I care if I turned in/sold the gun to someone who told me they would be melting it down, and then, once they secured possession decided to sell it on the open market.
It’s misrepresentation. Just as if I gave something of value to a charity for a particular purpose based on the agreement of the people running the charity, then they decide to change the plan once they have possession of my gift.
If they’re going to sell it, there should be a big banner saying “Turn in your gun for a $20 gift card so we can sell it at auction” Oh, and the folks donating the money also get told that their funding the purchase of guns for resale.
They haven’t been able to find that in any of the emanations from the penumbrae of the law, so now they’re looking into the penumbrae of the emanations.
Gun manufacturers have been funding the NRA, for years. It will be pretty amusing if the NRA comes close to winning and the manufacturers defund the NRA on the grounds that they are reducing demand for firearms by recirculating guns that would have otherwise needed to be replaced.
Both. I was also frustrated by the incompetence of the person who asked him the sloppy question that allowed him to weasel that answer in the first place.
The law has meaning. If it says the government can’t melt down the guns if they were turned in then they shouldn’t be. If it says that and we disagree with it we should change the law. But if we disagree with it or even consider it silly we can’t just ignore it.
This. You do know people can go back to the very start of a thread and see who said what first, right? I mean, it’s right here in black and white that you brought up this line of reasoning initially and have continued to pursue it. On the Dope, that means the onus is on you to back up your contentions with a cite. Not turn around and do the “I’m rubber and your glue!” schtick by demanding the other parties give cites to your queries instead.
I also wondered about this. Hell, if I remember correctly, we even had a poster here that illustrated this point. Something about not believing some guy at Home Depot was asking for legitimate directions in the parking lot, so he talked him out of whatever nefarious crime he was about to perpetrate by vaguely brandishing his gun at him. Yep. I bet that guy has 50 ‘defensive’ gun uses a year, easily.
First, the NRA may feel that it’s a better use of public resources for the authorities to re-sell the guns to responsible owners.
Second, the NRA may be worried about the slippery slope. The next step might be to use public funds to purchase the guns. Then to offer more and more carrots and sticks to ban guns through the back door.
By analogy, imagine if the local police department started handing out $100 gift cards to girls who went through with their pregnancies instead of having abortions. Even if the gift cards were privately donated, Planned Parenthood would understandably be concerned about the precedent of the government getting involved in discouraging abortions.
That"slippery slope" crap rears its retarded head yet again, I see. Any action, any regulation, any proposal that doesn’t actively promote the agenda of the NRA and the weapons manufacturers is met with some variation of, “It seems reasonable on the surface, but in reality it is just the first step on a slippery slope to the banning of all guns.” All rules regulations and laws, no matter how innocuous, can be dismissed without discussion using this argument.
