Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama *IS* Coming For Your Guns! (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why should the NRA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, Horace Boothroyd III

    be the only one to profit from the paranoia of the gun nuts?

    In a flim-flam economy like ours, flim-flamming may be the only solution to surviving.

    Look at Breitbart for instance...

    •  cirrocco - how would you describe this to those (6+ / 0-)

      in New York State and CT who own assault rifles that have been recently banned? It would seem to me that the actions by those state legislators falls within the broad umbrella of "taking your guns". Here in California we had mandatory registration and then banning of assault rifles with no buy back. Wouldn't that qualify as well?

      I don't own any firearms and have never owned a gun, but the "we are coming to take your guns" has been done in many other counties and a few states here in the US. To characterize that concern of gun owners as delusional seems disingenuous. I agree that the President has tried to comfort gun owners that the federal government has no intention of confiscating firearms, but that spirit is alive and well here in the US and being implemented by some state legislators.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:34:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NY & CT gun owners now have a 'sell' opportunity (0+ / 0-)

        and with record prices being demanded for high powered guns and ammo, they may be able to turn a tidy profit on their gun investments, especially if bought prior to summer 2012. (These are purely pragmatic observations I'm putting here. I don't see why people in high density urban areas need rapid firing rifles with 30 bullet capacity magazines and the capability of punching through a soldier's helmet up to a half mile away. I can agree with what VP Biden said, a shotgun is a preferred option for home defense.)

        Selling out of state is easier than ever with all the internet sites catering to the individual sellers and buyers of guns.  You may have to partially disassemble your rifle (before transport, keeping parts in properly locked cases) in order to render it unable to fire. Out of state buyers might be willing to come and pick up, which shifts the onus onto them for safe and legal transport.

        And here's an enterprising idea (after getting your Federal Firearms License) and if you live outside CT and NY. Offer wholesale prices to the in state folks or trade-in on legal shotguns, etc., offer to pick up from homes in your armored truck, and then resell them out of state. Unless you might be independently wealthy or have large funds backing you, in which case you could take them in for scrap melting (guns, not the ammo).  Another business plan might be offering out of state secure long term storage for the banned guns.

        And if you don't like the new state laws, well, I'm sure millions will be spent trying to reverse them or in seeking injunctions to stop their enforcement.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:05:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  in both of your examples . . . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA, gramofsam1, WakeUpNeo

        No guns were actually confiscated from anyone who already owned them legally when the law was passed.

        None.

        Not a one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (25)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site