Justice Dept memo: Gun laws don't work, unless mandatory govt confiscation is imposed

[buckeye45_73]

When this country decides you can not have a certain weapon you will give them up if we require it.


You will do it with a smile on your face.

You do not own this country

No we have the second amendment and you can shove it....Wow you really are a commie....

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Can't have a Confiscation Day National Holiday Cypriot style in the banks without having confiscated all the guns first. Just a necessary part of Comrade Barack Obama's "Fundamental Transformation Of America" that's all.

Chinese female executions - Bing Images

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

Nobody ever proposed a buyback "without exemptions" before. Until now.

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?

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).

Even though I'm a cross-country truck driver?

 

[9thIDdoc]

the Scotus has sadi gun laws are perfectly constutitional.


you people are insane

Wrong. They have said that some reasonable regulation may be legal. They have also said that individuals have the right to arms for self defense. You are advocating a civil rights violation.

 

[S.J.]

Nobody ever proposed a buyback "without exemptions" before. Until now.

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?

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).

Even though I'm a cross-country truck driver?

Well, there is an exception to every rule.

 

[Lovebears65]

When this country decides you can not have a certain weapon you will give them up if we require it.


You will do it with a smile on your face.

You do not own this country

-Hey Obamanot .. YES we do . The GOVERNMENT Doesnt own this country .. they work for us remember

 

[editec]

....universal background checks would be ineffective, unless accompanied by a program of nationwide gun registration.

I think that's probably true given that there are already 300,000,000 guns in America.

I also think that even if they did both it would NOT be very effective in stopping gun massacres in the short run.

I definitely think it would greatly expand the already existing BLACK MARKET for weapons, though.

 

[Little-Acorn]

....universal background checks would be ineffective, unless accompanied by a program of nationwide gun registration.

I think that's probably true given that there are already 300,000,000 guns in America.

I also think that even if they did both it would NOT be very effective in stopping gun massacres in the short run.

I definitely think it would greatly expand the already existing BLACK MARKET for weapons, though.

All true.

CONCLUSION: Gun laws don't reduce crime, since they restrict only the law-abiding.

So, the fanatics who keep making them anyway, apparently have something other than reducing crime in mind.

 

[tjvh]

When this country decides you can not have a certain weapon you will give them up if we require it.


You will do it with a smile on your face.

You do not own this country

The idiot TM actually believes that majority rules trumps our Constitution.

 

[g5000]

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.

Do you dispute that "buy back" could be mandatory?

I ask once again, please show me where "mandatory" is in the memo. Anywhere. Go ahead.

 

[g5000]

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:



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.

It's moments like these that expose g5000 as a disinfo agent.

It's moments like these which expose you as retarded.

 

[g5000]

You call yourself a "legal eagle" and are stupid enough to confuse "confiscation" with a buyback program?

When you are forced to sell your property to the government it is deemed confiscation. ... and legally "condemnation". You are not too bright are you?

I could shave 100 points off my IQ and still be brighter than all of you retards put together.

Buyback programs have been with us for decades. Have you ever heard anyone refer to them as "confiscation" before? Ever?

Voluntary buybacks are not confiscation, but that is not what is being proposed, now is it? Instead, it is "sell it to us for the price we are willing to give you or you go to jail." Forced sales are indeed confiscation because they take the property away involuntarily.

EVIDENCE! Do you know what that is? Show me in the memo the evidence that backs up this incredibly ridiculous claim.

Go ahead.

Because they are not confiscation. Confiscation is when something is taken from you against your will.

Correct and when someone threatens to throw you in jail if you do not sell it to them, you think that is voluntary? Were you born on Planet Looney?

Irony!

Again, quote the part in the memo which supports this asinine, idiotic bucket of NRA piss you guzzled.


And before you make a complete ass of yourself and waste a lot of time, read post 22.

 

[g5000]

I challenge anyone to prove you would not have a choice to participate in the gun buyback program in the DOJ memo.

Quote the part which says you would be forced to sell your guns to the buyback program.

Do it, retards.

You can't. Because it isn't in there. You are spewing nonsense given to you by the NRA that is not in the memo. You are being mindless little parrots.


Again, read post 22 before making further asses of yourselves.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Do you dispute that "buy back" could be mandatory?

I ask once again, please show me where "mandatory" is in the memo. Anywhere. Go ahead.

Looks like little g5000 is resorting to ignoring the posts that answered his question long ago, and hoping nobody notices his lies have already been refuted.

Back to the subject:
The silence following the Justice Dept. memo that pointed out that only registration and massive confiscation will have any effect, is resounding. The only response the fanatical gun-haters seem to have, is to ignore it (sort of like little g5000 tries to do) and hope nobody notices that they have no reply they can make... because their agenda has been revealed.

 

[g5000]

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 nation’s 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.

Continuing on in that same paragraph:



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.

Sure it is. What does "buy back" mean? Does that mean the gov't offers and you can sell them your magazines or guns?

Yes. That is what it means, and what it has always meant in all the decades there have been buyback programs.

As pointed out by the memo itself, during the last ban the price of mags skyrocketed (so did pre ban guns). How likely will people be to sell their mags and guns, knowing they will never be able to replace them? Answer, not very.

You assume "not very". But the reality blows you out of the water. People sold their guns to the buyback program during the last AWB knowing they would not be able to replace them.

Let that sink in for a moment. People sold their guns to the buyback program during the last AWB knowing they would not be able to replace them.

The DOJ memo is merely saying that very same buyback program needs to be extended to large capacity magazines. AND THIS IS ALL IT IS SAYING.

So the solution must be a buy back that is not a voluntary offer and acceptance, i.e. confiscation with compensation, as mandated by the Constitution. I dont know whether that is actually what is intended, but it is certainly one interpretation.

It is not an interpretation. It is entirely erroneous conclusion reached by an entirely erroneous assumption, in an attempt to justify a total misreading of the memo. You desperately want to believe the memo says what the NRA claimed it says. But it clearly does not.

 

[g5000]

Do you dispute that "buy back" could be mandatory?

I ask once again, please show me where "mandatory" is in the memo. Anywhere. Go ahead.

Looks like little g5000 is resorting to ignoring the posts that answered his question long ago, and hoping nobody notices his lies have already been refuted.

Back to the subject:
The silence following the Justice Dept. memo that pointed out that only registration and massive confiscation will work, is resounding. The only response the fanatical gun-haters seem to have, is to ignore it (sort of like little g5000 tries to do) and hope nobody notices that they have no reply they can make... because their agenda has been revealed.

You have not answered the question. Show me where it says the buyback program would be mandatory.

You can't.

And I am pro-gun and anti gun control, dipshit.

But truth and critical thinking come first.

 

[martybegan]

I ask once again, please show me where "mandatory" is in the memo. Anywhere. Go ahead.

Looks like little g5000 is resorting to ignoring the posts that answered his question long ago, and hoping nobody notices his lies have already been refuted.

Back to the subject:
The silence following the Justice Dept. memo that pointed out that only registration and massive confiscation will work, is resounding. The only response the fanatical gun-haters seem to have, is to ignore it (sort of like little g5000 tries to do) and hope nobody notices that they have no reply they can make... because their agenda has been revealed.

You have not answered the question. Show me where it says the buyback program would be mandatory.

You can't.

And I am pro-gun and anti gun control, dipshit.

But truth and critical thinking come first.

So what is a "gun buyback with no exemptions"?

 

[g5000]

The memo is very simple, if you read it.

The DOJ is saying the last gun buyback program was ineffective because it did not include large capacity magazines, and only included assault weapons. They are saying a gun buyback program should include large cap magazines.

It is as simple as that.

The NRA mis-read the memo and you fools are parroting their nonsense. You can't quote anything which proves you would be forced to sell your guns to the buyback program because it simply is not in there.

 

[g5000]

Looks like little g5000 is resorting to ignoring the posts that answered his question long ago, and hoping nobody notices his lies have already been refuted.

Back to the subject:
The silence following the Justice Dept. memo that pointed out that only registration and massive confiscation will work, is resounding. The only response the fanatical gun-haters seem to have, is to ignore it (sort of like little g5000 tries to do) and hope nobody notices that they have no reply they can make... because their agenda has been revealed.

You have not answered the question. Show me where it says the buyback program would be mandatory.

You can't.

And I am pro-gun and anti gun control, dipshit.

But truth and critical thinking come first.

So what is a "gun buyback with no exemptions"?

Again. Read. Post. 22.

 

[g5000]

"No exemptions" means "including large capacity magazines".

The idiots at the NRA mis-read it to mean "we must force people to sell us their guns".

Read the WHOLE memo and this becomes blazingly obvious.

The DOJ is talking about a gun buyback which would include the buyback of large capacity magazines.

Stop drinking the piss of special interests and learn to read shit for yourselves and you won't make such asses of yourselves.

Read the goddam memo with an open mind and the truth will jump right out at you.