Seattle gun buyback has an interesting sponsor. Amazon.com

I forgot I posted here. People have guns they don't want, and can't sell. No paperwork, no license, ect ect. I don't see how giving people a "no questions asked" way out, is anti 2A. It literally has no bearing on your life or rights. Who cares. This isn't Amazon saying they want guns to disappear.
 
I disagree that they are exactly the same thing. A book is not a firearm and a firearm is not a book. If they were trying to collect every copy of the constitution and burn them in order to eliminate all traces of the 2A, then yes I would have a problem with that in the exact same way I would have a problem with a book burning. I completely agree that more people have died due to religious beliefs than firearms (the crusades being the most heinous example of that), but books and religious speech are a 1st amendment issue, not a 2nd.

All I'm saying is that I don't see the problem with people doing whatever it is that they want with their own property. Would you tell someone they can't sell their classic car that needs to be restored to have any real value to the junk yard for scrap? I think that's a much closer analogy than a book burning. If you think people are stupid for participating, that's one thing. But if you don't think they should be able to do what they want with their own property, then that's something entirely different.

I forgot I posted here. People have guns they don't want, and can't sell. No paperwork, no license, ect ect. I don't see how giving people a "no questions asked" way out, is anti 2A. It literally has no bearing on your life or rights. Who cares. This isn't Amazon saying they want guns to disappear.

Several problems with gun "buybacks." First of all, the language suggests that the guns were granted unto the citizenry by the government, an arm of which (the PD, controlled by local, state, or federal government) typically handles these things. You can't buy something back that you didn't bequeath in the first place. The idea that's being conveyed is that these guns are only in the hands of private citizens by the grace of their keepers, who are kindly offering to take them back in a show of mercy.

Secondly, that's less guns that are in the hands of private citizens. That's a bad thing. The odds need to be tipped in our favor as heavily as possible.

Third, any time - any time at all - that the .gov attempts to influence, cajole, direct, or intimidate people into giving up anything - but most particularly guns - it is only logical to question their motivation. Seeking out people who voluntarily give up the means to resistance, normalizing the idea of handing over a weapon to an agent of the government, and promoting the notion that the .gov should have anything to do with accepting the disarmament of its citizens implies some rather weighty things; chiefly that they don't want folks to have guns.

A government that fears the populace enough to try and take their means of resistance away (gently at first) probably does not have the most honorable intentions.
 
Back
Top Bottom