IOW, it now appears that instead of couching the argument in terms of “freedom” or “rights” or “lesser of two evils,” the NRA has evolved to the position that a heavily-armed society is something America should have, and any effort to make it less-armed is bad.
This is as if Libertarians arguing for drug-decriminalization were suddenly to start proclaiming that cocaine and heroin are good for you, and the more of those substances we have on the market the better. It would shatter the credibility even of their more-credible arguments.
Yeah, where did the get the crazy idea that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”?
And your analogy is excellent since the constitution states: “A citizenry with a well stocked supply of recreational drugs, being necessary to the security of a free state…”
I can’t speak about the health effects of cocaine and heroin, but I do know that evidence indicates that alcohol in moderate dosages does have health benefits. Maybe it’s like that.
I’d imagine that a large portion of the opposition is due to gun aficionados not wanting to see valuable collector’s items and weapons of historical significance melted down. As a collector, the photos of gun buybacks personally squick me out because I can pick out all the custom pieces, grandpa’s war relics, and otherwise desirable items among the crap, and know that the irreplaceable and rare is going to melted down with the cheap garbage.
I compare it to a “Cash for Clunkers” event where muscle cars and pristine classics are scattered among the sea of Pintos and Honda Civics, but being destroyed regardless of their value and rarity. They’re making quite a stretch to try to legally force the buyback programs to auction the weapons, but I can see why they’d desire a chance to sift through what’s handed over.
Let the merchant/government beware and write the rules accordingly.
I would support a local expert being on hand to check out rare, or historical items. Further, I would support allowing them to make a counter offer to the person turning in the weapon, providing that we can ensure that it will not immediately go back on sale to the general public at a dealer’s store. Such weapons can be cataloged and offered to museums, auction houses, or to those with dealer licenses.
I think this is the key passage: “After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues, downplaying the roles of hunters and target shooters, and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.”
Around that time, you saw a new strategy in the conservative movement. Rather than trying to sell the conservative ideology as a whole, various single-issue groups were identified - like Second Amendment supporters, pro-life groups, anti-gay rights groups, anti-immigrant groups, etc - and brought into a broad conservative coalition. And to keep these people in the tent, they had to be fired up. The membership needed to be convinced that their cause was under attack by the “liberals” and their was no chance of reaching an accommodation with the other side. People had to be scared into a siege mentality.
So the NRA, an organization founded on the preservation of the proficiency of citizens with firearms, is opposed when the government actively encourages citizens to turn in their firearms to be destroyed?
Why does this somehow “invalidate” them? If the local cycling association opposes government efforts to buy and destroy bicycles, is this an inconsistent position?
I think that is a legitimate problem. I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gay rights, and I don’t have a problem with legal immigration, and I had been of the impression that democrats had chilled out on the gun control issue since the 1994 gun bans. Now I feel forced to vote Republican again.
As a collector, it pains me to see some of the things being turned in to be melted down. I have seen Lugers in a pile. AR-15s and other Evil Black Guns sell for $1,000 to $2,500, and some of them (notably the Colt Model SP1) have become collectible. Recently a woman turned a StG-44 in, which was valued at about $15,000. (I’m still unsure if it was legal to own, as it not have been registered.)
From a collector’s standpoint, some of the guns being turned in are historically significant and/or are very desirable. From an economic standpoint, it make no sense for someone to turn in a gun and receive one-tenth of its value; nor for a government to destroy valuable property that could be sold to law-abiding citizens for a huge profit that could go to the city/county/state budget.
As for the people collecting and turning in rubbish guns, that’s the deal the governments are making. ‘Caveat emptor’ and all that. If the valuable guns were sold at auction, the governments would still make a profit even when they are paying for the junk. (By ‘auction’, I suggest an employee to sell on gunbroker.com, where the profit can be maximised, rather than your typical government auction.)
I agree. There are more pressing problems in this country than firearms, nearly 100% of which are not used in crimes. We should have full rights for homosexuals, including federally-recognised marriage. A woman should be able to decide for herself what she wants to do with her body and/or cell mass within her. Immigration has historically been a net positive for the country, financially and culturally. College education should be more accessible; not only to the less-than-wealthy, but for older people who need to adapt to a changing economy. The latter would include more class offerings so that people do not have to choose between having a job and paying the mortgage, or completing their education, or being able to take only one class per quarter because they can only take night classes and taking ten years to get a degree.) And my big issue, Universal Health Care. Healthy people are more productive and cheaper to treat. All of these things are more important than passing do-nothing legislation. And in my opinion, better education opportunities and UHC in particular would reduce violent crime.
Save the money being spent on buy-backs, and put it toward social programs that actually to some good. Better yet, do have buy-backs and make a profit from them and use the money to do good. ‘Beating swords into plowshares’, as it were.
I can’t either, but I can empathize with why Kable might feel otherwise. If the Democratic Party decided that public libraries offer Internet access and books so ordinary citizens don’t “need” either, and started proposing restrictions on private Internet access and book ownership, I’d be pretty stuck. Voting for the lesser evil is one thing; what’s a voter to do when the choice is between two different but equally great evils?
It’s too bad third parties aren’t viable in our current political system.
I can understand collectors’ concerns for the destruction of collectibles here. But, somehow I doubt that had anything to do with the NRA’s motives for their lawsuit.
Why?
They are always “no questions asked” events. Ballistics tests can’t be done on the spot or anything. That banger can cap his rival, trade the gun to the cops for a $200 gift card and be eating lobster tails in a 24 hour turnaround. Not too bad…