Cognitive dissonance is still the number one threat to the Republic, but ballistophilia is rising fast.
Agreed. I’m totally Anti Bob. His friends must be shifty, too.
I’m not sure why the idea of destroying some (but not all) guns (something we have quite a lot of in this country - many that aren’t treated well) is somehow controversial.
We destroy remaindered books all the time. It’s not like libraries or 2nd hand bookstores want/need them, there’s clearly a low demand for them, and it’s easier/cheaper to destroy them. Yet the idea that we destroy/recycle literal tons of books on a daily basis generates less controversy than the idea of destroying an incredibly small fraction of our guns - many of which haven’t been maintained well or used often, anyway.
Waitaminnit! They burn books?? We got to put a stop to that unAmerican crap right now-perhaps by starting a pro-book organization, maybe call it something like the National Reader Association.
Factually untrue. Unlike excess books, even the cheapest M1 Garands sell for around $500. Nice one’s can go for several thousand.
Here they expect people to turn unwanted guns in for nothing - not ‘gift cards’.
$500 sounds more like a cost for an average gun to me, not the cost for a rare or historical gun.
Planned Parenthood might have standing to challenge the practice you propose. It’s pretty clear that the NRA has none at all the challenge the one at issue here.
How so?
I could easily sell my 5-year old Honda for $10000. It doesn’t make it interesting or valuable enough for a collector to want it or to put it in a museum. It also doesn’t make it rare enough to gawk at. To the contrary, I wonder why anybody would go to the effort.
If anything, you’ve proven my point quite well. M1 Garands aren’t rare or particularly expensive, and there’s no special reason to save them in case a collector or museum wants one. And if it’s not in decent shape, there’s even less reason to save one, save, as I noted earlier, an interesting story to go along with it.
Be honest with yourself. You don’t have any sort of rational reason you hold your viewpoint. It’s entirely emotional. There’s something to be said for emotional appeal but the pretense that there’s some kind of legal or rational justification for your stance is asinine.
$500 is not super expensive but it is certainly not trash and is about the cheapest they sell for. There are levels or rarity and historicity. There is clearly demand. The CMP sells out of their lots regularly. I bought one myself though the Civilian Marksmanship Program myself. I paid around $600 and got a cool Pre-D-Day Garand. They sell out all the time. Details at: http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm
Here’s a bunch of expensive ones http://www.scott-duff.com/M1Garand.htm
Shooters and collectors want them. What you think you have to be rich to be a collector and appreciate the history of a fine gun? It’s a piece of history many can afford and own.
I bought my M1 Garand mostly for emotional reasons, since I have plenty of other rifles in my safe that are better tools. Nothing wrong with that. I wanted it so I bought one. I did envision shooting it in a M1 match and had to have it for that. The country melting down weapons that have demand and value is asinine if you ask me, not to mention a waste of my tax dollars.
Do a lot of M1 Garands show up at these buyback programs? Is this a growing problem that needs to be addressed?
I couldn’t tell you. Out of curiosity do you think the M1 Garand should be legal? I suppose you probably don’t want to answer that.
As with most of what you direct towards me, a bit off topic. Do try to keep up.
Used car dealers want my Honda, too. Doesn’t mean there aren’t thousands others like it. And it doesn’t mean if I destroyed mine it would make it hard for anybody to find one just like it. Again, there’s no scarcity in M1s. A few getting scrapped here and there makes no difference.
And as pointed out above, the program was funded from private organizations. What tax dollars?
You’re still trying to rationalize your argument when the underpinnings of your argument are suspect.
@Czarcasm: a few older guns might show up, but they don’t represent the bulk of guns that do show up. It’s a concern with no basis in reality. Kable is pretty lamely trying to exaggerate the effect, though.
The basic question is “what makes guns so special we have to preserve each and every one at all cost?” There’s no rational answer to that, though it clearly doesn’t stop people from trying.
Would the NRA object if the guns were bought back at more reasonable prices? Is there a “Blue Book” for guns that most would agree with?
There is plenty of demand. I’m sure there would be a stink if the government were involved in purchasing valuable automobiles and destroying them.
Were the Police involved in these buy backs doing it on their own time or were they on the state clock?
Probably, my guess is they have more a problem with destroying them then they do with the price. I think there are books but they are dated quickly. Better to check prices of comparables on the secondary market, like gunbroker.com.
Who said anything about each and every one at all cost. I expect if they were put up on an advertized auction with a low starting price and nobody bought them, then nobody would mind if they were then destroyed.
But since they were bought and not confiscated or turned in, then the NRA really shouldn’t care what is done with them, right?