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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
An astounding memo from the director of the National Institute of Justice, says that most of the gun laws in the country have no effect on crime rates, and that mandatory government confiscation of privately-owned firearms would be needed to change anything.
It also says that universal background checks would be ineffective, unless accompanied by a program of nationwide gun registration.
You have to wonder how long the Democrats will keep telling us that background checks will never lead to registration, or that such registration and other gun laws are NOT a first step toward confiscation.
The Justice Dept. is already backpedaling like mad, and trying to distance themselves from the memo.
-----------------------------------------------------
Leaked DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns... | RedFlagNews.com
The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.”
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
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.
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.
We've had several topics on this memo, and not one person has been able to quote the part in the memo which mentions mandatory gun confiscation..
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.
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.
Clearly the NRA is telling the plain truth. The fact that the memo calls it something else, doesn't change the nature of what the govt is talking about: Mandatory confiscation. And handing out a few trifles of cash afterward, also doesn't change what it really is.The NRA is flat-out lying
We've had several topics on this memo, and not one person has been able to quote the part in the memo which mentions mandatory gun confiscation..
The memo does not employ that terminology. Instead it couples a "ban on possesion with a "buy back program" to achieve "confiscation". There are several references to such throughout the memo. Here is one:
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.
I would consider a complete ban on possesion coupled with a buyback of these now illegal arms to be tanamount to "confiscation" but perhaps you do not.
The memo is very straightforward. It says the 1994 AWB ban was ineffective because you could still buy and sell existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines after the ban was enacted.
To wit:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Show me the word "mandatory" in the memo.
Go ahead, dolts.
Stop drinking Alex Jones' piss!
Jesus Christ, you people are the most gullible fucks I have ever seen. And that is saying a lot. I spent years debunking every paranormal quackery under the sun, but you guys take the cake. Seriously.
The desire to believe has made you literally retarded.
We've had several topics on this memo, and not one person has been able to quote the part in the memo which mentions mandatory gun confiscation..
The memo does not employ that terminology. Instead it couples a "ban on possesion with a "buy back program" to achieve "confiscation". There are several references to such throughout the memo. Here is one:
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.
I would consider a complete ban on possesion coupled with a buyback of these now illegal arms to be tanamount to "confiscation" but perhaps you do not.
You call yourself a "legal eagle" and are stupid enough to confuse "confiscation" with a buyback program?
Buyback programs have been with us for decades. Have you ever heard anyone refer to them as "confiscation" before? Ever?
No. You have not.
Because they are not confiscation. Confiscation is when something is taken from you against your will. Forcibly taken from you by the authories. So in all the decades they have had buyback programs in your city, and you don't go down and sell them your guns, have you crying about their "confiscation" of your guns anyway?
Jesus, you people are unbelievably gullible. The NRA lies right to your faces, and you are so desperate to believe them, you throw your brains out the window.
You call yourself a "legal eagle" and are stupid enough to confuse "confiscation" with a buyback program?
Buyback programs have been with us for decades. Have you ever heard anyone refer to them as "confiscation" before? Ever?
No. You have not.
Because they are not confiscation. Confiscation is when something is taken from you against your will.
Jesus, you people are unbelievably gullible.
Do you dispute that "buy back" could be mandatory?
Little-Acorn said:Mandatory gun confiscation is when your government takes your guns away whether you want them to or not.
A "gun buyback and no exemptions" is when your government takes your guns away whether you want them to or not. And then hands you some small amount of money afterward, even if you'd rather have kept the gun.
In other words, the memo does indeed describe mandatory gun confiscation. They just call it something else.
Jesus Christ, you people are the most gullible fucks I have ever seen. And that is saying a lot. I spent years debunking every paranormal quackery under the sun, but you guys take the cake. Seriously.
The desire to believe has made you literally retarded.
Nobody ever proposed a buyback "without exemptions" before. Until now.You...are stupid enough to confuse "confiscation" with a buyback program?
Because they are not confiscation. Confiscation is when something is taken from you against your will. Forcibly taken from you by the authories. So in all the decades they have had buyback programs in your city, and you don't go down and sell them your guns, have you crying about their "confiscation" of your guns anyway?
You're not gonna come home and find it gone because you'd be DRIVING IT!!! (I'm saying that in my best Sam Kinnison voice).Nobody ever proposed a buyback "without exemptions" before. Until now.You...are stupid enough to confuse "confiscation" with a buyback program?
Because they are not confiscation. Confiscation is when something is taken from you against your will. Forcibly taken from you by the authories. So in all the decades they have had buyback programs in your city, and you don't go down and sell them your guns, have you crying about their "confiscation" of your guns anyway?
You know that new Lexus you just bought? Suppose you come home tomorrow and find it missing. And tacked to your front door is a note saying that, due to some new legislation by the Obama administration, confiscation of the first foreign car anyone buys costing more than $30,000 had been authorized. So the government just confiscated your new Lexus. But no more cars would be confiscated from you after this one.
You're angry, and decide to show them a thing or two. You go out and buy another Lexus just like it.
A week later you come home, and that one is missing too. And tacked to your front door is another note that says that another part of that new legislation they hadn't mentioned, said that while no more cars would be confiscated, the second such foreign car a guy bought, would be "bought back" with no exemptions. So they just bought back your second Lexus. Attached to the note is a check for $300.
Am I right to assume that, while you're really pissed over the first Lexus, you're perfectly happy with what happened to the second? Because "buyback with no exemptions" is SO different from confiscation?
g5000 is most likely a hired disinfo agent
