Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A $100 billion, one-time program aimed at buying back 200 million firearms at $500 a pop. [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)148. That would only work if you controlled gun sales.
And I think that it would not violate the Constitution under any interpretation of the Second Amendment if you strongly controlled gun sales.
The Second Amendment speaks to the bearing of arms, not the selling of arms. Seems to me there is some wiggle room there, and to be very honest and practical, considering the population growth in our country since passage of the Second Amendment and the population density that population increase has caused, we need more wiggle room -- both literally and figuratively speaking.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
181 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A $100 billion, one-time program aimed at buying back 200 million firearms at $500 a pop. [View all]
Robb
Dec 2012
OP
Agreed, (and I think we're pretty much on the same page with regard to gun control).
11 Bravo
Dec 2012
#177
What standards do you use? The rate of shooting crimes in LA is dropping, while Chicago, at half
Bluenorthwest
Dec 2012
#85
It was a one time cash infusion into the economy that allowed people dump
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2012
#79
you want to take positions against gun buybacks and against liberal ideas, take the heat for them
CreekDog
Dec 2012
#105
Maybe. Although I sure hate to reward people for their bad habits and macabre interests.
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#89
Yeah, because selling a $1200.00 gun for $500.00 is such a *GREAT* return on investment....
Ghost in the Machine
Dec 2012
#159
Some OPs have stated that these buybacks would clear most guns from the nation.
NutmegYankee
Dec 2012
#165
Ok, so I can go buy several High-Point 9mm's, that run about $109.99 brand new, then sell them for
Ghost in the Machine
Dec 2012
#175
Should have thought of that when you bought them. You lose your "investment" in guns -- tough.
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#163
If transfer/use/perception/ammo of/for damn things are banned/restricted, market value will plunge.
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#170
Government action damages the stock market, housing values, etc. Good luck with your and NRA's suit
Hoyt
Dec 2012
#172
We already do. Alcohol & tobacco is taxed heavily, and cars require insurance.
JaneyVee
Dec 2012
#12
Hmmm, I suppose that we could cut Social Security to buy back guns to provide Social Security
HereSince1628
Dec 2012
#7
What if we pass a law making numerous guns illegal to possess 1st? THEN $500 a piece
jmg257
Dec 2012
#13
Exactly! I got in on the 2008 Mosin Nagant M44 blowout (5 M44's shipped for $200), cleaned them,
kelly1mm
Dec 2012
#34
Arbitrage is not fraud. There were no exceptions in the OP for guns valued at less than $500
kelly1mm
Dec 2012
#53
It's probably because handguns are used far more often in crimes. There are many "dirty" handguns...
slackmaster
Dec 2012
#42
Gun buyback programs work best in densely populated areas in which you have crime in the
JDPriestly
Dec 2012
#149
Says the person freaking out at the equivalent of a pair of scabbards? (nt)
Posteritatis
Dec 2012
#161
I'd just sell my 3 guns for 1500 dollars and then rebuy them for like the 700 I originally paid
Kurska
Dec 2012
#91
$500 is more than a lot of guns are worth. And some guns are worth a hell of a lot more than that.
backscatter712
Dec 2012
#114