Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is the context of the DOJ memo. In the 90s, an assault weapons ban was passed by Congress. However, that AWB did not ban the resale of existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines. It only banned the manufacture, sale, and importation of NEW assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Since there were already millions of existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines, the AWB had virtually no impact on a person's ability to acquire assault weapons or large capacity magazines after the act was passed.
That is where the Feinstein clip comes in at the end of the OP link. She told 60 Minutes that if it were up to her, she would have made the confiscation of all existing assault weapons part of the AWB to make it more effective in getting assault weapons off the street.
The DOJ memo IS NOT RECOMMENDING THIS COURSE OF ACTION. Read it and see for yourself.
What the DOJ memo recommends is that if you are going to ban the manufacture, sale, and importation of new assault weapons alone, then such an AWB will be as ineffective as the last one was. Therefore, they recommend such an AWB be coupled with an assalt weapons buyback program to remove existing assault weapons from the streets.
No confiscation. A gun buyback program.
If you are so retarded that you confuse an assault weapons buyback program with a "mandatory confiscation" of ALL guns, you are a fucking, fucking, fucking idiot.
The actual term used in the report was a "buyback program with no exemptions," which is a weasely way to say "confiscation, but we pay you for your guns"
Is the report official policy? No. Is it an indication of what gun control adherents are leaning towards? I say yes.
An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation.
And your source is ALEX JONES????!!!!!
Folks, if you needed any more proof that the right wing has gone full bonkers, look no further. GrampaU has now resorted to Info Wars and Alex Jones.
Wow. My only response?
Charlie Brown Teacher Speaking - YouTube
Would you prefer hufo jackass?
NRA Uses Justice Department Memo To Accuse Obama On Guns
And the administrations response to this leaked memo? "It's unfinishe and doesn't represent our positiin"
Again as I menrioned earliee to the othe jackass in this thread the tirle is subjective. It is intended to tell you to make up your own mind on what the memo means.
But like most hacks you choose to attack the source and or messenger.
Neg incoming for both you idiots.
And your source is ALEX JONES????!!!!!
Folks, if you needed any more proof that the right wing has gone full bonkers, look no further. GrampaU has now resorted to Info Wars and Alex Jones.
Wow. My only response?
Charlie Brown Teacher Speaking - YouTube
Would you prefer hufo jackass?
NRA Uses Justice Department Memo To Accuse Obama On Guns
And the administrations response to this leaked memo? "It's unfinishe and doesn't represent our positiin"
Again as I menrioned earliee to the othe jackass in this thread the tirle is subjective. It is intended to tell you to make up your own mind on what the memo means.
But like most hacks you choose to attack the source and or messenger.
Neg incoming for both you idiots.
What a dipshit you are. You swallowed the NRAs piss. You cannot provide any evidence whatsoever there is a recommendation for a mandatory confiscation of guns in the DOJ memo, because IT IS NOT THERE.
Asshole.
Would you prefer hufo jackass?
NRA Uses Justice Department Memo To Accuse Obama On Guns
And the administrations response to this leaked memo? "It's unfinishe and doesn't represent our positiin"
Again as I menrioned earliee to the othe jackass in this thread the tirle is subjective. It is intended to tell you to make up your own mind on what the memo means.
But like most hacks you choose to attack the source and or messenger.
Neg incoming for both you idiots.
What a dipshit you are. You swallowed the NRAs piss. You cannot provide any evidence whatsoever there is a recommendation for a mandatory confiscation of guns in the DOJ memo, because IT IS NOT THERE.
Asshole.
You still can't comprehend the thread title can you? You're so obsessed with proving someone wrong that you completely missed the concept that the memo is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION specifically because of it's vagueness.
Hell even the administration admits that it's not a fully thought out position.
Fuck you're dense
Notice that none of the rubes are quoting the DOJ memo.
Idiots copy and paste from a partisan site and swallow the piss by the bucket.
But they do not quote the source memo.
That says it all.
Notice that none of the rubes are quoting the DOJ memo.
Idiots copy and paste from a partisan site and swallow the piss by the bucket.
But they do not quote the source memo.
That says it all.
I literally typed out the pertinent part. You just want to sit high atop everyone else. You're nothing more than an internet bully. You want more research do it yourself and post it.
Here is the context of the DOJ memo. In the 90s, an assault weapons ban was passed by Congress. However, that AWB did not ban the resale of existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines. It only banned the manufacture, sale, and importation of NEW assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Since there were already millions of existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines, the AWB had virtually no impact on a person's ability to acquire assault weapons or large capacity magazines after the act was passed.
That is where the Feinstein clip comes in at the end of the OP link. She told 60 Minutes that if it were up to her, she would have made the confiscation of all existing assault weapons part of the AWB to make it more effective in getting assault weapons off the street.
The DOJ memo IS NOT RECOMMENDING THIS COURSE OF ACTION. Read it and see for yourself.
What the DOJ memo recommends is that if you are going to ban the manufacture, sale, and importation of new assault weapons alone, then such an AWB will be as ineffective as the last one was. Therefore, they recommend such an AWB be coupled with an assalt weapons buyback program to remove existing assault weapons from the streets.
No confiscation. A gun buyback program.
If you are so retarded that you confuse an assault weapons buyback program with a "mandatory confiscation" of ALL guns, you are a fucking, fucking, fucking idiot.
The actual term used in the report was a "buyback program with no exemptions," which is a weasely way to say "confiscation, but we pay you for your guns"
Is the report official policy? No. Is it an indication of what gun control adherents are leaning towards? I say yes.
You STILL have not read it, have you. If you had, then you would know what they were talking about when they are talking about "no exemptions".
Jesus, you can lead a horse to water...
An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation.
A buyback with no exemptions means a buyback program which would also buy back large capacity magazines. If they exempt high capacity magazines from a buyback, then the full effect of an AWB would be minimal.
What a dipshit you are. You swallowed the NRAs piss. You cannot provide any evidence whatsoever there is a recommendation for a mandatory confiscation of guns in the DOJ memo, because IT IS NOT THERE.
Asshole.
You still can't comprehend the thread title can you? You're so obsessed with proving someone wrong that you completely missed the concept that the memo is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION specifically because of it's vagueness.
Hell even the administration admits that it's not a fully thought out position.
Fuck you're dense
It is not open to interpretation. Are you telling us you are completely ignorant of what a gun buyback program is?
Seriously? They've only been around for decades.
The NRA lied, you swallowed their piss. Rube.
The actual term used in the report was a "buyback program with no exemptions," which is a weasely way to say "confiscation, but we pay you for your guns"
Is the report official policy? No. Is it an indication of what gun control adherents are leaning towards? I say yes.
You STILL have not read it, have you. If you had, then you would know what they were talking about when they are talking about "no exemptions".
Jesus, you can lead a horse to water...
An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation.
A buyback with no exemptions means a buyback program which would also buy back large capacity magazines. If they exempt high capacity magazines from a buyback, then the full effect of an AWB would be minimal.
So, how is a buyback you HAVE to participate in not confiscation?
An anti-gun memo that only the NRA was able to get their hands on, and they refuse to disclose how they got it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And you blindly believe it?
Your tinfoil hat is too tight. The AP already confirmed they have it.
Looked more into it. You're right, the AP does support they have it. But you have to admit it was suspiciously convenient.
However, as it has been pointed out, the document has nothing to do with any policy or anything regarding what the NRA is raving about.
You STILL have not read it, have you. If you had, then you would know what they were talking about when they are talking about "no exemptions".
Jesus, you can lead a horse to water...
A buyback with no exemptions means a buyback program which would also buy back large capacity magazines. If they exempt high capacity magazines from a buyback, then the full effect of an AWB would be minimal.
So, how is a buyback you HAVE to participate in not confiscation?
Please quote the part where you HAVE to participate.
The 1994 ban on large capacity magazines had limited effectiveness because 1) Large capacity clips are a durable good 2) There were an estimated 25 million guns with large capacity magazines in 1995 3) The 1994 law exempted magazines manufactured before 1994 so that the importation of large capacity magazines manufactured overseas before 1994 continued through the ban 4) while the price of the clips increased dramatically (80% during the ban) they were not unaffordable. A 2004 study of the 1994 law found: “because the ban has not yet reduced the use of [large capacity magazines] in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” The 1994 ban essentially did little to affect the supply of large capacity magazines.
Just as such an exemption caused the 1994 AWB to have limited effectiveness, so would an identical exemption today cause an identical limited effectiveness. Therefore, something different needs to be done this time around to be effective.In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact.
The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.
And your source is ALEX JONES????!!!!!
Folks, if you needed any more proof that the right wing has gone full bonkers, look no further. GrampaU has now resorted to Info Wars and Alex Jones.
Wow. My only response?
The memo is very straightforward. It says thee 1994 AWB ban was ineffective because you could still buy and sell existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines after the ban was enacted.
The 1994 ban on large capacity magazines had limited effectiveness because 1) Large capacity clips are a durable good 2) There were an estimated 25 million guns with large capacity magazines in 1995 3) The 1994 law exempted magazines manufactured before 1994 so that the importation of large capacity magazines manufactured overseas before 1994 continued through the ban 4) while the price of the clips increased dramatically (80% during the ban) they were not unaffordable. A 2004 study of the 1994 law found: because the ban has not yet reduced the use of [large capacity magazines] in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence. The 1994 ban essentially did little to affect the supply of large capacity magazines.
See that word "exempted"? All references to "exemptions" in the memo are with respect to that.
If you read the WHOLE MEMO, this is obvious.
For example, the very next paragraph:
Just as such an exemption caused the 1994 AWB to have limited effectiveness, so would an identical exemption today cause an identical limited effectiveness. Therefore, something different needs to be done this time around to be effective.In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact.
Continuing on in that same paragraph:
The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.
So any gun buyback that does not include the buyback of large capacity magazines would be limited in its effectiveness.
Therefore:
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.
This memo has fuck-all to do with a mandatory confiscation of guns. The NRA is flat-out lying. The memo is recommending a gun buyback that INCLUDES the buyback of large capacity magazines.
Nothing open to interpretation.
Your tinfoil hat is too tight. The AP already confirmed they have it.
Looked more into it. You're right, the AP does support they have it. But you have to admit it was suspiciously convenient.
However, as it has been pointed out, the document has nothing to do with any policy or anything regarding what the NRA is raving about.
Why is everyone focusing on tge NRA... the NRA was not and will never be part of my thoughts on the issue of guns.
Aristotle said:It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
