You want to use taxpayer money, to buy back guns ABOVE market value from taxpayers that have already spent money on them?
You want to use taxpayer money, to buy back guns ABOVE market value from taxpayers that have already spent money on them?
So you basically want to buy their guns off them with their own money, thus making them pay twice and they lose their firearm?
Apologies for resorting to this but...cool story bro.
I don't have to concede to anything. I do have a few items that are registered with the federal government, but I doubt those will change in the new gun law they are trying to push. Many of them are bolt action military rifles 50+ years old. That being said, I have about a dozen guns that are not registered to me in any way and will likely be banned along with the accessories for them. I have some receivers for AK and AR platforms. I think that most people in my position simply won't register all of their guns.
You know what I just stated is one of Senator Feinstein's ideas to control guns, right? It is like the democratic platform. They sign thousands of bullshit bills every year, banning guns then offering inflated value for them wouldn't even phase the government. Australia banned guns and then bought them back. I hope the democrats lose their fucking minds and really go after guns. Democrats are as stupid as the Republicans. They score in the election and then go about making themselves into the enemy of the center. It seems like they are trying to ensure that republicans keep the house in 2 years with a landslide to me.You want to use taxpayer money, to buy back guns ABOVE market value from taxpayers that have already spent money on them?
So you basically want to buy their guns off them with their own money, thus making them pay twice and they lose their firearm?
Apologies for resorting to this but...cool story bro.
In truth, both Democrats and Republicans are both retarded and should just leave shit alone.
Never compromise with tyrants.
How do we get there? Oh yea, have more delirium!
I have a brother that lives in Sharon, MA. No guns. Owning a gun is not against the law, with a permit. An owners permit. (what a crock) But, the Co. Sheriff will not issue any permits even CCW unless under court order. So, to me this is Warlord. An arbitrary master of a small domain.
An amendment is possible in a democracy, all it takes is a majority of people using government to deny you of the natural right to defend yourself. Why abide with the denial of a natural right? I thought government was supposed to "protect" natural rights, not redefine or license them.
I don't believe there are natural rights. All rights are artifice and consensus. cn
I respect your natural right to hold that opinion. I agree that consensus is important.
Did it have any consequences, like a liberalization of Canadian privilege to buy and own guns? If no, no Ratchet loosening. cn
We're not permitted to do this!
Wait. So for self-regulation to register as sensible, it must mean surrendering rights? Why not give the "other direction" a go and recognize that Gun-Free Zones are an ineffective sop to the guns, ewww! proponents? Allow law-abiding residents of the big cities the right to armed defense.
Analogously, we have an increasingly-circumscribed right to own and use guns, but not to use them for crimes. Mean and dumb acts with guns are already comprehensively unlawful. Your insinuation that gun rights are currently not already very heavily "tempered" won't hold water imo. cn
Is the permit to peacefully assemble to make it harder to assemble or because it is needed to ensure something messed up isn't happening? The registration for machine guns was simply to add a burden and for no other reason. Given the shooting was in Connecticut and the guns were legal and registered to a lawful citizen. I fail to see how that would accomplish anything. Safety class? Maybe. License to own gun? Iffy, but perhaps if the state/government HAD to give the license no question asked it would be somewhat reasonable. Registration - NO. As a C&R holder, I can order guns and have them shipped to my house. I get dealer pricing, and I keep a log book of what I buy and sell and to whom (at least the guns that qualify). I don't particularly have an issue with this, but I don't have to do background checks for the guns that qualify. If a license for the owner was reasonable to get and allowed them to not have to get a background check each time then I might consider supporting it, but probably not just because we all know the people who want that sort of thing are doing that as a step towards banning guns and no other reason.
In the interest of preserving the majority of your gun rights, what ARE you willing to do? Anything at all? Do you have a problem with any curtailment of free speech? Those folks who picket funerals of veterans and call everyone fags, should they be in any way controlled? Should in the interest of unfettered right to worship, children be forced in all situations to abide by their parent's decision to withold lifesaving treatment? that permit to assemble could easily be seen as a slippery slope and yet you don't seem to believe it is.
I feel that it is better to put a bandaid on the situation rather than let the infection continue, so to speak.