Hillary Gun Confiscation Plan: "Like Cash For Clunkers"

[Kosh]

Rather than spend taxpayer money on buying back guns, better to spend taxpayer money in prosecuting those that have use them illegally.

Fixed it for you.

Under the Second Amendment, one cannot have a gun illegally, unless that gun is stolen from someone else, in which case, the crime is not being in possession of a gun, but being in possession of stolen property. Everywhere that government acts against the right of free citizens to possess arms, it is government that is acting illegally.

On the other hand, using a gun to commit a crime that involves genuinely and unjustifiably violating the rights or safety of another person is rightfully illegal, and that is where government has the legitimate authority to use taxpayers' resources to arrest and prosecute the criminal.

It is an unacceptable abuse of taxpayer resources to use these resources to deter citizens from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights. In fact, such abuse clearly constitutes malfeasance, and ought to result in any public servant who engages in it facing criminal prosecution.

18 USC 241.

And you succeed in only amplifying the ignorance and stupidity exhibited in post #24 by displaying your own ignorance of the law.

No one is 'conspiring' against anyone's rights.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

However this plan sounds like good news for the gangs, they can turn in their busted up and old weapons to get money to buy new ones..

 

[LOki]

Rather than spend taxpayer money on buying back guns, better to spend taxpayer money in prosecuting those that have use them illegally.

Fixed it for you.

Under the Second Amendment, one cannot have a gun illegally, unless that gun is stolen from someone else, in which case, the crime is not being in possession of a gun, but being in possession of stolen property. Everywhere that government acts against the right of free citizens to possess arms, it is government that is acting illegally.

On the other hand, using a gun to commit a crime that involves genuinely and unjustifiably violating the rights or safety of another person is rightfully illegal, and that is where government has the legitimate authority to use taxpayers' resources to arrest and prosecute the criminal.

It is an unacceptable abuse of taxpayer resources to use these resources to deter citizens from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights. In fact, such abuse clearly constitutes malfeasance, and ought to result in any public servant who engages in it facing criminal prosecution.

18 USC 241.

And you succeed in only amplifying the ignorance and stupidity exhibited in post #24 by displaying your own ignorance of the law.

No one is 'conspiring' against anyone's rights.

Really? The right in question is unambiguous-as is its status regarding infringement. And the orchestrated effort to deprive or otherwise interfere with the right is conspiracy.

 

[Stephanie]

Indeed our last great President. to what we have today, Obama who hates us and would love to see us disarmed and Hillary who doesn't care about us only her Power and wants to disarm us.

Reagan on Gun Control and Self-Defense
Posted by ACRU
Wednesday, April 25th, 2007


My thanks to blogger Mark Alexander and his Patriot Post for digging up this great quote from our last truly great president, Ronald Reagan, concerning gun control:

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

It seems to me that Reagan would have known all too well how to relate to last week’s massacre at Virginia Tech. After all, he said those words in 1983, after surviving John Hinckley’s assassination attempt in 1981.

Indeed, Reagan wasn’t a newcomer to his conviction. Back in 1975, then-Governor Reagan wrote:

“Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn’t due as much as anything to the criminal’s instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection.”

Yet, time after time, we Americans will cede our responsibility — and our rights — to the government in a desperate attempt to guarantee our safety. But the tradeoff is an illusion: we do not become more safe, and it is not free.

Again, Reagan speaks to this fact:

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.”

It may be that Americans are waking up to the Pyrrhic nature of gun control laws and will instead reassert their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. The State of Tennessee has certainly moved in the right direction here.

all of it here:
Reagan on Gun Control and Self-Defense :: The American Civil Rights Union

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I forgot about 'cash for clunkers'. The pinnacle of failure of Governance. It provided a subsidy for people to buy a new car in a specific date window. Individual car buyers, not being stupid, either accelerated or delayed their purchase decision so that they could get the subsidy to carry out a purchase decision they had already made. There was a boost in new car sales for a couple months, and then a deficit in new car sales for the following months. The end result was that no more new cars were bought than would have been bought without the program. It was just a random money transfer out of the national treasury.

Worse than that, it involved a massive destruction of wealth, in the form of perfectly-fine, used cars, that had to be traded in and destroyed in order to claim the subsidies on the new cars. Three billion dollars of taxpayer money was used to buy used cars, which were then destroyed. A perfect example of Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy put into practice. The net result was to leave the economy, as a whole, poorer by the value of the cars that were destroyed. This made the economy worse, not better.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary and the rest of the lawless lowlife scum gun control crowd can suck on the 2nd amendment.

 

[BluesLegend]

I forgot about 'cash for clunkers'. The pinnacle of failure of Governance. It provided a subsidy for people to buy a new car in a specific date window. Individual car buyers, not being stupid, either accelerated or delayed their purchase decision so that they could get the subsidy to carry out a purchase decision they had already made. There was a boost in new car sales for a couple months, and then a deficit in new car sales for the following months. The end result was that no more new cars were bought than would have been bought without the program. It was just a random money transfer out of the national treasury.

Worse than that, it involved a massive destruction of wealth, in the form of perfectly-fine, used cars, that had to be traded in and destroyed in order to claim the subsidies on the new cars. Three billion dollars of taxpayer money was used to buy used cars, which were then destroyed. A perfect example of Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy put into practice. The net result was to leave the economy, as a whole, poorer by the value of the cars that were destroyed. This made the economy worse, not better.

Did the liberals screw over the poor again with this?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

BOB BLAYLOCK SAID:

“Under the Second Amendment, one cannot have a gun illegally, unless that gun is stolen from someone else, in which case, the crime is not being in possession of a gun, but being in possession of stolen property.”

Wrong.

A prohibited person can come into illegal possession of a firearm via an intrastate sale, where a gun was sold to the prohibited person by a fellow state resident, and no background check is required. The prohibited person has taken illegal possession of a firearm that was not 'stolen.'

BOB BLAYLOCK SAID:

“Everywhere that government acts against the right of free citizens to possess arms, it is government that is acting illegally.”

Nonsense.

The courts determine whether or not a given firearm measure is Constitutional, where measures ruled to be in compliance with the Second Amendment do not manifest as government 'acting illegally.'

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear about what it says and what it means.

That we, the people, have foolishly allowed our courts, legislatures,and other public servants to illegally usurp the power to override the Constitution, they never have and never will legitimately or legally have this authority.

The Constitution is this nation's highest law, and without exception, every act of every public servant which goes against it is illegal.

BOB BLAYLOCK SAID:

“It is an unacceptable abuse of taxpayer resources to use these resources to deter citizens from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights. In fact, such abuse clearly constitutes malfeasance, and ought to result in any public servant who engages in it facing criminal prosecution.”

Wrong.

Voluntary gun buy-back programs are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, in no way 'interfering' with citizens' Second Amendment rights.

It is not the job of any part of government to buy people's property, even voluntarily, for the sake of keeping people from having this property; and it is not an appropriate use of taxpayer funds to use it for any such purpose.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hillary and the rest of the lawless lowlife scum gun control crowd can suck on the 2nd amendment.

 

[SwingVoter]

Gun buybacks started in this country in.....Baltimore. Was stopped there due to ineffectiveness, but didn't stop DC and Detroit from trying and wasting taxpayer $ on this. Putting the second amendment aside, this is "road to hell paved with good intentions" public policy. There's no data to suggest this would do a thing to reduce violent crime in this country.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Aroind here it's a $50 gift card for a long gun and $100 for handguns. Cards are generally from Walmart, Kmart, or other chain retailers.

Since most guns today go for 4-600 dollars for a hand gun and 800-1200 for a rifle....sounds like a typical government program.....

I'm waiting for one of those. My uncle has an old Marlin .22 rifle...it went for about $20 NEW, it's worth basically nothing now (cracked stock & bad barrel). if I can get $50 for it, I'll jump on that!

 

[jon_berzerk]

I dont see anything wrong with it as long as it isn't mandatory

i know some folks who stand out side government buy back programs

and offer more money then the government is offering to purchase certain firearms

they let the junk ones go to the city table

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

Gun buybacks started in this country in.....Baltimore. Was stopped there due to ineffectiveness, but didn't stop DC and Detroit from trying and wasting taxpayer $ on this. Putting the second amendment aside, this is "road to hell paved with good intentions" public policy. There's no data to suggest this would do a thing to reduce violent crime in this country.

as the old saying goes

the road to hell is paved

with liberal intentions

 

[Anathema]

I'm waiting for one of those. My uncle has an old Marlin .22 rifle...it went for about $20 NEW, it's worth basically nothing now (cracked stock & bad barrel). if I can get $50 for it, I'll jump on that!

This is the time of year, so keep your eyes and ears open. Just realize few give out cash.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is the time of year, so keep your eyes and ears open. Just realize few give out cash.

A Walmart or supermarket card would be fine....especially considering the Marlin is worth maybe $3 as scrap.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Hillary Clinton: Gun Confiscation Would Be Like A Government ‘Cash For Clunkers’

Hillary Clinton: Gun Confiscation Would Be Like A Government 'Cash For Clunkers' - Breitbart

"Clinton noted Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” car buyback program as a good example for gun control."

Hillary went on to cite Australia's and Canada's 'Buy Back' Program.

Yeah, the people Obama / Hillary call 'nuts' who 'cling to their guns and religion' are only clinging to those guns because they are waiting for Liberals like her to 'buy them back'!



Dear Hillary, every time a Liberal like you or Obama mention 'gun control' gun sales go through the roof!

And the money for the buyback comes from where?

 

[Anathema]

i know some folks who stand out side government buy back programs

and offer more money then the government is offering to purchase certain firearms

they let the junk ones go to the city table

We have that here as well. The PD doesn't like it but so long as the paperwork is filled out, there's little they can do.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun buybacks started in this country in.....Baltimore. Was stopped there due to ineffectiveness, but didn't stop DC and Detroit from trying and wasting taxpayer $ on this. Putting the second amendment aside, this is "road to hell paved with good intentions" public policy. There's no data to suggest this would do a thing to reduce violent crime in this country.

The “good intentions” are not even genuine. At this point, there is simply no excuse for public servants servants be seeking to disarm us, their rightful masters, under the fraudulent guise of “protecting” us; and certainly no excuse for them to be wasting taxpayers' wealth to this end.

 

[Star]

'Hillary Gun Confiscation Plan: "Like Cash For Clunkers"'

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

No one seeks to "confiscate" guns, including Clinton.

Maybe you should have watched the Democrat debates.

I was one of the record number of viewers that watched the Dem debate, I'm pretty sure I didn't hear the words ban all guns, confiscate guns, mandatory buyback program...etc, but in case I missed it, below is the transcript of the part of the Dem debate in which gun policy was being debated. How in your perceivers mind do you perceive any of the candidates are advocating for confiscating guns?

BTW Australia only bans a few types of guns, Republicans, rightwingers, and the NRA dupes are just making stuff up. Get a clue dupes, the dupers are duping you - again.

The success of the Australian commonsense gun laws are a good example of how to reduce gun violence, but many of the parts of Australia's gun laws will never fly in this country, even though Australia's gun laws would have zero-----zero effect on 68% of us and little to no effect on about 75% of us.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/

COOPER: Senator Webb, thank you very much.

Let's move on to some of the most pressing issues facing our country right now, some of the biggest issues right now in the headlines today. We're going to start with guns. The shooting in Oregon earlier this month, once again it brought the issue of guns into the national conversation. Over the last week, guns have been the most discussed political topic on Facebook by two to one.

Senator Sanders, you voted against the Brady bill that mandated background checks and a waiting period. You also supported allowing riders to bring guns in checked bags on Amtrak trains. For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Now, you say you're reconsidering that. Which is it: shield the gun companies from lawsuits or not?

SANDERS: Let's begin, Anderson, by understanding that Bernie Sanders has a D-minus voting rating (ph) from the NRA. Let's also understand that back in 1988 when I first ran for the United States Congress, way back then, I told the gun owners of the state of Vermont and I told the people of the state of Vermont, a state which has virtually no gun control, that I supported a ban on assault weapons. And over the years, I have strongly avoided instant background checks, doing away with this terrible gun show loophole. And I think we've got to move aggressively at the federal level in dealing with the straw man purchasers.

Also I believe, and I've fought for, to understand that there are thousands of people in this country today who are suicidal, who are homicidal, but can't get the healthcare that they need, the mental healthcare, because they don't have insurance or they're too poor. I believe that everybody in this country who has a mental crisis has got to get mental health counseling immediately. COOPER: Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?

SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't.

On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, is Bernie Sanders tough enough on guns?

CLINTON: No, not at all. I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country...

(APPLAUSE)

... supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do.

Senator Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill. Since it was passed, more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. He also did vote, as he said, for this immunity provision. I voted against it. I was in the Senate at the same time. It wasn't that complicated to me. It was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers. And we need to stand up and say: Enough of that. We're not going to let it continue.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: We're going to bring you all in on this. But, Senator Sanders, you have to give a response.

SANDERS: As a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence that we are seeing.

I believe that there is a consensus in this country. A consensus has said we need to strengthen and expand instant background checks, do away with this gun show loophole, that we have to address the issue of mental health, that we have to deal with the strawman purchasing issue, and that when we develop that consensus, we can finally, finally do something to address this issue.

COOPER: Governor O'Malley, you passed gun legislation as governor of Maryland, but you had a Democratic-controlled legislature. President Obama couldn't convince Congress to pass gun legislation after the massacres in Aurora, in Newtown, and Charleston. How can you?

O'MALLEY: And, Anderson, I also had to overcome a lot of opposition in the leadership of my own party to get this done. Look, it's fine to talk about all of these things -- and I'm glad we're talking about these things -- but I've actually done them.

We passed comprehensive gun safety legislation, not by looking at the pollings or looking at what the polls said. We actually did it. And, Anderson, here tonight in our audience are two people that make this issue very, very real. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips are here from Colorado. And their daughter, Jessie, was one of those who lost their lives in that awful mass shooting in Aurora.

Now, to try to transform their grief, they went to court, where sometimes progress does happen when you file in court, but in this case, you want to talk about a -- a rigged game, Senator? The game was rigged. A man had sold 4,000 rounds of military ammunition to this -- this person that killed their daughter, riddled her body with five bullets, and he didn't even ask where it was going.

And not only did their case get thrown out of court, they were slapped with $200,000 in court fees because of the way that the NRA gets its way in our Congress and we take a backseat. It's time to stand up and pass comprehensive gun safety legislation as a nation.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Sanders, I want you to be able to respond, 30 seconds.

SANDERS: I think the governor gave a very good example about the weaknesses in that law and I think we have to take another look at it. But here is the point, Governor. We can raise our voices, but I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not.

Our job is to bring people together around strong, commonsense gun legislation. I think there is a vast majority in this country who want to do the right thing, and I intend to lead the country in bringing our people together.

O'MALLEY: Senator -- Senator, excuse me.

(CROSSTALK)

O'MALLEY: Senator, it is not about rural -- Senator, it was not about rural and urban.

SANDERS: It's exactly about rural.

O'MALLEY: Have you ever been to the Eastern Shore? Have you ever been to Western Maryland? We were able to pass this and still respect the hunting traditions of people who live in our rural areas.

SANDERS: Governor...

O'MALLEY: And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.

SANDERS: Well, as somebody who has a D-minus voting record...

(CROSSTALK)

O'MALLEY: And I have an F from the NRA, Senator.

SANDERS: I don't think I am pandering. But you have not been in the United States Congress.

O'MALLEY: Well, maybe that's a healthy thing.

(LAUGHTER)

SANDERS: And when you want to, check it out. And if you think -- if you think that we can simply go forward and pass something tomorrow without bringing people together, you are sorely mistaken.

COOPER: Let me bring in somebody who has a different viewpoint. Senator Webb, your rating from the NRA, you once had an A rating from the NRA. You've said gun violence goes down when more people are allowed to carry guns. Would encouraging more people to be armed be part of your response to a mass shooting?

WEBB: Look, there are two fundamental issues that are involved in this discussion. We need to pay respect to both of them. The first is the issue of who should be kept from having guns and using firearms. And we have done not a good job on that.

A lot of them are criminals. And a lot of the people are getting killed are members of gangs inside our urban areas. And a lot of them are mentally incapacitated. And the shooting in Virginia Tech in '07, this individual had received medical care for mental illness from three different professionals who were not allowed to share the information.

So we do need background checks. We need to keep the people who should not have guns away from them. But we have to respect the tradition in this country of people who want to defend themselves and their family from violence.

COOPER: Senator...

WEBB: May I? People are going back and forth here for 10 minutes here. There are people at high levels in this government who have bodyguards 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The average American does not have that, and deserves the right to be able to protect their family.

COOPER: Senator -- Governor Chafee, you have an F rating from the NRA, what do you think about what Senator Webb just said?

CHAFEE: Yes, I have a good record of voting for gun commonsense safety legislation, but the reality is, despite these tragedies that happen time and time again, when legislators step up to pass commonsense gun safety legislation, the gun lobby moves in and tells the people they're coming to take away your guns.

And, they're successful at it, in Colorado and others states, the legislators that vote for commonsense gun safety measures then get defeated. I even saw in Rhode Island. So, I would bring the gun lobby in and say we've got to change this. Where can we find common ground? Wayne Lapierre from the NRA, whoever it is, the leaders. Come one, we've go to change this. We're not coming to take away your guns, we believe in the Second Amendment, but let's find common ground here.

COOPER: I want to...

O'MALLEY: ...Anderson, when the NRA wrote to everyone in our state -- when the NRA wrote to members in our state and told people with hunting traditions lies about what our comprehensive gun safety legislation is, I wrote right back to them and laid out what it actually did. And that's why, not only did we pass it, but the NRA didn't...

SANDERS: ...Excuse me...

O'MALLEY: ...dare to petition a referendum...

SANDERS: ...I want to make...

O'MALLEY: ...Because we built a public consensus...
.

 

[deltex1]

A lot of cities have already implemented programs like this. They've been doing it for the past 30 years.

ETA: I've never looked into whether or not such domestic programs were efficacious against violent crime. Finding objective studies about guns is hard enough as it is.

Australia is claiming success, though.

I am sure a killer, having sold a gun to the gummint, will never be violent again. Simple logic.

 

[Rustic]

Simple, guns are not even a problem in this country. A nonissue, the country has many more bigger fish to fry.

Things are fine the way they are, sh!t happens.