Obama's Justice Department recommends gun confiscation

[Dubya]

..and registration is the first step.

Obama's Justice Department: Gun Control Won't Work Without 'Mandatory' Confiscation​

Ask Obama's Experts - YouTube

Just how much brain damage do you and the guy in the video have?

A gun buyback program is not "mandatory gun confiscation".

"Obama's Experts" just blew their own credibility out of the water and ricocheted off the moon!

What is a mandatory gun buy back, that's what the video said, not a voluntary buy back. Care to try again?

It's called lying on a video, so you right-wingers should know what lying is.

 

[Bigfoot]

You guys are missing the point! This crap Obama is trying to roll out on the graves of those poor kids up in Connecticut is just the beginning. This may take several years but stop kidding yourself. National registry started by universal mandatory background checks will lead to confiscation, which is where it's eventually headed. There isn't even any such thing as an "Assault weapon" that's a coined phrase to promote an agenda. But you guys believe it! what else are you going to believe. Anything your handlers tell you to is what.

If some idiot doesn't want to register their gun, I do more than confiscate, I'd prohibit them from owning weapons.

That makes you the idiot.

 

[Dubya]

You guys are missing the point! This crap Obama is trying to roll out on the graves of those poor kids up in Connecticut is just the beginning. This may take several years but stop kidding yourself. National registry started by universal mandatory background checks will lead to confiscation, which is where it's eventually headed. There isn't even any such thing as an "Assault weapon" that's a coined phrase to promote an agenda. But you guys believe it! what else are you going to believe. Anything your handlers tell you to is what.

If some idiot doesn't want to register their gun, I do more than confiscate, I'd prohibit them from owning weapons.

That makes you the idiot.

You've taken that job. You posted this stupid thread and it's been proven the word mandatory was made up. Show me where you quoted the word and didn't just post a lying video!

 

[OKTexas]

Just how much brain damage do you and the guy in the video have?

A gun buyback program is not "mandatory gun confiscation".

"Obama's Experts" just blew their own credibility out of the water and ricocheted off the moon!

LOL> WTF? Your're nuts!

Am I? Then it should be easy to prove it.

The guy in the video is from the NRA-ILA. Here is the link to the document he was talking about, found on their own site: http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Please show us where it says the Justice Dept recommends confiscating guns.

Quote the exact part.

Go on.

Try this one, from the doc.

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

Sounds a bit mandatory to me, how would you interpret no exemptions?

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

 

[Bigfoot]

If some idiot doesn't want to register their gun, I do more than confiscate, I'd prohibit them from owning weapons.

That makes you the idiot.

You've taken that job. You posted this stupid thread and it's been proven the word mandatory was made up. Show me where you quoted the word and didn't just post a lying video!

I have made my point several times in this thread. Idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You guys are missing the point! This crap Obama is trying to roll out on the graves of those poor kids up in Connecticut is just the beginning. This may take several years but stop kidding yourself. National registry started by universal mandatory background checks will lead to confiscation, which is where it's eventually headed. There isn't even any such thing as an "Assault weapon" that's a coined phrase to promote an agenda. But you guys believe it! what else are you going to believe. Anything your handlers tell you to is what.

If some idiot doesn't want to register their gun, I do more than confiscate, I'd prohibit them from owning weapons.

I'm doing neither.
I.m not going to register any firearm nor am I turning any in.

 

[g5000]

LOL> WTF? Your're nuts!

Am I? Then it should be easy to prove it.

The guy in the video is from the NRA-ILA. Here is the link to the document he was talking about, found on their own site: http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Please show us where it says the Justice Dept recommends confiscating guns.

Quote the exact part.

Go on.

Try this one, from the doc.

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

Sounds a bit mandatory to me, how would you interpret no exemptions?

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

The "no exemptions" refers to the exemptions in the 1995 AWB I mentioned earlier. Exemptions were made for existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines. You were still allowed to buy and sell them. "No exemptions" means you would not be able to buy and sell them. You could keep the ones you own, you just could not sell them.

Again, that is not confiscation.

Here is what the memo says before the part you quoted:

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. 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.

Any assault weapons ban will fail again if it exempts previously owned magazines and assault weapons.

So a buyback would be ineffective as well because an assault weapon owner could sell their assault weapon to the government and then just go out and buy another one.

Without an exemption, they would not be able to do so. Thus: "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."

The DOJ is recommending NOT exempting existing assault weapons and magazine from resale. This, coupled with a buyback, would reduce the availability of assault weapons.

 

[Dubya]

That makes you the idiot.

You've taken that job. You posted this stupid thread and it's been proven the word mandatory was made up. Show me where you quoted the word and didn't just post a lying video!

I have made my point several times in this thread. Idiot.

Your point in your thread is a lie.

Your point about banning guns is a lie.

How could a ban on guns be ratified when only 13 states are needed to stop it?

 

[OKTexas]

Am I? Then it should be easy to prove it.

The guy in the video is from the NRA-ILA. Here is the link to the document he was talking about, found on their own site: http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Please show us where it says the Justice Dept recommends confiscating guns.

Quote the exact part.

Go on.

Try this one, from the doc.

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

Sounds a bit mandatory to me, how would you interpret no exemptions?

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

The "no exemptions" refers to the exemptions in the 1995 AWB I mentioned earlier. Exemptions were made for existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines. You were still allowed to buy and sell them. "No exemptions" means you would not be able to buy and sell them. You could keep the ones you own, you just could not sell them.

Again, that is not confiscation.

Here is what the memo says before the part you quoted:

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. 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.

Any assault weapons ban will fail again if it exempts previously owned magazines and assault weapons.

So a buyback would be ineffective as well because an assault weapon owner could sell their assault weapon to the government and then just go out and buy another one.

Without an exemption, they would not be able to do so. Thus: "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."

The DOJ is recommending NOT exempting existing assault weapons and magazine from resale. This, coupled with a buyback, would reduce the availability of assault weapons.

Damn, gues you just have to give them away, but I doubt the courts will buy it anyway. Hell I don't think the dem senate will do it, they like their majority more.

 

[Dubya]

Try this one, from the doc.

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

Sounds a bit mandatory to me, how would you interpret no exemptions?

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

The "no exemptions" refers to the exemptions in the 1995 AWB I mentioned earlier. Exemptions were made for existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines. You were still allowed to buy and sell them. "No exemptions" means you would not be able to buy and sell them. You could keep the ones you own, you just could not sell them.

Again, that is not confiscation.

Here is what the memo says before the part you quoted:

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. 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.

Any assault weapons ban will fail again if it exempts previously owned magazines and assault weapons.

So a buyback would be ineffective as well because an assault weapon owner could sell their assault weapon to the government and then just go out and buy another one.

Without an exemption, they would not be able to do so. Thus: "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."

The DOJ is recommending NOT exempting existing assault weapons and magazine from resale. This, coupled with a buyback, would reduce the availability of assault weapons.

Damn, gues you just have to give them away, but I doubt the courts will buy it anyway. Hell I don't think the dem senate will do it, they like their majority more.

I take it as just a report doing an analysis.

I also take it that people in government are concerned about an increase in assault weapon incidents of mass murder.

 

[francoHFW]

OP-Pub fear mongering idiocy. Totally discredited. As always. Pub dupes!

 

[g5000]

Try this one, from the doc.

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

Sounds a bit mandatory to me, how would you interpret no exemptions?

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

The "no exemptions" refers to the exemptions in the 1995 AWB I mentioned earlier. Exemptions were made for existing assault weapons and large capacity magazines. You were still allowed to buy and sell them. "No exemptions" means you would not be able to buy and sell them. You could keep the ones you own, you just could not sell them.

Again, that is not confiscation.

Here is what the memo says before the part you quoted:

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. 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.

Any assault weapons ban will fail again if it exempts previously owned magazines and assault weapons.

So a buyback would be ineffective as well because an assault weapon owner could sell their assault weapon to the government and then just go out and buy another one.

Without an exemption, they would not be able to do so. Thus: "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."

The DOJ is recommending NOT exempting existing assault weapons and magazine from resale. This, coupled with a buyback, would reduce the availability of assault weapons.

Damn, gues you just have to give them away, but I doubt the courts will buy it anyway. Hell I don't think the dem senate will do it, they like their majority more.

I am opposed to an AWB. It is a stupid, feel-good "solution" that will accomplish nothing but government interference in commerce.

But I also hate the assholes who claim to speak on behalf of gun owners who willfully lie and get masses of rubes to trash the credibility of firearms defenders. It is because of them that gun control acts succeed. You cannot stand your ground and defend it when you have turned it to mud. You cannot keep your powder dry when you piss all over it.

 

[Bigfoot]

Because some of you guys are too dense to see the connection doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Obama's own people are telling him that without a mandatory buyback or confiscation the assault weapons ban he is pushing will not work. Of course he is still pushing it and it's to difficult for some of you nutters to grasp why.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course Obama is going to confiscate your guns. That is what we elected him to do

Time to start hoarding guns and ammo

 

[Bigfoot]

Of course Obama is going to confiscate your guns. That is what we elected him to do

Time to start hoarding guns and ammo

I don't need to.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course Obama is going to confiscate your guns. That is what we elected him to do

Time to start hoarding guns and ammo

I don't need to.

You can never have enough guns. Given the impending confiscation, I would trade in my kids College fund and buy more guns

You can't trust the Kenyan

 

[g5000]

Because some of you guys are too dense to see the connection doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Obama's own people are telling him that without a mandatory buyback or confiscation the assault weapons ban he is pushing will not work. Of course he is still pushing it and it's to difficult for some of you nutters to grasp why.

And yet you are still unable to quote the parts where this is all said in the memo.

Hmmmm...

As I said, people like you deserve to be lied to. And you deserve Obama.

 

[Dubya]

Because some of you guys are too dense to see the connection doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Obama's own people are telling him that without a mandatory buyback or confiscation the assault weapons ban he is pushing will not work. Of course he is still pushing it and it's to difficult for some of you nutters to grasp why.

You have two choices, Bigfoot in your Bigmouth! You can either quote the report where it mentions a mandatory buyback or don't quote it and be known as a liar.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is a certain demographic which will keep on bleevin the "Obama gun grab" bullshit. Obama's cummin fer yer gunz!

It's like some kind of genetic disorder.

Yes. While you libs keep your heads buried in the sand.."Oh stop it. That will never happen here"...I have been listening to this liberal mantra for over 30 years while libs incrementally remove personal liberties

 

[Bigfoot]

Of course Obama is going to confiscate your guns. That is what we elected him to do

Time to start hoarding guns and ammo

I don't need to.

You can never have enough guns. Given the impending confiscation, I would trade in my kids College fund and buy more guns

You can't trust the Kenyan

Yeah I know. He has flat out lied about everything he said he believed in that I had some respect for him for. Now he's just another lying scumbag to me.