she alienated some of her voters.
 
Federal control may be hibernating, but local controls are blooming in some places.

To my knowledge Washington State still has one of the worst, if not the worst, UBC systems in the country, and this was previously a fairly gun-friendly state.
 
There's a saying that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". That especially applies to our 2nd Amendment rights as they are under constant attacks. Making sure we continue to apply pressure to our elected officials and educate the public about the correct facts are a couple of things we can do.

On a related note, I just heard that Chicago has reached 1000 shootings for the year, the quickest we've reached that number. Draconian gun laws don't work, and you simply need to look here to see that.
 
Well she's way off base because there's no such thing as a [government] gun buy back program. It there was, the government would have had to have been the entity who sold those guns to the customers in the first place.

So what it really is, is a suggested, or forced, firearms turn-in in receipt of some small cash payment.
 
Even if she is just pandering to her party, her words (statements like "When it comes to guns, we have just too many guns. On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods") are words that are enabling local politicians who vehemently oppose gun ownership and are advocating further restrictions as a plank in their campaign platform. The vitriol and hatred toward guns and the NRA are quite apparent in many of these ads.

There's only so many times that I can vote, contribute, and lend support to someone who supports our (2A) rights. I do what I can do as do we all. However, given the opportunity to sign into law legislation mandating a federal gun buyback/confiscation program in this country ... she would do it. With local pols pushing local laws, an activist court system and the potential change/slant of the USSC, I believe we are in for some hard times ahead. Sure, we win some we lose some, but if we start taking two steps back for each one forward ... the long term prognosis for gun rights, in my humble opinion, doesn't look good. I think it starts with this election.
 
Southernboy, this is where it gets into where whatever the law is may not be technically correct, you still have to follow it. You can point out all you want that "assault weapon" is a fabricated term, but if a law defines assault weapons and says you can't have them, you can't have them (legally).

Similarly, if they call it a "buy back" program and demand you sell them your rifles, well...it may not be technically them buying them back, but the law will be enforced as written. In theory.

On a related note, I just heard that Chicago has reached 1000 shootings for the year, the quickest we've reached that number. Draconian gun laws don't work, and you simply need to look here to see that.

Playing devil's advocate: it's because the laws are too lenient elsewhere and people are bringing guns into Chicago. If we expand gun control to the whole country then people won't be able to bring them into Chicago from other areas of the state or other states.
 
Playing devil's advocate: it's because the laws are too lenient elsewhere and people are bringing guns into Chicago. If we expand gun control to the whole country then people won't be able to bring them into Chicago from other areas of the state or other states.

This is a concern I've heard and where Virginia is often mentioned as being a source of easy guns along the I95 corridor.
 
With local pols pushing local laws, an activist court system and the potential change/slant of the USSC, I believe we are in for some hard times ahead. Sure, we win some we lose some, but if we start taking two steps back for each one forward ... the long term prognosis for gun rights, in my humble opinion, doesn't look good. I think it starts with this election.

Is there a plan of action? Or just a word of fear?
 
mexico has draconian gun laws, mexico has massive gun murders.

Same argument I used in my devil's advocate persona above, only this time more literal. We gave them guns (Fast and Furious...the scandal, not the movie franchise).
 
I have no problem whatsoever in voluntary gun buy-back programs. If people are willing to sell their freedom and rights on an individual basis, that's fine- mine aren't for sale. They are probably people who are a danger to themselves and bystanders if they had a gun, and are the type who probably wouldn't use one to defend themselves or their loved ones anyway. I have several pieces of worthless junk stacked up in the garage collecting rust that I'm sure I could get more for from a buyback than selling them to a prospective user, so cash, a gift card, or even a free pizza for some would be a great deal for me. I would love it if I could have the opportunity to cherry pick what these sheep are surrendering- I would offer more in cash than what the sponsor could in $, credit, or trinkets.
 
My fear is that in this election year, given that HRC probably will be the Dem nominee, she'll have a good chance against whoever the Reps put up. Reloading supplies, guns and ammo will get hoarded. It's an easy trap to fall into. I always think I have enough, but then I think, what if....and I try to resist.
 
Is there a plan of action? Or just a word of fear?

What plan of action is available when the process is entropic? The universe is coming to an end but not in our lifetime. Is there a plan for that? We do what we can to hold back the assault on our 2A rights by ensuring we participate in actions that allow our voices to be heard as one and being responsible in who we elect to office.

Unfortunately our system has allowed itself to slowly erode our rights from what was granted in our founding documents. We are all aware what a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means or implies yet that simple statement is subject to adverse interpretation by our opponents. Chip a little here and a little there and eventually what do you have left? It seems hard enough each election cycle finding someone acceptable/electable to the general population that will preserve those rights. I don't have plan of action other than continuing to support those whose values align with mine and cast my vote accordingly. Other than that, what recourse is left to those of us trying to preserve our second amendment rights?
 
Last edited:
Skribs writes:

Playing devil's advocate: it's because the laws are too lenient elsewhere and people are bringing guns into Chicago. If we expand gun control to the whole country then people won't be able to bring them into Chicago from other areas of the state or other states.

..and my current signature line appears here:

If guns are too readily-accessible in my state for the safety of yours, why doesn't my state have your state's crime issues? It's your people, people. Fix them instead of attacking ours.
 
Skribs wrote:
Southernboy, this is where it gets into where whatever the law is may not be technically correct, you still have to follow it. You can point out all you want that "assault weapon" is a fabricated term, but if a law defines assault weapons and says you can't have them, you can't have them (legally).

Similarly, if they call it a "buy back" program and demand you sell them your rifles, well...it may not be technically them buying them back, but the law will be enforced as written. In theory.
Words have meaning and that includes the legal codes and statutes. The problem, which you have pointed out, is their interpretation. And that is where the problem really lies. One can interpret most anything from anything but that doesn't mean the interpretation is factual.

Best thing to do is to hold their feet to the fire and nail them to the wall with our own legal arguments and attacks.
 
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale,
or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof
into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory
subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Don't ever say "it can't happen"
 
Sure, because slimy politicians always know what's best for us........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top