Biden admits truth Finally amazing

[Minister of Truth]

First of all, I am not a progressive. I hold most of them in almost as much disdain as I do your ilk.

Second of all, he doesn't need my permission.

He needs authorization from the government whose job it is to determine such things based on several factors including public safety and the common good.

If the government feels that AR-15's are not necessary to protect one's home and/or that owners should register them with ATF, then that's just the way it is.

Douchebags like you don't get to pick and choose which laws you'll obey and which ones you won't.

That's why I don't pick and choose constitutional amendments.

[Saudade]

I partially read that article. Still doesn't answer my question.

In a typical gun buyback program, there isn't typically much paperwork involved, and since most states don't have a gun registry, the ownership of a weapon isn't always known.

A lot of states just have a permit program, where you register for a gun permit, but that isn't necessarily tied to a single weapon. If you purchased the weapon online and received it from a FFL, the FFL will have the permit, but the state won't necessarily have access to that information.

Also, if a gun is stolen in a state with a registry but then taken to a different state with a gun buyback program to be turned in there, that state won't have access to that information either.

The most obvious cases of weapons that are stolen and turned into buyback programs are the valuable ones. No one with a decent amount of knowledge about guns would turn in a Colt Python to a buyback program, for example, since they are worth far more than any typical buyback stipend. Yet, they've been turned in before and destroyed.

Yet, the issue goes beyond this. Even though police have access to at least some data on ownership of weapons usually, they don't typically check the ownership of the weapons turned in to see if it matches who turned it in. Yet, the same police departments do often check if pawn shops have stolen guns or not.

And of course, the final issue is that a stolen weapon could have been used in a crime. So a weapon turned in to buyback program only to be destroyed shortly thereafter is an easy way for a criminal to cover his/her tracks.

[Saudade]

Join us, Woko.

Um... ok?

[AProudLefty]

Um... ok?

I guess it's ok for you to join us, the truth group?

[Saudade]

I guess it's ok for you to join us, the truth group?

If you're pro-gun, you should understand why gun buyback programs are a problem, if not just for the fact that it's a matter of public money being used to incentivize stealing.

[AProudLefty]

If you're pro-gun, you should understand why gun buyback programs are a problem, if not just for the fact that it's a matter of public money being used to incentivize stealing.

Do the gun owners have a choice to sell their guns?

[Saudade]

Do the gun owners have a choice to sell their guns?

The ones who voluntarily sell their weapons, sure. But again, because no real effort is made to make sure that the guns being turned in aren't stolen should tell you that the real motivation for gun buyback programs has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.

[AProudLefty]

The ones who voluntarily sell their weapons, sure. But again, because no real effort is made to make sure that the guns being turned in aren't stolen should tell you that the real motivation for gun buyback programs has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.

So there is no gun confiscation.

[Saudade]

So there is no gun confiscation.

In the context of the video, the Biden policy being discussed is that you either turn in your AR-15 to get the stipend, or you register the gun with the ATF. Noir then mentions the tax involved. When you register a firearm with the ATF, a significant fee or fees are involved. It varies by the weapon, but an example is the "tax stamp" that costs $200 for a short barrel rifle or a silencer. What the ATF would specifically charge for registering an AR-15 remains to be seen, but the amount could be exceptionally high if Biden's administration really wants to muscle people into the "voluntary" buyback.

It's a lot like the ACA's previous tax on not having healthcare coverage. Technically, you could say that the ACA still allowed you to not get healthcare insurance, but you had to pay progressively higher fees for each year you went without coverage.

So, given the context Noir is discussing, this particular buyback proposal is only voluntary in the technical sense. There is still coercion involved through a tax or fee, and depending on how high it will be, the coercion could render its voluntary status laughable. Therefore, calling it confiscation is relevant if the fee is exceptionally high.

Also, by making all those who retain their AR-15s register with the ATF, that gives the government the future option of forcibly confiscating these rifles. This is basically what Australia did after the Port Arthur massacre. Before the massacre, all rifles had been registered with their government, and then they confiscated all of the rifles on that registry with a "buyback program". There was no option to refuse that buyback.

[AProudLefty]

In the context of the video, the Biden policy being discussed is that you either turn in your AR-15 to get the stipend, or you register the gun with the ATF. Noir then mentions the tax involved. When you register a firearm with the ATF, a significant fee or fees are involved. It varies by the weapon, but an example is the "tax stamp" that costs $200 for a short barrel rifle or a silencer. What the ATF would specifically charge for registering an AR-15 remains to be seen, but the amount could be exceptionally high if Biden's administration really wants to muscle people into the "voluntary" buyback.

It's a lot like the ACA's previous tax on not having healthcare coverage. Technically, you could say that the ACA still allowed you to not get healthcare insurance, but you had to pay progressively higher fees for each year you went without coverage.

So, given the context Noir is discussing, this particular buyback proposal is only voluntary in the technical sense. There is still coercion involved through a tax or fee, and depending on how high it will be, the coercion could render its voluntary status laughable. Therefore, calling it confiscation is relevant if the fee is exceptionally high.

Also, by making all those who retain their AR-15s register with the ATF, that gives the government the future option of forcibly confiscating these rifles. This is basically what Australia did after the Port Arthur massacre. Before the massacre, all rifles had been registered with their government, and then they confiscated all of the rifles on that registry with a "buyback program". There was no option to refuse that buyback.

Thank you but still no gun confiscation.

[Saudade]

Thank you but still no gun confiscation.

Well, it's good to see you won't let principles get in the way of your partisanship.

[AProudLefty]

Well, it's good to see you won't let principles get in the way of your partisanship.

Thank you. I hope the same for you.

[Bulletbob]

Total numbers have nothing to do with it.

Mass shooters and psychopaths love assault style rifles and that's more than enough reason to ban them.

Just because a bunch of selfish, right-wing, macho idiot redneck gun-goobers, barrel-strokers and trigger-lickers don't like the idea of being told which guns they can and can't own with zero regard for putting public safety over and above their own selfish wants, doesn't mean jack shit.

When the govt says give them up, you'll give them up.

And that day is coming.

so public safety is your main concern , so cars should be limited to not being able to go faster then the speed limit . and all knifes should have rounded points and dull edges and hammers and clubs should be banned ,
Booze should also be banned to prevent drunk drivers and fatty foods and salt should be banned also as all of them are clearly public safety issues and harmful to the public.

not to mention that democrats recently decriminalized hard drugs in some states should they not be banned along with cigarettes as they are both clearly a threat to public safety would you not agree .

[RB 60]

Total numbers have nothing to do with it.

Mass shooters and psychopaths love assault style rifles and that's more than enough reason to ban them.

Just because a bunch of selfish, right-wing, macho idiot redneck gun-goobers, barrel-strokers and trigger-lickers don't like the idea of being told which guns they can and can't own with zero regard for putting public safety over and above their own selfish wants, doesn't mean jack shit.

When the govt says give them up, you'll give them up.

And that day is coming.

That day won't come in my lifetime...or yours. Bank on it.
But if it does, there will be a hell of a lot of lawbreakers.
Are you willing to join the "charge" to confiscate MY guns?

[katzgar]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-adm...132315824.html

you are just another low IQ opioid addict