HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » NRA Vows To Stop Tucson F...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:07 PM

NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns

January 09, 2013 4:39 AM

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, have formed a political action committee to support prevention of gun violence. The announcement came Tuesday, the second anniversary of the mass shooting in Tucson that left six dead and wounded 13, including Giffords.

Churches and fire stations around the city rang bells in memory of the victims and in commemoration of other mass shootings since Tucson.

The Tucson Police Department also held a gun buyback Tuesday. Police want to destroy the 206 firearms turned in to them. But the National Rifle Association says that would violate Arizona law.

------

UPDATE: The Tucson Police Department sent 205 weapons to be destroyed Tuesday afternoon. A spokesman for the NRA says he will work with the Arizona legislature to rewrite the law to prevent police from destroying firearms from gun buybacks in the future.

— Ted Robbins

More: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns


NRA = Fail - Also, threatening a City Councilman over this - stay classy gun culture.

44 replies, 2912 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns (Original post)
ellisonz Jan 2013 OP
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #1
krispos42 Jan 2013 #2
ellisonz Jan 2013 #5
krispos42 Jan 2013 #12
ellisonz Jan 2013 #13
krispos42 Jan 2013 #15
ellisonz Jan 2013 #16
krispos42 Jan 2013 #19
ellisonz Jan 2013 #20
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #21
ellisonz Jan 2013 #22
gejohnston Jan 2013 #23
ellisonz Jan 2013 #28
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #24
ellisonz Jan 2013 #27
ellisonz Jan 2013 #29
freshwest Jan 2013 #42
MichaelHarris Jan 2013 #31
krispos42 Jan 2013 #37
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #3
ellisonz Jan 2013 #4
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #6
rl6214 Jan 2013 #26
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #38
rl6214 Jan 2013 #40
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #41
rl6214 Jan 2013 #43
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #44
gejohnston Jan 2013 #7
ellisonz Jan 2013 #8
gejohnston Jan 2013 #9
ellisonz Jan 2013 #11
gejohnston Jan 2013 #14
ellisonz Jan 2013 #17
gejohnston Jan 2013 #18
ileus Jan 2013 #10
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #34
rl6214 Jan 2013 #25
Lil Missy Jan 2013 #30
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #32
DanTex Jan 2013 #33
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #36
iiibbb Jan 2013 #35
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #39

Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:20 PM

1. WTF? The whole point of a buyback is to destroy guns.

That's why people sell their gun to this program rather than to a private buyer---to get the gun off the streets.

Man, the NRA sure has a gun fetish...can't let anything happen to Precious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:24 PM

2. Gun makers make $$$ when old guns get destroyed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:34 PM

5. Not if people don't buy more guns. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:17 PM

12. So, no effective response, then.

People do by more guns.

And the guns being destroyed are readily replaced with new ones, or equivalents.

Frankly, this sounds like something from "1984". Are you SURE that gun makers aren't supporting these programs?


And you do realize you're increasing greenhouse gas emissions, right? Rather than simply move a gun from an unwanted home to a wanted home, you're destroying and recycling one, then forging and machining another one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:31 PM

13. So you're supporting the NRA's position on this issue?

People who want their guns taken out of private ownership to be destroyed should have that wish denied because people might buy guns?

Frankly, this sounds like something from "1984". Are you SURE that gun makers aren't supporting these programs?


Do you really believe the nonsense you're peddling or are you just making absurdist arguments for the point of being glib to no good end?

And you do realize you're increasing greenhouse gas emissions, right? Rather than simply move a gun from an unwanted home to a wanted home, you're destroying and recycling one, then forging and machining another one.


I think it's the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:56 PM

15. As opposed to the gun manufacturer's position on the matter?

Where does it say the people turning them in wanted them destroyed?


People were getting rid of unwanted guns. This does not equal wanting them destroyed. Hell, I destroyed a gun myself, an old .22 rifle. I sawed the receiver in half and threw the parts in a dumpster.


And it doesn't change the fact that every used Glock that is sold is a new Glock that isn't made. This is why the "cash for clunkers" program old destroyed cars and SUVs and gave people a substantial credit to purchase new ones. If those old gas-guzzlers had simply been passed from owner to owner, no new ones would have been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:17 PM

16. "Where does it say the people turning them in wanted them destroyed?"

Really - you're going to double-down on the tripe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:40 PM

19. So, no answer.

Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:44 PM

20. I don't make a habit of answering ridiculous questions.

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:16 AM

21. Are you unfamiliar with the more common forms of capitalist exchange?

 

Things like swap meets, classified ads, Craigslist, etc., ring a bell?

If not, allow me to explain. People who own things they don't want, exchange them for cash and/or items they do want. In the case of a gun buy-back, people who have crap guns they don't want (and no one but an idiot would buy) can get cash for them. They use that cash to buy goods and services -- many times, a better version of the gun they sold.

I have yet to meet anyone who goes to a swap meet to sell off their Styx LPs because they want them destroyed -- but, maybe you know more music lovers than I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:36 AM

22. And that's why they need the NRA to rescue their guns for them, yes?

Is that it?

Also - they were given grocery store gift cards by the Police Department (undoubtedly donated):

Two hundred Safeway gift cards worth $50 each were given away at the event.

Former state senator Frank Antenori led a counter effort, offering residents cash for their weapons.

Antenori estimated about 30 guns were purchased by his supporters at the event.

The majority of the guns brought were shotguns and rifles and a couple of pistols.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/tucson-gun-buyback-draws-a-big-crowd/article_b5c7b8c6-59ac-11e2-94d1-0019bb2963f4.html


Those gun extremists sure are responsible members of society

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:49 AM

23. Collectors show up to try to get the better ones

Once in awhile they can get good ones at better price. Of course they would send the junk to the cops. For those guys it's business and has nothing to do with the NRA.
I do object to the term "buy back" since TPD never owned them to begin with. That is so newspeak. Gift card with donation would be a more accurate term.

That said, the quality ones that were sold to the cops, I bet half will find their way in a cop's personal collection or become a "throw down". But then, some of the junk could be throw downs too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:20 AM

28. The guns were destroyed.

You can safely abandon your paranoid conspiracy theory: "That said, the quality ones that were sold to the cops, I bet half will find their way in a cop's personal collection or become a "throw down".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:49 AM

24. Actually ...

 

... I think the NRA is just making a publicity stunt here.

However, I was responding to your assertion that Krispos' question was -- "tripe".

He was right -- people don't turn in guns because for noble reasons or hippie sentimentality -- they turn them in for the Safeway give card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:19 AM

27. "people don't turn in guns because for noble reasons or hippie sentimentality"

Well in this case we actually have a clear head-to-head. Your gun nuts stationed across the street with the more appealing cash offer were able to peel off 30 people from the 200 who had "noble reasons" and "hippie sentimentality" - also, I'm so tempted to create a Meta thread on that basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:26 AM

29. You earned it buddy:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:33 PM

42. Those are some of the silliest replies to you that I ever heard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:08 AM

31. it's not a fu%ing puppy "move a gun from an unwanted home to a wanted home" who are ya,

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Sarah McLachlan? And what we do know is that gun that just got melted down will never be used in a crime. That WE DO KNOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichaelHarris (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:42 AM

37. So some other gun does instead?

Progress. Yay.

If unwanted puppies were euthanized instead of adopted, would that reduce the number of people out there who owned dogs? Or who wanted to own dogs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:27 PM

3. wayno weeping

sunseeker: Man, the NRA sure has a gun fetish...can't let anything happen to Precious!

they maybe think of turned in guns as kindergarten children, first graders, orphans, needing be protected from the gun grabbers out to kill them.
wayno, weeping, weeping

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:27 PM

4. They just can respect the free choices of other citizens...

Bunch of 's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:36 PM

6. ...as long as you approve of those choices...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:14 AM

26. NRA has a gun fetish?

 

You do understand that the R in NRA is for RIFLE, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:43 PM

38. Yes. Come to think of it, "gun" is nowhere in the 2nd Am either.

Funny that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:55 PM

40. Your don't understand what "arms" means?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:08 PM

41. "Arms" are what "a well regulated Militia" uses. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:04 AM

43. Obviously you don't know what "well regulated" means

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 01:10 AM

44. Obviously you want it to mean something it doesn't. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:38 PM

7. threats of legal action

so he says.

So were you OK with the Des Moines Register Columnist Donald Kaul who advocated violence?
• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312300033&gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

First off, the Communist Party of the USA is not a terrorist organization. Second, he is advocating violence, which the phone call did not.

and believing a politician. A couple of failures there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:45 PM

8. Missing PavePusher already?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:48 PM

9. no, merely pointing out there is a difference

and that is what the oped writer said. I fail to see what I said violated the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:07 PM

11. Don't hijack my thread, brah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:34 PM

14. OK back to the thread

who actually is buying the guns? TPD, then the NRA might have a case, but a shitty battle choice. If a private group, like Ceasefire, then the NRA doesn't have a case.
I don't get the opposition either way. The manufactures win because there is a smaller used gun market, the sellers kind of win (though they may be ripped of on the price) feel they are doing something. The competing collectors win if they get a great deal from someone turning selling to them.
The manufactures supported the Gun Control Act ban on military surplus imports. The reason was that countries in the 1950s-1960s started switching from bolt actions to modern assault and battle rifles. That flooded the US and Canadian used gun market with quality bolt actions for pretty low price. In fact, a lot of the import rules on handguns were from the US manufactures lobby efforts.
I predict most of the guns will be sock drawer queens mom and dad bought 40 years ago, and discovered by the middle aged kids once mom and dad went to the next life. I think fifty bucks is pretty cheap. I would offer at least a couple of hundred. You do that, people might buy up cheap RGs and Ravens from flea markets, depending on the state, and bring them for a profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:18 PM

17. The NRA has no case. The property is not being seized.

They are bonkers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:37 PM

18. Especially since most of them

that are bought at these things are non-functioning from sitting in a garage or sock drawer for decades. When my FIL passed, my BIL discovered a revolver that best guess is that my wife's parents bought in Detroit in the 1960s. Same box of shells with it and all. I doubt it was ever fired. It moved from Detroit to St Petersburg without the kids knowing it. He called me and asked what I thought he should do with it. The gun was rusted and the shells were corroded. I told him throw it in the bay, give it to the cops, sell it to CeaseFire, can't be fixed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 09:52 PM

10. Buy backs of fine firearms should set a goal to rehome those that are worthy.

Sure destroy the junk ravens, Hipoints, Kelteks, and single shot junkers. But collectables and fine firearms should be rehomed to new families where they'll be appreciated and taken care of.


That being said, if the government has spent the tax dollars it should be the peoples option of what happens to the firearms. Destroy, rehomed...ect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:10 AM

34. I'd bet the collectibles and fine firearms are safe from destruction

They'll somehow be "rehomed" in some law enforcement officers' gun safes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:10 AM

25. How can it be a gun BUYBACK when they didn't own them in the first place and

 

Did they fill out a 4473 form and run a background check on each purchase or did they slip in under the "buyback" loophole?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:48 AM

30. You'd think they were destroying sperm instead of guns.

Don't waste any seed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:39 AM

32. CPUSA

Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did.
johnston: .. the Communist Party of the USA is not a terrorist organization.


You piqued my interest; wiki has no reference of the communist party of USA (CPUSA) as being declared a terrorist org, nor even illegal (preaching overthrow of US Govt is illegal). The only people wiki has calling CPUSA illegal, is CPUSA themselves:

CPUSA constitution and program The party's constitution has changed over time. It originally stated “The Communist Party will systematically and persistently propagate the idea of the inevitability of and necessity for violent revolution, and will prepare the workers for armed insurrection as the only means of overthrowing the capitalist state.” It further stated,“The Communist Party of America is an underground, illegal organization.

Score one for johnston (I thinks), tho writer might just have meant 'membership' in CPUSA was illegal, due the wording of first sentence above in my post, tho I think membership is 'legal'.

Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.
johnston: Second, he is advocating violence, which the phone call did not.


'Out of my cold dead hands' isn't advocating violence, in itself?

Repeal the Second Amendment .. surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

Concur; except we don't need to 'repeal' the 2ndA, just restore it back to it's intended meaning as an RKBA pertaining to militia. We havent repealed the 3rd amendment, succoring troops in private homes in wartime (ie Now war on terror), just it's never been subverted, that I know of.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:03 AM

33. Wow. Really, NRA?

So someone owns a gun, doesn't want it anymore, but doesn't want to sell it. Instead they want to get it off the streets, have it melted down. And the NRA objects to this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:31 AM

36. NRA, um, reasoning

So you are a Republican city councilman in Tucson, where your Congresswoman, a judge, some kids, and some folks got shot in their brains to varying degrees of death. And even though you are a Republican, you coordinate a gun buyback from people who are like “eh maybe I don’t really need these any more, since I am not planning to murder anyone.”
It’s totally voluntary. There isn’t a single jackbooted thug pounding down NRA members’ doors and seizing all their weapons for miles. Non-story, right, .. WELL NOT SO FAST MISTER! The NRA is gonna sue the f*** out of you for destroying the weapons instead of putting them back on the streets, which would a little bit defeat the purpose of a gun buyback.
http://wonkette.com/496156/nra-just-keeps-on-getting-nra-ier

..an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them. “We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns,”.. says Arizona state law forces local govts to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder. That’s right, a program to get guns off the street should instead be replaced with the govt becoming a gun dealer!

“If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that’s exactly what they should do,” he says. That way the guns can be put back in circulation or given away. .. Tucson city attorney calls that a misreading of the law.

[link:&width=380|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:18 AM

35. Gun buybacks are stupid and ineffective

 

Fighting them more of a waste than a no questions asked buyback itself. The NRA is sporting a remarkably tin ear these days. It is better if they don't get distracted by the bullshit.

They also miss the free photo ops by idiot gun grabbers (see LA rocket launcher boondoggle; you can't make that shit up). They should be openly mocking that stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:50 PM

39. They are just hunks of metal, wood, and plastic.

They aren't kittens or puppies.

The people that turned them in didn't want them anymore, so it isn't a big deal if they get scrapped. The NRA should just ignore this.

However the police could make a few dollars if they were then sold through an FFL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread