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

[g5000]

The DOJ memo says large capacity magazines are a greater contributor to gun deaths than assault weapons are. Therefore, large cap magazines need to be targeted, and not exempted from any gun control efforts.

So read this again in that light: "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."

"No exemptions" is referring to the fact that large cap mags have been exempted in the past, and the DOJ is saying they should not be, going forward.

They want large cap mags to be banned along with assault weapons. Not just old ones bought back, but banned from any new ones being manufactured, imported, or sold.

 

[martybegan]

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:

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.

So the premise is that only removing large capacity magazines from circulation would be effective, and the only thing to be effective would be a "buyback with no exemptions"

I disagree with your logic on this. As this is merely a mental exercise by some subset of DOJ (yes I know this isnt policy) One would have to assume they would go full bore on determining what would be effective.

If they realize that grandfathering exisitng magazines removed any effectiveness of the ban, logically the next step would be no grandfathering, and thus making said magazines illegal for personal ownership. At that point, instead of using the word "confiscate", as confiscation is without compensation, they made up a warm and fuzzy term "buybacks with no exemptions" to mean yes, the government is coming for your magazines, but hey! we will pay for them!

 

[martybegan]

The DOJ memo says large capacity magazines are a greater contributor to gun deaths than assault weapons are. Therefore, large cap magazines need to be targeted, and not exempted from any gun control efforts.

So read this again in that light: "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."

"No exemptions" is referring to the fact that large cap mags have been exempted in the past, and the DOJ is saying they should not be, going forward.

To me the 'no exemptions" is the removal of the grandfathering clauses of most magazine/assault weapons bans. To do this you either have to confiscate them or make people sell them back to the government, hence a "buyback with no exemptions"

Kind of like what they are doing in NY, where you have to either turn them in, or sell them out of state.

 

[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.

So the premise is that only removing large capacity magazines from circulation would be effective, and the only thing to be effective would be a "buyback with no exemptions"

I disagree with your logic on this. As this is merely a mental exercise by some subset of DOJ (yes I know this isnt policy) One would have to assume they would go full bore on determining what would be effective.

If they realize that grandfathering exisitng magazines removed any effectiveness of the ban, logically the next step would be no grandfathering, and thus making said magazines illegal for personal ownership. At that point, instead of using the word "confiscate", as confiscation is without compensation, they made up a warm and fuzzy term "buybacks with no exemptions" to mean yes, the government is coming for your magazines, but hey! we will pay for them!

I will use small words, just for you.

The 1994 AWB exempted existing large cap magazines from being sold. You could buy a used large capacity magazine even after the AWB was passed.

Since there were millions of old mags lying around, and they were legal to sell, the AWB had no effect on gun crime. The reason is because large capacity magazines are involved in gun crime more than assault weapons are.

So the DOJ is saying if you want to have gun control that works, you have to do something about large capacity magazines.

So when they say "no exemptions", they are saying it is more important to take existing large capacity magazines off the streets than it is to remove assault weapons.

That's it. "No exemptions" means "we cannot exempt large cap mags like we did last time".

So a large cap magazine would be banned identically to the way assault weapons are.

Did they sieze assault weapons last time? Did they come for your guns? Did they force you to sell them to buyback programs?

No. They did not.

So this time around, they are saying large cap magazines should be treated EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE LAST TIME.

Since there was no cummin fer yer guns, since there was no mandatory buyback, then the NRA is full of shit and pouring a LOT OF PISS.

And now you fools are INVENTING shit to support that strong desire to believe the NRA.

I have extensively quoted the parts of the memo which support what I am saying.

You fools have taken a phrase completely out of context to support your gun grab fantasy.

 

[whitehall]

When we see Eric Holder and most of the renegade ATF frog walked to federal prison in orange jump suits for causing the death of a Border Patrol agent and about a thousand innocent Mexicans maybe we will believe that the Hussein regime is serious about gun control.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Straw man.
Do you dispute that the term buy back could also include a mandatory buy back? Whether it is actually in the memo or not is irrelevant. As long as it could be construed to include that then the NRA is not wrong. They might be, or they might not be.

 

[martybegan]

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:


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:




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.

So the premise is that only removing large capacity magazines from circulation would be effective, and the only thing to be effective would be a "buyback with no exemptions"

I disagree with your logic on this. As this is merely a mental exercise by some subset of DOJ (yes I know this isnt policy) One would have to assume they would go full bore on determining what would be effective.

If they realize that grandfathering exisitng magazines removed any effectiveness of the ban, logically the next step would be no grandfathering, and thus making said magazines illegal for personal ownership. At that point, instead of using the word "confiscate", as confiscation is without compensation, they made up a warm and fuzzy term "buybacks with no exemptions" to mean yes, the government is coming for your magazines, but hey! we will pay for them!

I will use small words, just for you.

The 1994 AWB exempted existing large cap magazines from being sold. You could buy a used large capacity magazine even after the AWB was passed.

Since there were millions of old mags lying around, and they were legal to sell, the AWB had no effect on gun crime. The reason is because large capacity magazines are involved in gun crime more than assault weapons are.

So the DOJ is saying if you want to have gun control that works, you have to do something about large capacity magazines.

So when they say "no exemptions", they are saying it is more important to take existing large capacity magazines off the streets than it is to remove assault weapons.

That's it. "No exemptions" means "we cannot exempt large cap mags like we did last time".

So a large cap magazine would be banned identically to the way assault weapons are.

Did they sieze assault weapons last time? Did they come for your guns? Did they force you to sell them to buyback programs?

No. They did not.

So this time around, they are saying large cap magazines should be treated EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE LAST TIME.

Since there was no cummin fer yer guns, since there was no mandatory buyback, then the NRA is full of shit and pouring a LOT OF PISS.

And now you fools are INVENTING shit to support that strong desire to believe the NRA.

I have extensively quoted the parts of the memo which support what I am saying.

You fools have taken a phrase completely out of context to support your gun grab fantasy.

First of all go fuck yourself with a tire iron for the "small words bullshit" Ive taken shits that are probably smarter than you, and more than likely more well mannered.

Second, your interpretation still does not fit the idea behind a "buyback with no exemptions." All the wordsmithing you do to get to your conclusion doesnt eliminate that fact.

The memo is a mental exercise trying to figure out how, if in any event at all, a new AWB would work. to them, the grandfathering of ownership of EITHER AW's or large cap mags (and btw, the large cap mag thing is basically them going into semi-automatic handguns, since they are the weapon of choice for criminals. ) Following the logic of the mental exercise, for ANY weapon ban to work, the magazines would have to be taken off the street. To do this, you have two choices, make them illegal and tell people to turn them in (confiscation) or make them illegal and purchase them from the populace during a given time window (our famous "buyback with no exemptions.)

And as before, go fuck yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

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:


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:




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.

So the premise is that only removing large capacity magazines from circulation would be effective, and the only thing to be effective would be a "buyback with no exemptions"

I disagree with your logic on this. As this is merely a mental exercise by some subset of DOJ (yes I know this isnt policy) One would have to assume they would go full bore on determining what would be effective.

If they realize that grandfathering exisitng magazines removed any effectiveness of the ban, logically the next step would be no grandfathering, and thus making said magazines illegal for personal ownership. At that point, instead of using the word "confiscate", as confiscation is without compensation, they made up a warm and fuzzy term "buybacks with no exemptions" to mean yes, the government is coming for your magazines, but hey! we will pay for them!

I will use small words, just for you.

The 1994 AWB exempted existing large cap magazines from being sold. You could buy a used large capacity magazine even after the AWB was passed.

Since there were millions of old mags lying around, and they were legal to sell, the AWB had no effect on gun crime. The reason is because large capacity magazines are involved in gun crime more than assault weapons are.

So the DOJ is saying if you want to have gun control that works, you have to do something about large capacity magazines.

So when they say "no exemptions", they are saying it is more important to take existing large capacity magazines off the streets than it is to remove assault weapons.

That's it. "No exemptions" means "we cannot exempt large cap mags like we did last time".

So a large cap magazine would be banned identically to the way assault weapons are.

Did they sieze assault weapons last time? Did they come for your guns? Did they force you to sell them to buyback programs?

No. They did not.

So this time around, they are saying large cap magazines should be treated EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE LAST TIME.

Since there was no cummin fer yer guns, since there was no mandatory buyback, then the NRA is full of shit and pouring a LOT OF PISS.

And now you fools are INVENTING shit to support that strong desire to believe the NRA.

I have extensively quoted the parts of the memo which support what I am saying.

You fools have taken a phrase completely out of context to support your gun grab fantasy.

You continue to prove the point you think you are disproving.
Hi cap mags manufactured prior to '94 were legal sell from 94-04. So were "assault weapons." There was no distinction in terms of grandfathering.
What does "no exemption" mean? Does it mean that they will not grandfather guns/mags made prior to some specific time? That would mean they would have to provide just compensation for a taking, under the Constitution.
Or does "no exemption" mean that everyone must turn in their hi cap mags and guns for just compensation? And how do you know? did you communicate with the authors of the memo?

 

[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.

Straw man.
Do you dispute that the term buy back could also include a mandatory buy back? Whether it is actually in the memo or not is irrelevant. As long as it could be construed to include that then the NRA is not wrong. They might be, or they might not be.

Do you even know what a strawman fallacy is? It is not a strawman to ask someone to support their claim.

The topic title does not say "could be", and neither did the NRA.

Show me the "mandatory".

 

[g5000]

So the premise is that only removing large capacity magazines from circulation would be effective, and the only thing to be effective would be a "buyback with no exemptions"

I disagree with your logic on this. As this is merely a mental exercise by some subset of DOJ (yes I know this isnt policy) One would have to assume they would go full bore on determining what would be effective.

If they realize that grandfathering exisitng magazines removed any effectiveness of the ban, logically the next step would be no grandfathering, and thus making said magazines illegal for personal ownership. At that point, instead of using the word "confiscate", as confiscation is without compensation, they made up a warm and fuzzy term "buybacks with no exemptions" to mean yes, the government is coming for your magazines, but hey! we will pay for them!

I will use small words, just for you.

The 1994 AWB exempted existing large cap magazines from being sold. You could buy a used large capacity magazine even after the AWB was passed.

Since there were millions of old mags lying around, and they were legal to sell, the AWB had no effect on gun crime. The reason is because large capacity magazines are involved in gun crime more than assault weapons are.

So the DOJ is saying if you want to have gun control that works, you have to do something about large capacity magazines.

So when they say "no exemptions", they are saying it is more important to take existing large capacity magazines off the streets than it is to remove assault weapons.

That's it. "No exemptions" means "we cannot exempt large cap mags like we did last time".

So a large cap magazine would be banned identically to the way assault weapons are.

Did they sieze assault weapons last time? Did they come for your guns? Did they force you to sell them to buyback programs?

No. They did not.

So this time around, they are saying large cap magazines should be treated EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE LAST TIME.

Since there was no cummin fer yer guns, since there was no mandatory buyback, then the NRA is full of shit and pouring a LOT OF PISS.

And now you fools are INVENTING shit to support that strong desire to believe the NRA.

I have extensively quoted the parts of the memo which support what I am saying.

You fools have taken a phrase completely out of context to support your gun grab fantasy.

You continue to prove the point you think you are disproving.
Hi cap mags manufactured prior to '94 were legal sell from 94-04. So were "assault weapons." There was no distinction in terms of grandfathering.
What does "no exemption" mean? Does it mean that they will not grandfather guns/mags made prior to some specific time? That would mean they would have to provide just compensation for a taking, under the Constitution.
Or does "no exemption" mean that everyone must turn in their hi cap mags and guns for just compensation? And how do you know? did you communicate with the authors of the memo?

How do I know? I read the memo! And I have quoted from it extensively. All you jackasses have done is extract a phrase completely out of context. I have provided the context of what "no exemptions" means.

How ironic you swallowed the NRA's piss and then ask how I know what the memo says.

 

[g5000]

First of all go fuck yourself with a tire iron for the "small words bullshit" Ive taken shits that are probably smarter than you, and more than likely more well mannered.

Second, your interpretation still does not fit the idea behind a "buyback with no exemptions." All the wordsmithing you do to get to your conclusion doesnt eliminate that fact.

The memo is a mental exercise trying to figure out how, if in any event at all, a new AWB would work. to them, the grandfathering of ownership of EITHER AW's or large cap mags (and btw, the large cap mag thing is basically them going into semi-automatic handguns, since they are the weapon of choice for criminals. ) Following the logic of the mental exercise, for ANY weapon ban to work, the magazines would have to be taken off the street. To do this, you have two choices, make them illegal and tell people to turn them in (confiscation) or make them illegal and purchase them from the populace during a given time window (our famous "buyback with no exemptions.)

And as before, go fuck yourself.

The DOJ memo is all about the latter. An assault weapons buyback program that would include the buyback of large capacity magazines.

There is absolutely nothing in the memo about a "mandatory" participation in the buyback program. That was a hallucination invented by the NRA and chugged en masse by idiots.

 

[martybegan]

First of all go fuck yourself with a tire iron for the "small words bullshit" Ive taken shits that are probably smarter than you, and more than likely more well mannered.

Second, your interpretation still does not fit the idea behind a "buyback with no exemptions." All the wordsmithing you do to get to your conclusion doesnt eliminate that fact.

The memo is a mental exercise trying to figure out how, if in any event at all, a new AWB would work. to them, the grandfathering of ownership of EITHER AW's or large cap mags (and btw, the large cap mag thing is basically them going into semi-automatic handguns, since they are the weapon of choice for criminals. ) Following the logic of the mental exercise, for ANY weapon ban to work, the magazines would have to be taken off the street. To do this, you have two choices, make them illegal and tell people to turn them in (confiscation) or make them illegal and purchase them from the populace during a given time window (our famous "buyback with no exemptions.)

And as before, go fuck yourself.

The DOJ memo is all about the latter. An assault weapons buyback program that would include the buyback of large capacity magazines.

There is absolutely nothing in the memo about a "mandatory" participation in the buyback program. That was a hallucination invented by the NRA and chugged en masse by idiots.

If they wanted to just say "buyback of large capacity magazines" they could have just said it. Instead they allude to the previous ban not working due to grandfathering of weapons and large cap magazines, and say the solution "may" be a buyback with no excemptions. Grandfathering was an exemption. So if you eliminate it, how do you get people to comply with the law?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Straw man.
Do you dispute that the term buy back could also include a mandatory buy back? Whether it is actually in the memo or not is irrelevant. As long as it could be construed to include that then the NRA is not wrong. They might be, or they might not be.

Do you even know what a strawman fallacy is? It is not a strawman to ask someone to support their claim.

The topic title does not say "could be", and neither did the NRA.

Show me the "mandatory".

It is a strawman to pretend the issue is the actual wording, when in fact the issue is what the wording covers.
Since you cannot answer my actual point, you must deflect to an irrelevance.
The truth is that "buy back" could mean a mandatory buy back, as was done in Australia.
Gun buyback program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

First of all go fuck yourself with a tire iron for the "small words bullshit" Ive taken shits that are probably smarter than you, and more than likely more well mannered.

Second, your interpretation still does not fit the idea behind a "buyback with no exemptions." All the wordsmithing you do to get to your conclusion doesnt eliminate that fact.

The memo is a mental exercise trying to figure out how, if in any event at all, a new AWB would work. to them, the grandfathering of ownership of EITHER AW's or large cap mags (and btw, the large cap mag thing is basically them going into semi-automatic handguns, since they are the weapon of choice for criminals. ) Following the logic of the mental exercise, for ANY weapon ban to work, the magazines would have to be taken off the street. To do this, you have two choices, make them illegal and tell people to turn them in (confiscation) or make them illegal and purchase them from the populace during a given time window (our famous "buyback with no exemptions.)

And as before, go fuck yourself.

The DOJ memo is all about the latter. An assault weapons buyback program that would include the buyback of large capacity magazines.

There is absolutely nothing in the memo about a "mandatory" participation in the buyback program. That was a hallucination invented by the NRA and chugged en masse by idiots.

The memo did not exclude the notion of "mandatory" either. This was doubtless done so idiots like you could continue to spout nonsense.