Notice it’s not being talked about in an election year? It always comes up for discussion only after elections, before election season, and during fundraising and polling cycles. Huge enough that it would have denied Obama a second term. Why didn’t Obama and a Democrat majority Congress not pursue gun control actions when they could have? Because the backlash politically would have been huge. That’s why I think it’s more about throwing red meat to their radical leftist base. If you get angry and want to kill your spouse you are able to do it just as effectively with a legal weapon. In the last two decades gun homocide rates have dropped somewhat, but murders Overall haven’t been substantially reduced because the population is still armed with guns that can kill. And contrary to the deceptive statistics in Henry’s comment, the new gun law fulfilled its purpose: no major mass killing have occurred since the buyback laws restrictied manufacture or sale of those restricted guns. They are still armed with legal rifles, handguns, shotguns. But if they turn up in your possession during legal interaction with police (in you car stopped for speeding) they will confiscate the weapon or weapons, and I believe you will face a substantial fine.Īustralians seem quite content with the new law. About 60 or 70 thousand Austrailians turned in guns without requesting payback – they felt safer without those weapons at home.Īnd most of the Australians who turned in guns for buy-back used that money to buy new guns.Īfter the buyback period ended, the authorities haven’t banged on doors to demand those now illegal guns. They bought back those listed guns at high-end market value, and then destroyed those weapons. The Australian law didn’t ban all guns, just certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons.Īustralian authorities didn’t bang on doors or send armed police into anyone’s home or business to confiscate the banned weapons. Under a US version of theAustralian gun buyback law I’d be able to do that. I’m replying to you, Bruce, because you’re the only one who posted a thoughtfully worded comment, and not a drooling rancid hyaena attack on the facts.įirst, as I’ve stated before, I’m a gun owner, and I want to remained armed with the guns I own. We are talking maybe 350 million or so guns, in the hands of over 100 million Americans, to be seized by probably fewer than 50,000 armed federal agents, many of whom likely would be more sympathetic to the gun owners than the gun grabbers. Throughout much of the country, they would have to depend on armed federal govt workers, and comparatively speaking, there just aren’t that many of them to collect anywhere near the number of firearms we have in this country – more than one gun per person in this country, and maybe increasing by 5% or so a year. What I don’t quite get is why the left thinks that they could be successful in such a gun grab. A later, Dem dominated Court may try to reverse this, but I don’t see them convincing the American people that that was anything but a naked power grab. Problem for the leftist gun grabbers is that the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental, individual, right. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at.įollow Kemberlee on Twitter do agree about the potential for armed revolt if the Dems tried this sort of thing. You remember that? It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.Ĭommunities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.
0 kommentar(er)
