View Full Version : Feinstein suggests national compulsory buy back of "assault weapons"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNZbG6NMHFo
So how many guns would they be "buying/confiscating"?
patrick0685
12-22-2012, 22:51
that would suck for those that had guns...sold all of mine over the panic
ChunkyMonkey
12-22-2012, 22:52
Democrats [fail]
BushMasterBoy
12-22-2012, 22:57
Eff Feinstein. Period.
Hey morons, the violent crime rate has skyrocketed in Austrailia since they innvoluntarily bought back all those guns. Wonder why that wasn't mentioned.
Zundfolge
12-22-2012, 23:46
Hey morons, the violent crime rate has skyrocketed in Austrailia since they innvoluntarily bought back all those guns. Wonder why that wasn't mentioned.
Violent crime going up would be yet another pretext for more power transfered to the centralized authority and less liberty for the individual.
These people are pure evil. They hate liberty, they hate the sovereignty of the common man and they want to eliminate liberty and our constitution and make themselves the absolute rulers of every facet of our lives. They wish for our every moment to be completely under their control and our very existence to be at their whim.
These people don't give two shits about your health, safety or stopping criminal activity (other than thought crime against their absolute authority). They care only about their own power.
Feinstein and every other liberal is a traitor to the human race.
BPTactical
12-23-2012, 00:39
The REALLY fucked up part is they will "purchase" them from us for $300 bucks, turn them over to Holder and get $4000.00 ea from Mexico and balance the budget.
DeusExMachina
12-23-2012, 00:49
She can buy back my ammo, one bullet at a time.
Rucker61
12-23-2012, 08:10
So how many guns would they be "buying/confiscating"?
About 12.
Kraven251
12-23-2012, 08:24
None. It would never pass the House and runs a foul of the 2A pretty damn fast.
Beyond that the stripped lower receiver is the only piece considered the "gun."
Compulsory huh. Good luck with that Diane. I got an idea Diane, why don't you yourself Diane stand there at the 'compulsory' line instead of some lackey and we'll see what happens.
palepainter
12-23-2012, 10:27
So in theory, we will be buying back our own guns... That bitch can kiss our asses.
lllRorlll
12-23-2012, 23:42
that would suck for those that had guns...sold all of mine over the panic
.. As did i..
ringhilt
12-24-2012, 10:19
How 'bout this. If they want to buy them back. OK, but no taxpayer money can be used and they must buy at market value. (note market value is way up right now). If feinstein wants our guns, she can pony up the money to buy them. She's a multi-millionare. So is chucky shumer, bloomberg, fat ass michael moore, rosanne barr, obummer and moochele are also millionares. and all these hollywood actors and singers are also millionares. So let them pay for it.
Make the anti's put their money where their mouth is. If they really have such strong convictions about guns, then they can pay for it. Betcha they won't. They want the taxpayer to pay up. They want gun owners to compromise once again. Well, no more. Taxpayers have paid enough and gun owners have given enough.
Time for the lefties to payup or shut up. And to top it off all these elitist snobs need to also give up their armed security. They can have security, just not armed with guns. they can live the way the rest of us live.
Just my $1.02 worth.
One Word. Non-compliance.
This is a civil right issue.
milwaukeeshaker
12-24-2012, 10:38
Sold all of mine.
You guys owned guns? The HORROR!
Swinestain can avail herself of a compulsory buyback of my breakfast. It should be available for her consumption in about 8 hours...
How 'bout this. If they want to buy them back. OK, but no taxpayer money can be used and they must buy at market value. (note market value is way up right now). If feinstein wants our guns, she can pony up the money to buy them. She's a multi-millionare. So is chucky shumer, bloomberg, fat ass michael moore, rosanne barr, obummer and moochele are also millionares. and all these hollywood actors and singers are also millionares. So let them pay for it.
Make the anti's put their money where their mouth is. If they really have such strong convictions about guns, then they can pay for it. Betcha they won't. They want the taxpayer to pay up. They want gun owners to compromise once again. Well, no more. Taxpayers have paid enough and gun owners have given enough.
Time for the lefties to payup or shut up. And to top it off all these elitist snobs need to also give up their armed security. They can have security, just not armed with guns. they can live the way the rest of us live.
Just my $1.02 worth.
Makes too much sense, sorry.
My boats are playing jihad with my guns, the damn boats keeps sinking themselves and taking my guns with them.
Kraven251
12-24-2012, 17:08
So where is the ACLU in all of this ? They will defend WBC right to protest at funerals...why aren't they defending the 2A with the fervor they go after the 1A. I just haven't seen a peep out of them on this.
Goodburbon
12-24-2012, 17:43
People who are members of a gun centric forum who claim to have no guns, due to a "boating accident" or "selling them all" perplex me.
Are we already so afraid of our government that we can not admit publicly that we own arms? Yet you have no problems posting here?
I'm sorry, it's a running joke, haha. It's not funny anymore. It's sad.
losttrail
12-26-2012, 08:11
Sold all my guns and paid cash for all our families Christmas gifts. No credit card debt!
Don't want the hassle of firearms anymore.
But I still like reading and watching TV shows about them.
People who are members of a gun centric forum who claim to have no guns, due to a "boating accident" or "selling them all" perplex me.
Are we already so afraid of our government that we can not admit publicly that we own arms? Yet you have no problems posting here?
I'm sorry, it's a running joke, haha. It's not funny anymore. It's sad.
I'm thinking this is an instance where we do need to get up and do something then... "When people fear the government there is tyranny"- seems to me like a lot of folks on here are feeling the pressures of tyranny already. [Shake]
Every day I wake up and read more BS coming from the media and politicians. It makes me so mad. We'll see what actually comes down the pipeline in January but it's not looking good. Just the fact that they are "considering" this sickens me.
spqrzilla
12-26-2012, 12:25
If everyone who ever bought an AR got serious about writing to their legislators, we'd have this nonsense shut down immediately. And we'd put paid to the failed Brady Campaign/VPC people once and for all.
Zundfolge
12-26-2012, 13:36
So where is the ACLU in all of this ? They will defend WBC right to protest at funerals...why aren't they defending the 2A with the fervor they go after the 1A. I just haven't seen a peep out of them on this.
The ACLU is openly anti 2A. Here's what their official position is. (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment)
Second Amendment
Gun Control
Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
Kraven251
12-26-2012, 14:38
The ACLU is openly anti 2A. Here's what their official position is. (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment)
Yay! ...fucking wankers.
that would suck for those that had guns...sold all of mine over the panic
Interesting, so did I. Couldn't resist the markups!
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Yep, I wouldn't last 5 min in Congress... I'd be yelling for DiFi to be brought up on treason charges for infringing upon the constitutional rights of Americans...
http://www.chrysander.com/lebowski/walter_rules.jpg
funkymonkey1111
12-27-2012, 15:09
i'll be happy to sell them back all the guns they've sold to me, which have been exactly zero.
Not sure if this is the "main" Diane Fascistein AWB thread on AR-15.co, but here's an interesting viewpoint from a member on CRN. Opinons without just bashing?
Lets say Feinsteins bill gets passed in its current form, which probably won't imo, and the end game is to confiscate certain firearms (Assault Rifles) for law abiding citizens. One I don't see the feasibility of hiring enough federal agents to do this as the number of owners now far exceed bodies of what can be placed on the payroll. I could be wrong on that based purely on speculation. Two and probably the most important..is there enough money government (state or federal) can pay you to go to some ranch home in the boonies and acquire 3 registered assault rifles as well as a host of other weapons that is not "registered" by Bob Smith? Who knows what else he has in his possession. "Not no but HELL NO!" there isn't enough money. Talk about playing real life roulette as to if the next door you knock will be your last.
Barring some crazy executive order, I see strong 2nd amendment proponents (both political isles) laying down from the pressure resulting in the halt of manufacturing high capacity magazines and assault rifles. You and I both know that the piece of paper this law is written on won't mean shit. High capacity magazines will continue to be made via the black market. With regards to assault rifles....Nocoastpunk's post already speaks of the futility of writing "feel good" legislation with respect to firearm(s) and accessory bans.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.