- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,193
how does this guy compare to donald "take the guns first ask questions later" trump?
I think you can answer that. He doesn't.
how does this guy compare to donald "take the guns first ask questions later" trump?
I wonder how many who are LEO's would refuse such an unlawful order and or refuse any order to disarm americans?? It would be very interesting to see if a local or state LEO and a Fed Agent stand off against each other trying to arrest each other as well.... The Sh$$ would hit the fan very fast and really take a turn down hill...
... where's the ban on alcohol...?
We tried that once. Didn't work out so well. ...
As others have pointed out, don't use their language of "buy back" as it implies that the guns were theirs to begin with. It's a forced confiscation with an arbitrary level of compensation for lost property (possibly nominal) from the government. More simply, it would be a "gun confiscation" law.Buy back guns? Has anyone told this twit that according to the FBI there are an estimated 33,000 violent street gangs with an estimated 1.4 million members. I wonder how many of them will be lining up to sell their guns back?
(and, welcome to MDS )
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Good question. I think some would quit, but others would do as told, to keep their jobs, and on grounds that the people voted in the politicians, and the judges who the politicians appointed said it's lawful. Look what 4th Circuit, now run by liberals, did with our lawsuit against FSA2013.
Good question. I think some would quit, but others would do as told, to keep their jobs, and on grounds that the people voted in the politicians, and the judges who the politicians appointed said it's lawful. Look what 4th Circuit, now run by liberals, did with our lawsuit against FSA2013.
As others have pointed out, don't use their language of "buy back" as it implies that the guns were theirs to begin with. It's a forced confiscation with an arbitrary level of compensation for lost property (possibly nominal) from the government. More simply, it would be a "gun confiscation" law.
(and, welcome to MDS )
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Kind of like "red flag". It focuses on the warning sign with an attention grabbing term, but fails to note that the prescription is a gun confiscation by law enforcement without an immediate ability to challenge the claim.It's a critical distinction.
Equally important, you can't "buy" something that the owner refuses to "sell."
Even in real estate eminent domain proceedings it's not referred to as a "buy back," a "purchase," or "sale." It's a taking followed by "just compensation." But unlike real estate, a banned firearm that can't be replaced can't be compensated for, at any price. It's priceless.
The term, "buy back" must be another one of those creative, phony terms that the Anti's conjured up to try to soften the blow and make confiscation seem to be just, when it isn't. We should loudly reject its use.
Wonder how many people lie. Let's face it, we as a group wear more tin foil on our heads than many others. If someone on the street asked me if I had a gun, I would say no.....
Might as well. The 4th went bye-bye with civil seizures, and had extra dirt piled on with HB1302 and similar laws. The 5th now has many asterisks on it, and the 14th isn't looking so healthy, either. Just about the only amendment not being assaulted daily is the 3rd. But let's not give MGA any ideas.
Proving once and for all (not that there was any doubt) their end game is total confiscation