Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
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...
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)?
Discussion (28)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
As the old bumper stickers had it, "If guns are outlawed, only Democrats will have guns."
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I would argue that mandatory "buyback" is confiscation . . .
You're seeing five of 28 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.