Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Mandatory Firearm Buyback Dilemma
It is black (and green) and scary…therefore it must be banned!
One of the myriad Xeets I have seen about the presumptive Democrat nominee is that she wants to perform a mandatory firearm buyback for assault weapons. Let’s leave aside the fact that there isn’t any such thing as an assault weapon, and, for the sake of this post, let’s just say that we are talking about “scary-looking” semi-automatic firearms.
Our new prospective overlord wants to “protect” us from the scary black firearms. Let’s assume (I know, I am asking a lot here, but…bear with me through a few more assumptions) that she manages to pass legislation that passes judicial review, probably after they add 7 more Justices to the Court, but whatever, the law gets passed. Now the Federal gov’t is going to confiscate every AR-15, etc. in the country and pay the owner for giving it up. This is where things get fun…
Larry Correia is a wonderful author, and this book is great for people who already agree with the idea of firearms rights. It cogently lays out arguments and looks at the canards the Left uses. It isn’t for someone who is against firearms to try and convince them that they are wrong on the subject.
If you haven’t already, read In Defense of the Second Amendment by Larry Correia to understand why so many of the arguments from the Left on firearms just don’t make sense. He goes into detail as to why the idea of the gov’t going door to door and requesting that owners turn over their firearms is a fool’s errand. While some people might be willing to follow the law and surrender their firearms, many more will refuse. If a person refuses, what options are available to the government? In theory, they could jail the person, but that gets to be more and more dangerous over time as the more willing citizens turn over their firearms and the ones left are the most resistant. To many on the Left, they think that SWAT will just roll in and arrest the recalcitrant firearm owners. If they resist…well, that is just one less firearm owner to worry about going on a spree shooting rampage.
Of course, this assumes that most law enforcement officers(LEOs) agree that getting rid of these weapons is a “good idea.” Some surely do, but many—perhaps most, perhaps a vast majority—don’t. In addition, it assumes these officers are willing to go to a dangerous situation to confiscate the property of a previously law-abiding citizen, perhaps a neighbor or a friend…Well, many LEOs are not going to want to be in that situation. So, we are going to nationalize the Guard and send them in? Similar problems arise from that tactic. It is going to be a massive issue, and likely lead to massive civil unrest that might as well be a civil war.
So, could those people be convinced to give up their firearms? Well, at least VP Harris is talking about a buyback program and not just flat-out confiscation. In theory, if you offer someone recompense for their property, the gov’t could take it, and the person it was taken from might be less angry at the prospect. I have never had my home or land threatened by eminent domain so that the gov’t could build a road, or similar, but at least in those situations, the gov’t does pay for what it takes. It is never a fair amount, but it is something.
Which got me thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know). If the gov’t wanted to confiscate millions of AR-15-style weapons (estimates of assault weapons range from 19.8 million to over 25 million of the estimated 400 million firearms in the US), what if they offered an amount that would make turning them in a much easier decision? An amount that almost every owner would jump at.
What if the gov’t offered them $1M for each assault weapon that they owned and turned in as part of the buyback? If there are 20 million firearms that would qualify, that would mean that at $1M each, the buyback program would cost a paltry 20 Trillion dollars. Now I would argue that this would have to be non-taxable since it isn’t income but a taking against the desires of the individuals. Even so…an influx of $20 TRILLION into the economy would lead to a massive spending increase that would supercharge the economy and cause massive economic growth. Combine that with getting these scary black firearms off the streets and why wouldn’t a leftist just LOVE this plan?
Well, of course, they won’t like the idea of giving all that money to red-state and conservative-leaning people, but they could just think of it as buying votes…they do that all the time. What was the ACA, or the Inflation Reduction Act but vote purchases? Sure, $20 trillion is a large amount of money, but…think of the children who will grow up in a safer world. If it saves just one child, isn’t it worth it (it’s only about $275,000 per child)?
Published in Guns
One of the problems local gun “buyback” programs have run into is concerns how much money the government should offer per gun. Either the government doesn’t offer enough money to get everybody interested. Or the government offers enough that it is economically profitable for people to find/buy/build guns specifically to sell to the government.
Unless the government offers a ridiculously high amount of money, there will be guns that are worth more than what the government is offering. Owners of those guns will hesitate or refuse to participate.
If the government offers more than a token amount, then it is likely people can find or build guns for less than what the government is offering, and thereby profit by obtaining guns specifically to sell to the government.
As to the logistics of a gun confiscation program (whether outright or done with money incentives), I want advocates to answer a couple of questions:
How many dead people (gun owners, families of gun owners including children, law enforcement or military personnel, politicians) are you willing to tolerate to accomplish whatever level of compliance you consider “success”? Money alone in a “buyback” program will not motivate some gun owners to relinquish their guns. Only violent force will convince them.
What level of compliance do you think is achievable? I don’t know how many of what might be called “assault rifles” are in the United States, but I have heard estimates north of 20 million. Even if you get 99% compliance (nothing is ever 100%) that still leaves 200,000 in circulation. And those 200,000 are likely not in the hands of members of the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club. Then what?
Most leftists don’t consider second-order effects. They’ll never accept any responsibility for the predictable negative consequences. Their intentions were good, you see? Just pass more laws to address the consequences.
Then what? They feel good about themselves — success!
As the old bumper stickers had it, “If guns are outlawed, only Democrats will have guns.”
I would argue that mandatory “buyback” is confiscation . . .
No buyback program should be acceptable to Americans. Either the government would be using taxpayer dollars to buy broken weapons or to buy serviceable weapons the government would then destroy or to use to arm more of its agents to use against us. If this is forced upon us, red states should grab the flag and Constitution and say goodby.
If these weapons are to be classified as inhuman killing machines, then the government shouldn’t have them, either. Police are armed with them. This would be a far cry from the America we used to have, the government we used to have. My America had a government that created the Civilian Marksmanship Program to promote civilian marksmanship (it still exists) and it bought back service weapons, including those sold to other countries, so the CMP could resell them to civilians. Many lucky ones now own the M1 Gerand, M1 Carbine, and service pistols.
The Democrats today would take those weapons back. Rather than arming us so it could have a great pool of marksman for national defense, they would disarm us because we are the enemy the government fears. It has said so repeatedly. The only logical explanation is the Democrats fear our reaction to what they plan to do. They are intent on disarming us of the weapons used to defend us against tyranny, not the weapons most often used in crimes.
There are such things as assault weapons. It’s a term that is used, and people generally understand what it means. There is a bit of ambiguity in the definition, depending on the context, but this is common to many words and terms.
For example, “liberal” can mean different things. “Conservative” can mean different things. Even “fruit” can mean different things. But they all exist.
Define it.
Assault is a tactic, an operation, not a type of weapon. Do not let Democrats control the language. Republicans are weak in this regard.
I am offended by the term “buyback.” I didn’t buy a gun from the government. The implication is that I own a gun at the pleasure of the government, and they can have it back when they choose.
As @eherring wisely said, don’t let Democrats control the language. Concede nothing.
This is why I propose $1M/weapon. This would have a side-effect of making these types of firearms more expensive. If I can purchase 100 of them for $500,000 each and then sell them to the gov’t for $1,000,000 each I can make a nice profit. Essentially the price of the weapons on the market will skyrocket. In fact, the buyback program could be voluntary at that point. That is the truly evil and pernicious way that the Left could get rid of most firearms. Make them so expensive that no one can afford them. They tried it with ammo in the Obama admin and it almost worked. Yes, it would be a massive spending boondoggle, but it’s a policy that would actually get many scary black guns out of private hands. Heck, make the offer price $10,000 (five to ten times the price of a decent AR-15, and twenty times the price of a cheap one), and the side effect will be to cause firearms to skyrocket in price.
We are lucky that it seems that no one on the Left is smart enough to think of such a program.
Flagged for being false . . .
“Assault weapon” is a term invented by the leftist media to confuse members of the public who don’t know the difference between a semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearm. Most people familiar with firearms know what it means, but many on the left don’t, as when asked during confirmation hearings to define it . . .
If I’m not going to let them control the language, you’re taking away one of my best weapons to use against them. I’m not going to let you anti-2A types take my weapons away.
Would “compensated confiscation” come closer?
What has happened in Minnesota is absurd. People have made money just slapping things together that will make a shotgun shell go off.
If you subtract out all of the counties that have gun violence, which is about 2% and this 2% is usually within 10 blocks, we are less violent than Europe. It’s urban areas and it’s areas that are dominated by Scotch-Irish heritage (Appalachia).
DING DING DING
Rifles are used in one percent of crimes. It’s nothing. Hands and feet are a larger percentage. If you are freaked out about schools, there hasn’t been one school shooting in a school that has armed teachers.
80% of “mass shootings” as defined by the FBI is drug gangs.
SScared
It’s unbelievable
It’s too big for a bumper sticker, but it is still a good question for Harris and her ilk: What do you have in mind for me that my having a gun makes you nervous?
My own thought on confiscation: In a cashless society, what is to keep the government from just freezing any financial transactions on your part until you turn in your weapons? If you can’t buy food and whiskey, how long can you last?
Own physical gold. It’s the only asset without any counterparty.
The cash you have in the bank isn’t really your cash in the final analysis. They can do the same thing with your stocks.
Meh. The term is routinely applied to any weapon that looks scary. The pump shotgun, Lucrecia, next to my bed is an “assault weapon” to some people because it’s black and has a pistol grip. Others consider any magazine-fed semi-automatic to be an “assault weapon.” The term is effectively meaningless, a placeholder for anti-gun bait and switch maneuvers.
.
The gun hysteria is ridiculous.
The issue is, how Democrats run certain localities.
99% of Democrats are idiots about gun policy.
It’s worth remembering this too:
The only thing buyback programs do is create market demand for whatever the government is buying. Has the exact opposite effect of what they intend.
They do, like Assault Jerrys.
He won’t, of course.