Biden admits truth Finally amazing

[Granule]

I don't know who said it was written anywhere.

Apparently, the govt wants to either buy them back or have owners register them.

Don't know how that equates to saying they can't be owned.

Then why are you dopers crying?

 

[Saudade]

First of all, I am not a progressive. I hold most of them in almost as much disdain as I do your ilk.

Second of all, he doesn't need my permission.

He needs authorization from the government whose job it is to determine such things based on several factors including public safety and the common good.

If the government feels that AR-15's are not necessary to protect one's home and/or that owners should register them with ATF, then that's just the way it is.

Douchebags like you don't get to pick and choose which laws you'll obey and which ones you won't.

What if the government decides no guns are necessary to protect your home?

 

[Saudade]

They are one of the weapons of choice of mass shooters/killers.

They have no place in a safe, civilised, law-abiding society.

Actually, most mass shooters use handguns.

 

[Saudade]

Gun buybacks are gun confiscation?

A better description is that gun buybacks are a way for people to make money off of stealing other people's guns and then selling them to the government.

 

[AProudLefty]

A better description is that gun buybacks are a way for people to make money off of stealing other people's guns and then selling them to the government.

How is it stealing when people are selling?

 

[Saudade]

So then when the government makes it illegal to own an AR-15, you'll just STFU and obey the law, right?

Good.

Ah yes, might makes right...

 

[Saudade]

How is it stealing when people are selling?

A typical problem that occurs with gun buyback programs is that people will steal other people's guns and then sell them to the government for the stipend. Sometimes, this is even incentivized by a higher amount for turning in a weapon reported as stolen.

https://turnto10.com/news/local/police-382-guns-exchanged-for-gift-cards-in-buyback-events

"Hundreds of guns were collected and exchanged for gift cards in Providence and Central Falls on Saturday.

The gun buyback events went on as scheduled after police said they would run ballistics tracing on every weapon turned in.

Providence Police collected 209 firearms while Central Falls Police counted 173 firearms.

A total of 382 guns includes eight stolen weapons and two assault weapons.

The firearms were in exchange for Visa gift cards ranging from $100 for each rifle or shotgun, $200 for each handgun, and $500 for each gun that's previously been reported stolen."

Also, since most gun buyback programs involve destroying the weapons, it means that, if someone's weapon was stolen to be turned in, he/she has a limited amount of time to retrieve the weapon, assuming he/she even goes to the police to see if they have the weapon.

 

[AProudLefty]

A typical problem that occurs with gun buyback programs is that people will steal other people's guns and then sell them to the government for the stipend. Sometimes, this is even incentivized by a higher amount for turning in a weapon reported as stolen.

https://turnto10.com/news/local/police-382-guns-exchanged-for-gift-cards-in-buyback-events

"Hundreds of guns were collected and exchanged for gift cards in Providence and Central Falls on Saturday.

The gun buyback events went on as scheduled after police said they would run ballistics tracing on every weapon turned in.

Providence Police collected 209 firearms while Central Falls Police counted 173 firearms.

A total of 382 guns includes eight stolen weapons and two assault weapons.

The firearms were in exchange for Visa gift cards ranging from $100 for each rifle or shotgun, $200 for each handgun, and $500 for each gun that's previously been reported stolen."

Also, since most gun buyback programs involve destroying the weapons, it means that, if someone's weapon was stolen to be turned in, he/she has a limited amount of time to retrieve the weapon, assuming he/she even goes to the police to see if they have the weapon.

I partially read that article. Still doesn't answer my question.

 

[Saudade]

Total numbers have nothing to do with it.

Mass shooters and psychopaths love assault style rifles and that's more than enough reason to ban them.

Just because a bunch of selfish, right-wing, macho idiot redneck gun-goobers, barrel-strokers and trigger-lickers don't like the idea of being told which guns they can and can't own with zero regard for putting public safety over and above their own selfish wants, doesn't mean jack shit.

When the govt says give them up, you'll give them up.

And that day is coming.

Most mass shootings are done with handguns, so you could just as easily mischaracterize the ownership of those as "selfish" or "right-wing." You could even say any gun ownership is that way. But this is the problem with your argument -- it's purely emotional.

Logically, we can look at the number of people who own guns and compare that with how many of them actually commit violent crimes. It's a low percentage.

Instead, you just choose to demonize AR-15s, because the media has successfully convinced you that they are too dangerous to own.

 

[AProudLefty]

Most mass shootings are done with handguns, so you could just as easily mischaracterize the ownership of those as "selfish" or "right-wing." You could even say any gun ownership is that way. But this is the problem with your argument -- it's purely emotional.

Logically, we can look at the number of people who own guns and compare that with how many of them actually commit violent crimes. It's a low percentage.

Instead, you just choose to demonize AR-15s, because the media has successfully convinced you that they are too dangerous to own.

Join us, Woko.

 

[Minister of Truth]

First of all, I am not a progressive. I hold most of them in almost as much disdain as I do your ilk.

Second of all, he doesn't need my permission.

He needs authorization from the government whose job it is to determine such things based on several factors including public safety and the common good.

If the government feels that AR-15's are not necessary to protect one's home and/or that owners should register them with ATF, then that's just the way it is.

Douchebags like you don't get to pick and choose which laws you'll obey and which ones you won't.

That's why I don't pick and choose constitutional amendments.

 

[Saudade]

I partially read that article. Still doesn't answer my question.

In a typical gun buyback program, there isn't typically much paperwork involved, and since most states don't have a gun registry, the ownership of a weapon isn't always known.

A lot of states just have a permit program, where you register for a gun permit, but that isn't necessarily tied to a single weapon. If you purchased the weapon online and received it from a FFL, the FFL will have the permit, but the state won't necessarily have access to that information.

Also, if a gun is stolen in a state with a registry but then taken to a different state with a gun buyback program to be turned in there, that state won't have access to that information either.

The most obvious cases of weapons that are stolen and turned into buyback programs are the valuable ones. No one with a decent amount of knowledge about guns would turn in a Colt Python to a buyback program, for example, since they are worth far more than any typical buyback stipend. Yet, they've been turned in before and destroyed.

Yet, the issue goes beyond this. Even though police have access to at least some data on ownership of weapons usually, they don't typically check the ownership of the weapons turned in to see if it matches who turned it in. Yet, the same police departments do often check if pawn shops have stolen guns or not.

And of course, the final issue is that a stolen weapon could have been used in a crime. So a weapon turned in to buyback program only to be destroyed shortly thereafter is an easy way for a criminal to cover his/her tracks.

 

[Saudade]

Join us, Woko.

Um... ok?

 

[AProudLefty]

Um... ok?

I guess it's ok for you to join us, the truth group?

 

[Saudade]

I guess it's ok for you to join us, the truth group?

If you're pro-gun, you should understand why gun buyback programs are a problem, if not just for the fact that it's a matter of public money being used to incentivize stealing.

 

[AProudLefty]

If you're pro-gun, you should understand why gun buyback programs are a problem, if not just for the fact that it's a matter of public money being used to incentivize stealing.

Do the gun owners have a choice to sell their guns?

 

[Saudade]

Do the gun owners have a choice to sell their guns?

The ones who voluntarily sell their weapons, sure. But again, because no real effort is made to make sure that the guns being turned in aren't stolen should tell you that the real motivation for gun buyback programs has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.

 

[AProudLefty]

The ones who voluntarily sell their weapons, sure. But again, because no real effort is made to make sure that the guns being turned in aren't stolen should tell you that the real motivation for gun buyback programs has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.

So there is no gun confiscation.

 

[Saudade]

So there is no gun confiscation.

In the context of the video, the Biden policy being discussed is that you either turn in your AR-15 to get the stipend, or you register the gun with the ATF. Noir then mentions the tax involved. When you register a firearm with the ATF, a significant fee or fees are involved. It varies by the weapon, but an example is the "tax stamp" that costs $200 for a short barrel rifle or a silencer. What the ATF would specifically charge for registering an AR-15 remains to be seen, but the amount could be exceptionally high if Biden's administration really wants to muscle people into the "voluntary" buyback.

It's a lot like the ACA's previous tax on not having healthcare coverage. Technically, you could say that the ACA still allowed you to not get healthcare insurance, but you had to pay progressively higher fees for each year you went without coverage.

So, given the context Noir is discussing, this particular buyback proposal is only voluntary in the technical sense. There is still coercion involved through a tax or fee, and depending on how high it will be, the coercion could render its voluntary status laughable. Therefore, calling it confiscation is relevant if the fee is exceptionally high.

Also, by making all those who retain their AR-15s register with the ATF, that gives the government the future option of forcibly confiscating these rifles. This is basically what Australia did after the Port Arthur massacre. Before the massacre, all rifles had been registered with their government, and then they confiscated all of the rifles on that registry with a "buyback program". There was no option to refuse that buyback.

 

[AProudLefty]

In the context of the video, the Biden policy being discussed is that you either turn in your AR-15 to get the stipend, or you register the gun with the ATF. Noir then mentions the tax involved. When you register a firearm with the ATF, a significant fee or fees are involved. It varies by the weapon, but an example is the "tax stamp" that costs $200 for a short barrel rifle or a silencer. What the ATF would specifically charge for registering an AR-15 remains to be seen, but the amount could be exceptionally high if Biden's administration really wants to muscle people into the "voluntary" buyback.

It's a lot like the ACA's previous tax on not having healthcare coverage. Technically, you could say that the ACA still allowed you to not get healthcare insurance, but you had to pay progressively higher fees for each year you went without coverage.

So, given the context Noir is discussing, this particular buyback proposal is only voluntary in the technical sense. There is still coercion involved through a tax or fee, and depending on how high it will be, the coercion could render its voluntary status laughable. Therefore, calling it confiscation is relevant if the fee is exceptionally high.

Also, by making all those who retain their AR-15s register with the ATF, that gives the government the future option of forcibly confiscating these rifles. This is basically what Australia did after the Port Arthur massacre. Before the massacre, all rifles had been registered with their government, and then they confiscated all of the rifles on that registry with a "buyback program". There was no option to refuse that buyback.

Thank you but still no gun confiscation.