Mandatory Gun Buyback

[wally]

HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely for a multitude of reasons, but as a legal matter, I point you in the direction of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:

And the reason the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place!

 

[Aries-]

Here is the artical kim was talking about.
http://newyork .cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-wonder-if-theyll-need-to-confiscate-assault-weapons-in-event-of-ban/

 

[Kiln]

Molon labe.

 

[BCCL]

charles krauthammer was asked the question last week and his response--armed insurrection.

I wonder what has changed his thinking, he used to be a big advocate of disarming the populace.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Yes, but I can imagine some of the self-righteous anti-gun politicians claiming that they're not being taken for public USE, they're being taken for the public GOOD -- therefore, this clause doesn't apply to us.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

charles krauthammer was asked the question last week and his response--armed insurrection.

I don't watch a lot of tv (too many wackos), but occasionally I see Krauthammer and I always seem to be very impressed by him and his ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sort of like how George Will was -- whatever happened to George Will?

 

[Captain*kirk]

Mandatory gun buyback?

Ms. Frankenstein can "propose" any buyback she chooses. I could also "propose" that she and Mr. Cuomo hold hands and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, but she might find my proposal as outlandish and ridiculous as I find hers.
I don't own any "assault rifles" or "black guns", but once you start labeling weapons as black or white, they all become gray.
How come nobody in Washington is asking the questions that need to be asked;
1) How did a mental moron obtain weapons, and
2) How do we fix THAT problem?

 

[somerandomguy]

Ms. Frankenstein can "propose" any buyback she chooses. I could also "propose" that she and Mr. Cuomo hold hands and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, but she might find my proposal as outlandish and ridiculous as I find hers.
I don't own any "assault rifles" or "black guns", but once you start labeling weapons as black or white, they all become gray.
How come nobody in Washington is asking the questions that need to be asked;
1) How did a mental moron obtain weapons, and
2) How do we fix THAT problem?

Well obviously, it's because they've got an anti-gun agenda to push.

 

[ATBackPackin]

There is no "moderate" tone to Feinstein. I just saw this quote

""She sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asking that $200 million in any fiscal cliff deal be set aside to buy back assault weapons: "I want to get the ones that are already out there and get them off the streets.""

They are not on streets you witch. They are in the homes of law abiding citizens. Citizens.............. not subjects.

 

[DammitBoy]

Man, I hate all mine were lost in a tragic boating accident today, I could have used me some Obama money!

 

[JEB]

they can take my guns..... but they will have to take them barrel first!

 

[gobysky]

Mandatory buy back? It will end up in court and I doubt if would stand the constitutional test. Unless Obama replaces some Supreme Court justices with liberal activist types. Then American freedom is DOA anyway. Next comes the First Amendment. That is selective censorship. If you don't comply with this left wing politically correct crowd, who knows what they'll do to you.
So I figure there's a heck of a lot more a stake here than guns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[va1911]

Lets see, the govt is going to pay me for my guns using what? Oh, right, my taxes. So they want me to pay myself and relinquish private property in the meantime. They would essentially be stealing private property.

 

[Trent]

750 grains at a time.

 

[Lightshot]

Trent - Your signature sums up the whole issue of the current politics surrounding this thread quite elegantly.

 

[thepumpfaction]

I haven't been here long, but if there's one thing I learned...
I lost 'em all in a terrible boating accident.

 

[Trent]

Trent - Your signature sums up the whole issue of the current politics surrounding this thread quite elegantly.

No, this picture sums up the whole issue in ways words cannot.



The 750 grains I was referring to is the weight of the Hornaday A-Max projectiles.

 

[Trent]

(I find it's easier to hold your moral high ground with heavy weapons on your side.)

 

[cvoharley]

One of the things that keeps coming to mind, for those of us that remember, is that the internet did not exist as we know it in 1994. That was the year of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Back then we didn't have a forum for like minded people to speak freely and openly as we do today. All of our "instant" news came from cable television or the network news. Google "internet circa 1994" and the third item is "Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric struggle to understand Internet". Today we have internet forums like The High Road that allow us to share ideas amongst a much friendlier audience than being subjected to a one sided view on TV. News travels fast and two ways today. We can go online and share our thoughts and ideas and have instantaneous feedback.

I think our constitution pretty sound and hopefully there are a lot of people smarter than me that can defend our rights.

May cooler heads prevail and emotions remain in check.

 

[kwguy]

^AMEN!

 

[mj246]

I like that the article said $500 per gun was "an offer they can't refuse." Well the "can't refuse is the whole point of the MANDATORY part of the buyback she wants. But if they can't accomplish that, I think they might be a little surprised at how many gun owners WILL refuse $500 for their guns, a huge number of which cost at least twice that much.

 

[somerandomguy]

No, this picture sums up the whole issue in ways words cannot.



The 750 grains I was referring to is the weight of the Hornaday A-Max projectiles.

Dude, if the Walking Dead ever happens, I'm coming over to your house! lol

 

[The-Reaver]

CBRGATOR;

HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely for a multitude of reasons, but as a legal matter, I point you in the direction of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If Congress can claim a legitimate "public use" for the guns they are taking and pay us their fair value, it would theoretically be constitutional. This doctrine is known as Eminent Domain.

They don't care about the Constitution. What makes you think the 5th is any different?


I can tell you that I will turn in my stuff. To bad I already sold my collection. So all I have is what's left for my carry at work. They can't take that can they?

 

[captain awesome]

I like that the article said $500 per gun was "an offer they can't refuse." Well the "can't refuse is the whole point of the MANDATORY part of the buyback she wants. But if they can't accomplish that, I think they might be a little surprised at how many gun owners WILL refuse $500 for their guns, a huge number of which cost at least twice that much.

Well, seeing as how nearly all my guns cost significantly more than $500, it seems pretty refuse-able to me. Does this scum bag know a damn thing about firearms?

 

[Kiln]

I'd buy 200 Hi Points and turn them in so I could buy a bunch of AR15 type scary black rifles.

Edit: Then I'd buy another couple of Hi Points and just keep them. I've always actually wanted one of the ugly buggers.