Possible prevention of total Assault Weapons Ban?

W

White Rook 2348

Inactive
Had a long and heated debate with a fellow I share an office with regarding Assault Weapons. He suggested a possible solution to the Assault Weapons problem, which I found interesting. See what you think.

We agreed that the handwritting is on the wall regarding Assault Weapon ownership. The days are numbered. On the horizon can be seen:
* FUTURE BAN ON SALE & MANUFACTURE
* REGISTRATION
* VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OR FORCED
CONFISCATION.


They will justify these steps in order to:

"REMOVE THESE DANGEROUS WEAPONS FROM
OUR STREETS (CRIMINALS), AND MAKE
AMERICA A SAFER PLACE FOR OUR CHILDREN"


There may be a better way to remove these dangerous weapons from nuts and criminals!


" BUY EM! "

The anti-gun forces claim that they really only want to take the assault weapons away from the "bad guys", but since they can't tell who the "bad guys" are you take them ALL away. Well, .......... .

What if the Government offered to buy assault weapons for $3000.00 each. "THREE DAY ONLY PROGRAM". "NO QUESTIONS ASKED". Those that don't want to sell theirs, no problem, keep em. Second amendment rights not infringed upon at all. Those that want 3000 bucks, bring em on down.

What would this accomplish?

Those of us which enjoy shooting our assault weapons would keep them. No problem! The criminal element however has no love of these weapons, and they don't care about issues like the Constitution or future government oppression. All they will see is 3000 bucks,.......... assault weapon sold! Everyone wins! Fewer weapons in the hands of nuts and criminals. No rights violated.

Expensive? Sure, but how much money have we spent (are spending) in Kosovo? How much is an M1A1 tank? How much will we spend for new cops needed when the confiscation begins and fighting breaks out?

Easy, sure fire, no costs? NO!

* NO MORE IMPORTED OR MANUFACTURED
* $3000 PER WEAPON PAID
* POSSIBLE INCREASE IN STOLEN WEAPONS

This would be announced as a three day program only. You have three days to bring the weapon in and collect. (The truth is it could be run again every 3 - 5 years or so)

I doubt there would be a surge in stealing of assault weapons. Most lawfull people keep them well locked up as it is. They won't be easier to steal if this was instituted.

3000 bucks would be very attractive to the gangbanger with a MAK 90 in his trunk. They do not see these weapons as anything more than "tools". They can always use something else. No big deal!

The bottom line is we assault weapons owners are going to loose them if things continue on the course they are now. Something like this would make an effort to take them away from the right people, the people they need to be taken away from. It's a shame they would be paid for it, but that is the incentive that would make it work. What will motivate the criminal element? Money!

What do you all think? Is there a way for us to keep our weapons, or is the fight comming and we need to start making sand bags and loading mags. Rejection of a program like this by the government would once and for all exhibit to everyone that they are not really interested in reducing crime, but totally disarming the people of the United States one type of weapon at a time.


White Rook 2348: Clear
 
Uh, no ... This only plays into the hands of the gun-grabbers. Y'see, eventually they all will get sold to the gov't. (you've outlawed the importation and manufacture, y'see) As long as no *new* ones are being made, they'd love that. They would simply make it illegal to pass it on to your kid. (Been there, done that, live in California - See SB23, the only thing left out is the buy-back)

Besides, why should I give up my right to purchase another one if I wish? Why on earth would anyone want to comprimise on the RKBA in this manner?
----
I know not what course others may take, as for me, give me liberty or give me death! RKBA!
 
TR,

I agree with you. Remember this idea came from a non-gun person (not anti-gun). He looked at the problem using logic, not anti-gun garbage. He said; " IF it's not possible to take them away from the bad element by force, and they won't just give them up, offer them something they want for them. Money! Why doesn't the Government offer to buy the weapons. If the dollar figure is high enough, they will come."

The problem is you have to keep them from getting more, which results in a ban on manufacture and import. Both of these are comming by the way, we just don't know it yet.

Regards,


White Rook 2348: Clear
 
If the government said we will provide you with a place to live and food as long as you give up all freedom, would you? HELL NO I would not sell my wifes RG .25 ACP peice of crap for $10,000 if it meant giving up my choice to buy another one for $.50, heck this one was give to me.

Later
Daren
 
White Rook 2348, your friend's logical error is the premise that the "assault weapons" are the problem. They're not. What if we said we'll give every criminal $3000 to stop being a criminal? Pretty stupid idea, huh?
 
EWOK,

My friend makes no such premise, it is our own government making this statement and moving quickly on it. It is the american people which are buying it.

Since it appears I must defend my friend, just let me say that I really appreciated his attempt to reason this thing to some sort of solution. He could care less one way or the other. He does not have guns doesn't care if I do. He is however a good measure of John Doe average america and they believe what they have been told by the media and government. I admire his desire to reach a solution which makes some sense from his stand point. You know it is easy to shoot one's mouth off about liberty and standing ready to die, but that is the beauty of this country, talk is free and such things really require little actual thought.

Do yourselves a favor, don't bother trying to convince me, I'm easy, already on your side.


Regards,

White Rook 2348: Clear
 
White Rook, I see the folly of my ways ... I misread your post... but yes, as you have stated it would be folly, for this element would simply take the $3000 and go purchase another for $1500 ...

---
RKBA!
 
I would like to commend White Rook's colleague. He recognizes that good people with guns are NOT the threat.

The fact that a non-gun owner would separate the gun from the evil doer is of great value. Let's be gentle to someone who already - even as a non-gun owner - is on our side to *some* extent.

Perhaps if we give such well-intentioned people the additional information they need they will become a bit more practical.

Remember, some of them vote!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 11, 1999).]
 
How about this?Instead of The goverment buying up guns they take the money and arm the would be victoms.Alot of criminals would think twice or wind up in a bag.Pretty soon alot less crime on the streets. :)

me
 
Rook,

Ewok is right: the problem is not the guns, its the criminals. The best "cure" for this type of thinking is to take your friend shooting and let him figure it out. If he doesn't want to go, I'd say he's a closet liberal (i.e. focusing on "things" as problems and "solutions" as another government program), IMO.

Regards,

Albin
 
Put this in your pipe and smoke it!

Undo your belt, unsnap your trousers, and as you bend over away from the bureaucrats, slide your trousers down and yell loudly..."Confiscate this!!!!"

Listen people, you have to start acting like FREEDOM FIGHTERS here, not a bunch of lackies who'd give up their rights no matter what the price. Our forefathers gave their BLOOD for our freedom. We cannot be suckered into giving any of it up.

It is this divide and conquer tactic that so many people are hypnotized by that nearly makes me puke. WAKE UP FOLKS!!!
 
Not another "reasonable compromise" from one of our own. There are too many flaws with this premise to even begin with. But how about this for a start:
1. Who defines, and how is "Assault Weapon" defined
2. More tax dollars being mispend.
3. What would it accomplish? I don't believe that your premise about crooks turning in theirs to necessarily be correct.
4. What do we ban after "assault weapons" are no longer legal to own?

You are right that we will probably eventually loose this fight (to own AR's/evil guns) if things do not turn around. But for me I would rather have fought a good fight and lost than to have compromised.
Rob

------------------
It's amazing what a large group of stupid people can accomplish.
-----------------



[This message has been edited by Rob62 (edited August 12, 1999).]
 
How about going with my solution? F-U, NO!

Absolutely no more compromises... now whatsoever! People that are willing to compromise their rights away are just like frogs that will let you cook them to death by slowly raising the temperature.
 
ProfJava,
No flame intended here, there's no doubt were on the same side but what the heck does "are just like frogs that will let you cook them to death by slowly raising the temperature." mean. (BTW I love that phrase and I don't know why) That's one of the most abstract analogies I have ever heard. Or maybe I'm just too far out of it to understand it.
Rob

------------------
It's amazing what a large group of stupid people can accomplish.
-----------------



[This message has been edited by Rob62 (edited August 13, 1999).]
 
I have already stated on another post my views. Go ahead Feinstein and Fellow Comrades in the Peoples Congress of Amerika. Pass a national confiscation act now of all guns. I am tired of the suspense. Lets get it on now!Lets make 1999 the year of decision either way for America or Amerika. Another 2cents of my Phoney Reserve Money.
 
Rob 62
The frog in the pot of water analogy is used to illustrate the way we are losing our 2nd ammendment rights one degree at a time. It's being done so slowly that lots of folks don't even realize what's happening, just like the frog that is slowly being boiled alive.

------------------
Just one of the Good Guys

[This message has been edited by Good Guy (edited August 14, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top