Obama supports gun confiscation
Well, he says he supports Australia’s gun laws and they confiscated guns.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 23rd, 2015 at 9:10 pm
He also complains about people panic buying.
Gee Mr. President, maybe people won’t go out and rush to buy guns if you weren’t up there talking about how great laws that confiscated all semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns were. Especially after a shooting where the murderous mutant used a handgun.
June 24th, 2015 at 12:50 am
I suppose you could call the Australian experience “confiscation” – there was certainly no option to keep the guns.
It would be better called “compulsory acquisition” as gun owners WERE compensated for the loss of their newly illegal property.
This is why the hoplophobes get away with calling it a “buy back”, even though nobody can explain how the government could “buy back” that which they never owned.
June 24th, 2015 at 1:30 am
Its as good as confiscation (presuming no expansion of the deficit) when we’re forced give them the money to buy our stuff from us. By force.
June 24th, 2015 at 7:57 am
Yeah, because the bad thing about confiscation is that the gun owners wouldn’t be paid. The key part is personal property is being forcibly taken.
It’s not like the State is throwing so much money at the gun ownerst hat they’re willingly handing it over.
Espeically since the *whole* point is that said owner would be unable to replace the given property.
Which makes the whole point of “fair compensation” a farce. What’s the market value for something that the goverment says is illegal to own?
June 24th, 2015 at 8:26 am
Mr Evilwrench: Yep, I wasn’t happy about paying myself to give up my guns. In total, I was about $12,000 ahead, but left with no handguns above .38, or any semi-auto rifles.
The_Jack:
I concede your point, but that’s not how it was done in Oz.
The Oz government paid gun owners fair retail value as measured prior to the new law. The determined value was appealable, but in general, they were pretty good about it. If you had a receipt or a recent valuation (say for insurance purposes), they would pay that amount without any argument.
In addition, if a gun owner surrendered their license for a minimum of five years (it might have been seven), ALL their gun related stuff was purchased by the government – reloading equipment, holsters, ammunition & components, spare parts etc.
The whole deal was accompanied by an amnesty. No questions were asked about unregistered firearms surrendered. (Oz has had full registration for a long time) There were news reports at the time of mor than one person turning up at a police station with truck mounted quad 40mm Bofors AA guns, and being paid a LOT of money for them.
The whole deal cost the taxpayers a lot of money – much more than budgeted – and it was funded by a short term (multi-year) increase in the Medicare levy (income tax) on all Australians.
June 24th, 2015 at 10:08 am
“The Oz government paid gun owners fair retail value as measured prior to the new law. The determined value was appealable, but in general, they were pretty good about it.”
Translation: Sure they took our property with force but they wouldn’t arrest us if we complied!
How generous of them. And they gave the the value* of the goods… not that you *could* replace them.
*Value determined by cost before it was banned. Which I suppose is nice if you had a time machine.
Heck BY DEFINITION the State will *not* pay the replacement cost of any confiscated guns. Because that means that the citizen would be able to -well- purchase replacement guns.
June 24th, 2015 at 11:04 am
As lately reported, the criminal perp in S.C. told a friend his target would be the church because he knew there was no armed security, i.e., , a gun free zone. That being the common denominator to aid and abet mass murderers, their imposition will continue. Oh yes, Obama is for gun confiscation because: ONLY YOUR ENEMY WANTS YOU DISARMED.
June 24th, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Well the fact that they paid other peoples money for them doesn’t change anything. Government says you can’t have them. Government takes them away.
I’d consider calling it anything other than confiscation a pointless exercise in semantics.
As for the president, he was with the Joyce foundation for several years as I recall. I doubt there is any gun control scheme he would have a problem with.