Slog Comments
The Seattle Gun Buyback In Photos
1
There's nothing that disturbs me more than people collecting and preserving things of historic and/or antique value.
2
What gives me the wiggins, just a little bit, is how indicative of the number of guns NOT sold back this event is.
Ps hey dude you misspelled antique.
Ps hey dude you misspelled antique.
4
The preponderance of white guys with nearly-shaven heads looking to buy guns always gives me pause. Is that haircut one of the militia regulations?
6
Wow, there are some people making big assumptions that those are not loaded weapons! In that whole spirit of "don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy -- having shotgun barrels pointed at my gut, my kidneys... these are the right people NOT to have guns anymore.
7
@6, no kidding - I haven't touched a firearm since I was a boy, and even I remember the admonition to assume it's loaded even if you just unloaded it. "Hey, I'm gonna lean these here shotguns up under my gut for a bit".
8
Yes, my first thought with those two pictures was wtf are these idiots doing with the gun barrels pointed at themselves? Did they peek into the barrels and pull the triggers to confirm that these were unloaded guns?
9
I am a hardcore gun control advocate, but seeing these pictures, I do sort of want a bolt action rifle now...
10
@5: Yes, one Asian guy, and a bunch of white guys, hence "preponderance".
My theory is that gun nuts skew heavily white and prone to extremely short hair cuts. Most curious.
My theory is that gun nuts skew heavily white and prone to extremely short hair cuts. Most curious.
14
The guy looking for "antiqe" guns has my sympathy. One of the most horrible things I ever saw was an episode of MacGyver in which someone stole a Civil-War-era gun and shot someone with it. At the end of the episode, the gun was melted down. I'm no gun enthusiast, but it was a gorgeous gun, and there were about a thousand other ways to make sure that gun wouldn't hurt anybody without fucking destroying it. Fuck you, MacGyver.
15
Well done, Kelly O. I can only imagine the next buy back (if there is one) is going to be a fucking circus.
16
#10, the NRA is overwhelmingly white. Which shouldn't be surprising, since they've elected white supremacist presidents in the past.
The GOP is overwhelmingly white, which shouldn't be surprising, since they've elected white supremacist presidents in the past.
There was that white supremacist group that recently sponsored gun appreciation day...
The GOP is overwhelmingly white, which shouldn't be surprising, since they've elected white supremacist presidents in the past.
There was that white supremacist group that recently sponsored gun appreciation day...
17
Who is to say these guns don't fall off the truck on the way to the smelter..just like those Clunkers?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/24/cash-…
In some cases, NHTSA suspects that vehicles meant for the scrap heap were actually shipped overseas and resold. Unsubstantiated reports claim that around 24 vehicles slipped out of the country in this fashion. Meanwhile, some junkyards have still yet to provide proof that other vehicles were in fact destroyed – a key piece of the process.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/24/cash-…
18
Who cares about mustache man? I wouldn't want to see antiques given away in a gun buyback either.
20
Ohmygod. Never point a gun anywhere but at the ground (or at the deer or squirrel deep in the woods). Not your foot (or feet!), and not your gut. Sweet baby Jesus!
21
@14, 18, 19: I consider myself lucky to have seen the spectacular gun collection on view at the now-defunct Harold's Club casino in Reno, NV in the early 1980's. It included real works of art from the Renaissance forward, guns of ebony and ivory and mother-of-pearl and the best metallurgy at the times they were made.
The Harold Smith family was severely dysfunctional, though, and the casino closed in 1995. The gun collection, like so many other national treasures, was auctioned off some time ago and is presumably substantially dispersed in the hands of private collectors.
I can appreciate the craftsmanship and technological advancement represented in these historic firearms, and lament their absence from public display. I fail to see any aesthetic appeal of the current crop of matte-black, mass-produced boom sticks; nor do I understand the apparently endless fascination with perforating or shattering objects or living things at a distance.
The Harold Smith family was severely dysfunctional, though, and the casino closed in 1995. The gun collection, like so many other national treasures, was auctioned off some time ago and is presumably substantially dispersed in the hands of private collectors.
I can appreciate the craftsmanship and technological advancement represented in these historic firearms, and lament their absence from public display. I fail to see any aesthetic appeal of the current crop of matte-black, mass-produced boom sticks; nor do I understand the apparently endless fascination with perforating or shattering objects or living things at a distance.
23
i thought the cops liked to shoot people waving guns around haphazardly like that... oh wait this is a bunch of (mostly) white people. carry on.
but mostly-- how is this legal?? i thought guns sales were regulated? WHAT STRANGE LOOPHOLE ALLOWS THIS?
but mostly-- how is this legal?? i thought guns sales were regulated? WHAT STRANGE LOOPHOLE ALLOWS THIS?
24
If you hate seeing valuable guns destroyed, blame your fellow gun owners, and your consumerist gun culture of treating guns like cheap plastic toys you fuck around with for a while and then throw away when you're bored like an old PlayStation. Whose idea was it to pass our military hardware to any drooling idiot at the Wal Mart gun counter? Whose idea was it to tell these clowns that buying a gun was how you got your "man card"? Whose idea was it to tell people that freedom and security was a thing that comes in a box you buy with a credit card?
How about we treat guns as a privilege, worthy of respect and demanding a sense of duty and responsibility? Do that and no more fine old pieces will be tossed aside for scrap metal.
How about we treat guns as a privilege, worthy of respect and demanding a sense of duty and responsibility? Do that and no more fine old pieces will be tossed aside for scrap metal.
25
I love how nearly everyone at the legit event handles the guns they have like morons. Especially the guy shoving two barrels into his feet (he practically has his left hand on one of the triggers) and the other guy leaning against two gun barrels digging into his stomach.
I'm sure they're unloaded and all, but the way I heard it, you treat an unloaded gun just like you would a loaded gun, because you can be wrong. I don't own a gun and am pro gun control and yet I know better than to point guns at my own body. Sheesh.
If nothing else, at least the gun buyback program will alleviate some of the stress on the medical system and social safety net from people like that injuring themselves with those guns.
I'm sure they're unloaded and all, but the way I heard it, you treat an unloaded gun just like you would a loaded gun, because you can be wrong. I don't own a gun and am pro gun control and yet I know better than to point guns at my own body. Sheesh.
If nothing else, at least the gun buyback program will alleviate some of the stress on the medical system and social safety net from people like that injuring themselves with those guns.
26
@3 looks like a S&W model 3 hammerless. From the grip probably a military gun from WWI. The peeps pointing their guns at themselves... just wow...
27
@24: Self defense via gun ownership in the US is not a privilege, it's a fundamental right. If it were merely a privilege, it would be at the mercy of sneering elitist assholes who would be able to pick and choose what segment of society is worthy and capable of self defense, and what part is made up of "drooling idiots" or "clowns" with the incorrect political belief system or cultural background.
28
@27, most people here would love to do away with the constution and start over with a more "enlightened" one. Do you really think they know (or care about) the difference between a "right" and a "privilege?"
29
Oh good, the resident gun nut trolls have arrived. I feared a post about a local gun-related event might go without their hysterical straw man arguments, generalizations and hyperbole. All is well in the world again.
30
Most of the guns at buy-backs are cheap, mass-produced pistols and rifles. This is not some antiques roadshow fantasy zone. What really happened under the freeway was a lesson in how easy it is to acquire unregistered guns without a background check.
31
@27
OK, they're not clowns. They're just people who give away guns worth hundreds, thousands of dollars, for a $100 gift card. I call them "clowns". You can call them whatever word you use for people like that in your world.
@28
"Well regulated." Or "you have to be this tall to ride this ride". Or "you have to this far away from being a total fuckhead to have a gun". Privilege. Scalia made clear that specific requirements were fine; that's far short of an outright ban. Require gun owners to earn the privilege by demonstrating their heads aren't all the way up their asses. It's not asking much but it would make all the difference.
It's so fucked up to think how many of you guys want people with their heads up their asses to be heavily armed.
OK, they're not clowns. They're just people who give away guns worth hundreds, thousands of dollars, for a $100 gift card. I call them "clowns". You can call them whatever word you use for people like that in your world.
@28
"Well regulated." Or "you have to be this tall to ride this ride". Or "you have to this far away from being a total fuckhead to have a gun". Privilege. Scalia made clear that specific requirements were fine; that's far short of an outright ban. Require gun owners to earn the privilege by demonstrating their heads aren't all the way up their asses. It's not asking much but it would make all the difference.
It's so fucked up to think how many of you guys want people with their heads up their asses to be heavily armed.
33
@28: "most people here" understand the context in which the constitution was created. yahweh didn't hand it to moses, a bunch of rich northern white guys negotiated with a bunch of rich slave-owning southern white guys to form the union.
to get virginia to sign on, there had to be explicit language that left the slave patrol militias under state, not federal, control. hence, a "free state", not the original "free nation". the 2nd doesn't have a particularly spotless pedigree.
"the people" already have their RKBA infringed, and you're not squeaking about automatics being stringently controlled for 75 years now. or maybe you are.
to get virginia to sign on, there had to be explicit language that left the slave patrol militias under state, not federal, control. hence, a "free state", not the original "free nation". the 2nd doesn't have a particularly spotless pedigree.
"the people" already have their RKBA infringed, and you're not squeaking about automatics being stringently controlled for 75 years now. or maybe you are.
34
Interesting photos of the shady guys trying to buy guns outside the gun buyback. The looks on their fugly faces! As others have noted they are majority conservative looking white guys with buzzed military style haircuts. Look like a bunch of paranoid teabagger assholes looking to get more guns they dont need so when Obama comes for them they have a large supply of untraceable weapons.
35
I noticed the "free doughnuts" guy has a handicapped license plate. He looks pretty able to me, but hell, if it gives him a pass from feeding the meters, I guess it's all good.
36
@31: YES, finally someone understands - when we say "lock up the violent fuckheads, using the cages currently occupied by non-violent people who ingest non-elite-approved substances," what we really mean is "arm people with their heads up their asses."
People who kill other people don't follow laws. Deal with the fucking criminals, then come talk to us about new laws. Or, even better, just push your favorite Team Blue or Team Red representative to test your theory about whether gun owners are now, finally, a non-voting anachronism who can be safely dismissed.
People who kill other people don't follow laws. Deal with the fucking criminals, then come talk to us about new laws. Or, even better, just push your favorite Team Blue or Team Red representative to test your theory about whether gun owners are now, finally, a non-voting anachronism who can be safely dismissed.
37
Gun owners try to make everyone think they are responsible citizens who are mentally stable...(Maybe some are decent folks but anyone who feels its necessicary to pack heat isnt thinking clearly) right up until one day they snap and shoot someone or their gun gets used in a shooting by someone who borrowed or stole it or a kid gets it.
38
Hey, non american here wondering.... would anyone care to explain to me what in hell a civilian needs an "assault riffle" for?
39
Every time I hear all these violent fantasies of what gun owners are supposedly going to commit at some unknown point in the future, I hear a lot of projection going on. If I handed you a gun at this event, would you be tempted to take some of them out? I carry, but I've never had that kind of temptation. I understand the difference between non-aggression and self-defense. Do you?
40
A lot of the guns pictured look like single action "long guns," which I wouldn't even mind owning. Of course, I wouldn't prop it up against my belly or feet since I actually took a gun safety course as a kid. We're doomed as a species, btw.
41
@36
Dealing with the criminals means first overcoming opposition from the NRA and their gun nut fans. It's the gun lobby who are most responsible for preventing law enforcement from doing it's job.
And how can law enforcement figure out how to do its job when the gun lobby has prevented the governemnt from researching the causes of gun deaths?
How are we supposed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them without tracking every gun sale? And with the teabaggers preventing access to mental health diagnosis?
It isn't just about new laws. It's also repealing existing laws that gun nuts put in place to help criminals. To help crazy people get off the background check black list. Not to mention seating judges and the head of the ATF.
All this stuff about wanting to stop criminals is a pack of lies. You care more about selling more guns than you do about stopping criminals. The NRA is the criminal's best friend.
Dealing with the criminals means first overcoming opposition from the NRA and their gun nut fans. It's the gun lobby who are most responsible for preventing law enforcement from doing it's job.
And how can law enforcement figure out how to do its job when the gun lobby has prevented the governemnt from researching the causes of gun deaths?
How are we supposed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them without tracking every gun sale? And with the teabaggers preventing access to mental health diagnosis?
It isn't just about new laws. It's also repealing existing laws that gun nuts put in place to help criminals. To help crazy people get off the background check black list. Not to mention seating judges and the head of the ATF.
All this stuff about wanting to stop criminals is a pack of lies. You care more about selling more guns than you do about stopping criminals. The NRA is the criminal's best friend.
42
@41: Murder is illegal. Rape is illegal. Aggravated assault is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. Ownership of firearms by felons is illegal. Do you really need a vast study to tell you that leaving people with a history of violence in society produces violent outcomes? Or yet another study showing that in a vast majority of cases, a murder is preceded by a history of violent behavior? Or that criminals do not, by definition, follow laws on purchase requirements or anything else?
Have a poke through some of the volumes your government has already produced on recidivism, it's enlightening:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp…
or causes of death:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60…
As to leaving "crazy people" (your words, not mine) off background check lists - I know next to nothing about mental illness but have gotten shouted down on here multiple times about the mentally ill being no more likely to be violent than anyone else. I'd be perfectly happy to use a history of violent behavior as a close-enough proxy for those mentally ill patients who should be nowhere near a gun.
And I have to say, I find it humorous how you repeatedly blather about how the NRA is out of touch, unsupported by its own membership, and going to the dustbin of history, that somehow it is singlehandedly to blame for bringing all of these "common sense" measures to bear. Somehow an executive branch that can use flying robots to kill hundreds of women and children halfway across the world, execute US citizens without due process, listen to and log all electronic communications without a warrant, and kick down doors and shoot people and pets with abandon in search of unapproved plants, can't manage to address putting violent thugs in cages because of the NRA.
Get your proposals out for a vote and let's find out who's motivated.
More...
Have a poke through some of the volumes your government has already produced on recidivism, it's enlightening:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp…
or causes of death:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60…
As to leaving "crazy people" (your words, not mine) off background check lists - I know next to nothing about mental illness but have gotten shouted down on here multiple times about the mentally ill being no more likely to be violent than anyone else. I'd be perfectly happy to use a history of violent behavior as a close-enough proxy for those mentally ill patients who should be nowhere near a gun.
And I have to say, I find it humorous how you repeatedly blather about how the NRA is out of touch, unsupported by its own membership, and going to the dustbin of history, that somehow it is singlehandedly to blame for bringing all of these "common sense" measures to bear. Somehow an executive branch that can use flying robots to kill hundreds of women and children halfway across the world, execute US citizens without due process, listen to and log all electronic communications without a warrant, and kick down doors and shoot people and pets with abandon in search of unapproved plants, can't manage to address putting violent thugs in cages because of the NRA.
Get your proposals out for a vote and let's find out who's motivated.
44
The ad hominem attacks against white men here so incredibly bigotted and hypocritical for you "Tolerant libs."
Its as if "white man" is a perjoritive term with you people. Turn your comments around on yourself and your identity and see if you would tolerate your racist crap from anyone else.
Guess its no wonder the "little-dicked white men" are arming up huh? Everyone is out to get them...
Its as if "white man" is a perjoritive term with you people. Turn your comments around on yourself and your identity and see if you would tolerate your racist crap from anyone else.
Guess its no wonder the "little-dicked white men" are arming up huh? Everyone is out to get them...
45
@44
Welcome to minority status. Why so nervous?
And please go back to whomever promised you tolerance from me and demand your money back. I don't tolerate fuckheads.
Welcome to minority status. Why so nervous?
And please go back to whomever promised you tolerance from me and demand your money back. I don't tolerate fuckheads.
47
Boring Dad wants to make believe that he knows who is safe to own a gun but forgets that humans are human. Boring Dad could be driving his kids to soccer in his SUV then gets cut off and snaps and shoots someone with his gun because he lost control. Its not just mentally ill people committing gun violence. Wake up. Guns will have to be banned because people are too stupid. It doesnt matter if the majority of Americans like guns, its a public safety issue. The majority of Americans might like to own a missile or auto machine gun but they cant because its too dangerous to have these types of weapons in the hands of the public.
48
"The ad hominem attacks against white men here so incredibly bigotted and hypocritical for you "Tolerant libs.""
Boo hoo poor christian conservative middle age white guy. Save that shit for your teabagger buddies.
Boo hoo poor christian conservative middle age white guy. Save that shit for your teabagger buddies.
49
Thank you Kelly for posting these photos and bringing more upfront a situation what I believe other media initially overlooked or downplayed.
50
@47: What I said, if you read it, was precisely the opposite of there being "just mentally ill people committing gun violence."
And I would encourage you to loudly, publicly call for a gun ban, and tell gun owners what you think of them, especially the "stupid" part. Please encourage your elected representatives to do this as well, we should all be out in the open on where we stand.
And I would encourage you to loudly, publicly call for a gun ban, and tell gun owners what you think of them, especially the "stupid" part. Please encourage your elected representatives to do this as well, we should all be out in the open on where we stand.
51
@50
We've been calling racists stupid for 50 years and now we have a black president. We mock and ridicule sexist pigs and it's looking like our next president might be a woman. We were awful close to a female president the last time around. We've been saying openly that fundie religious nutbags are in fact fundie religious nutbags, and gay marriage is spreading from one state to the next. The Boy Scouts are finally coming around. So there. Do you think we should feign respect for violent Islamic extremists because we're cowed by terrorism? Or call them on their shit?
This whole idea of having to walk on eggshells when you're discussing the ideas of troglodytes doesn't pan out. History rewards those who tell it like it is.
I don't personally want to ban all guns, but it's a respectable, viable political position and nothing to be ashamed of. Certainly if people who would ban all abortions are free to speak their minds, why not everyone else?
We've been calling racists stupid for 50 years and now we have a black president. We mock and ridicule sexist pigs and it's looking like our next president might be a woman. We were awful close to a female president the last time around. We've been saying openly that fundie religious nutbags are in fact fundie religious nutbags, and gay marriage is spreading from one state to the next. The Boy Scouts are finally coming around. So there. Do you think we should feign respect for violent Islamic extremists because we're cowed by terrorism? Or call them on their shit?
This whole idea of having to walk on eggshells when you're discussing the ideas of troglodytes doesn't pan out. History rewards those who tell it like it is.
I don't personally want to ban all guns, but it's a respectable, viable political position and nothing to be ashamed of. Certainly if people who would ban all abortions are free to speak their minds, why not everyone else?
53
Boring Dad, you realize any gun owner is prone to random violence but still think its ok to carry a gun. And dont worry, a gun ban is coming. You gun owners will ensure it.
54
@42
Hitting somebody with your car was illegal in 1920, when we had 20 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. If we'd listened to you, we'd still have that many deaths. Which would translate into 400,000 people a year killed on the road as of 2010.
Instead, we spent the last 90 years doing scientific research on traffic deaths, funding engineering of better roads and better cars, and passing all sorts of new traffic laws. The result? Less than 1.5 deaths per 100 million VMT. That's only 30,000 deaths per year, and falling. The number of deaths per year is declining even though the number of miles driven is increasing.
Drunk driving was illegal when MADD was founded. I suppose you would have been satisfied with the rate of drunk driving deaths 35 years ago, but fortunately idiots like you don't run things. We did something about drunk driving, as a result of research, hard work, and a willingness to try many different approaches. Your counterparts in the 1980s actually argued that drunk driving was a man's right. For real. "Accidental" deaths were just the price of liberty. Sound familiar?
We live in a complex world and it takes more than just passing one law and washing your hands to save lives in our world.
Gun deaths? Getting worse. They've already almost exceeded traffic deaths, and soon they will. Why? Because you idiots and your gun lobby have made "do nothing" our national policy.
Hitting somebody with your car was illegal in 1920, when we had 20 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. If we'd listened to you, we'd still have that many deaths. Which would translate into 400,000 people a year killed on the road as of 2010.
Instead, we spent the last 90 years doing scientific research on traffic deaths, funding engineering of better roads and better cars, and passing all sorts of new traffic laws. The result? Less than 1.5 deaths per 100 million VMT. That's only 30,000 deaths per year, and falling. The number of deaths per year is declining even though the number of miles driven is increasing.
Drunk driving was illegal when MADD was founded. I suppose you would have been satisfied with the rate of drunk driving deaths 35 years ago, but fortunately idiots like you don't run things. We did something about drunk driving, as a result of research, hard work, and a willingness to try many different approaches. Your counterparts in the 1980s actually argued that drunk driving was a man's right. For real. "Accidental" deaths were just the price of liberty. Sound familiar?
We live in a complex world and it takes more than just passing one law and washing your hands to save lives in our world.
Gun deaths? Getting worse. They've already almost exceeded traffic deaths, and soon they will. Why? Because you idiots and your gun lobby have made "do nothing" our national policy.
57
Yea, the ad hominem is disturbing, but that's what happens when people choose not to deal with facts. It's a sign of weakness of argument - period. For everyone who thinks gun ownership tends toward a higher murder rate and more violent crime, research the results of Australia's 1997 gun ban. The Australian government has admitted that there is no corrollary between gun bans and violent crime. The murder rate was stagnant between the preceding and years following the ban. Home invasions, rape, armed robbery are all up.
Those who feel any "white guy driving a suburban who gets cut off" is going to snap and shoot somebody are proffering a assertion which has nothing to substantiate it. Public discourse shouldn't be about making wild accusations which the asserter blindly thinks everyone sees as self-evident. It's not. If you have a thought or belief, back it up with an actual *argument.*
It is an incontrovertible fact that guns take innocent lives and save innocent lives - it all depends on the person pulling the trigger and the scenario that one either creates or is thrust into against their will. We give cops (mostly white guys btw) guns because we know they can save lives with them and protect the country. Why do some believe that cops are somehow less likely to snap, less likely to be violent unjustly, and generally more likely to be responsible with guns? They are people like anyone else. If we can acknowledge a need for the police to have weapons, why not other equally responsible, mature, thinking, caring Americans? You can't simply paint the entire gun owning population as crazy nutjobs, without greatly contradicting yourselves.
Those who feel any "white guy driving a suburban who gets cut off" is going to snap and shoot somebody are proffering a assertion which has nothing to substantiate it. Public discourse shouldn't be about making wild accusations which the asserter blindly thinks everyone sees as self-evident. It's not. If you have a thought or belief, back it up with an actual *argument.*
It is an incontrovertible fact that guns take innocent lives and save innocent lives - it all depends on the person pulling the trigger and the scenario that one either creates or is thrust into against their will. We give cops (mostly white guys btw) guns because we know they can save lives with them and protect the country. Why do some believe that cops are somehow less likely to snap, less likely to be violent unjustly, and generally more likely to be responsible with guns? They are people like anyone else. If we can acknowledge a need for the police to have weapons, why not other equally responsible, mature, thinking, caring Americans? You can't simply paint the entire gun owning population as crazy nutjobs, without greatly contradicting yourselves.
59
"Those who feel any "white guy driving a suburban who gets cut off" is going to snap and shoot somebody are proffering a assertion which has nothing to substantiate it."
No, they are proffering an assertion of what they think someone else would do, based on their own poor impulse control and anger management.
No, they are proffering an assertion of what they think someone else would do, based on their own poor impulse control and anger management.
61
If the fascists have their way and impose a gun ban, what is to prevent the same jackwagons from taking away all civil rights? Do any of you gun ban types study history?
Is there even a scintilla of awareness of how many hundreds millions of human beings have been exterminated by fascist states after those states banned private ownerdship of current military style weapons? Do names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos, Pinochet, Napolean, Ho Chi Minh, Beria, Mao, Mengele, George III, mean anything to those who actually believe that a gun ban will make their lives somehow safer? Are any of the banners even remotely aware of the Federalist Papers and how the Second Amendment was developed with the recent bitter experience of the American revolution. Those who claim that times are different now are correct, but that mainly applies to technology. The psychopaths who reach positions of political power understand that they are vulnerable to rebellion and need to disarm the people. Molin Labe.
Is there even a scintilla of awareness of how many hundreds millions of human beings have been exterminated by fascist states after those states banned private ownerdship of current military style weapons? Do names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos, Pinochet, Napolean, Ho Chi Minh, Beria, Mao, Mengele, George III, mean anything to those who actually believe that a gun ban will make their lives somehow safer? Are any of the banners even remotely aware of the Federalist Papers and how the Second Amendment was developed with the recent bitter experience of the American revolution. Those who claim that times are different now are correct, but that mainly applies to technology. The psychopaths who reach positions of political power understand that they are vulnerable to rebellion and need to disarm the people. Molin Labe.
62
Thanks True Liberal, well said.
Those who ban guns (even for "the children") are tyrants, despite their best intentions.
Lets see, who is trying to ban guns lately........
Molon labe
Those who ban guns (even for "the children") are tyrants, despite their best intentions.
Lets see, who is trying to ban guns lately........
Molon labe
63
I saw maybe two rifles of military utility in this buyback, and both are from WWII. The fast majoirty of the guns being turned in this buyback look like really old shotguns and .22lr target rifles that are probably worth less than the state is paying to get them back. Gun buybacks are really effective at getting old, crappy guns off the streets.
I mean, come on. A good AR-15 would run you about $1000 BEFORE sandy happened. Now they're selling for triple that. What idiot would turn an assault rifle or modern pistol in for a 50 or $100 gift card??
And to the guy who questioned why some of the buyers have short hair. They're probably current or former military. People who get out often keep their hair short 'cause that's what they're used to. Current and former military also generally enjoy shooting. Amazing.
I mean, come on. A good AR-15 would run you about $1000 BEFORE sandy happened. Now they're selling for triple that. What idiot would turn an assault rifle or modern pistol in for a 50 or $100 gift card??
And to the guy who questioned why some of the buyers have short hair. They're probably current or former military. People who get out often keep their hair short 'cause that's what they're used to. Current and former military also generally enjoy shooting. Amazing.
64
I saw maybe two rifles of military utility in this buyback, and both are from WWII. The fast majoirty of the guns being turned in this buyback look like really old shotguns and .22lr target rifles that are probably worth less than the state is paying to get them back. Gun buybacks are really effective at getting old, crappy guns off the streets.
I mean, come on. A good AR-15 would run you about $1000 BEFORE sandy happened. Now they're selling for triple that. What idiot would turn an assault rifle or modern pistol in for a 50 or $100 gift card??
And to the guy who questioned why some of the buyers have short hair. They're probably current or former military. People who get out often keep their hair short 'cause that's what they're used to. Current and former military also generally enjoy shooting. Amazing.
I mean, come on. A good AR-15 would run you about $1000 BEFORE sandy happened. Now they're selling for triple that. What idiot would turn an assault rifle or modern pistol in for a 50 or $100 gift card??
And to the guy who questioned why some of the buyers have short hair. They're probably current or former military. People who get out often keep their hair short 'cause that's what they're used to. Current and former military also generally enjoy shooting. Amazing.
65
I think the Seattle gun buyback was spectacularly futile. I mean, look at those folks, and look at the decrepit squirrel rifles they're getting rid of. Not about to knock over any liquor stores, ne? I agree with the sentiment that reducing the total number of guns in circulation is useful, but I think it could have been targeted better (limited to people living in the Seattle area, limited to weapons that are most likely to cause harm, offering gift cards that are near market value for semi-automatic handguns, etc.). As long as guns are readily available, gun buybacks are a thumb in the dyke. The only solution I can conceive of to address gun violence decisively is an outright ban on individual gun ownership/sale, coupled with a forced buyback at the state or national level, but I recognize how politically unfeasible this is given the paranoia of too many gun enthusiasts. The next best thing in my estimation would be very rigorous regulation of the sale and possession of firearms. No gun should be sold or exchanged without a background check and a permanent record of the transaction. That's a common-sense measure that reasonable folks everywhere should be behind.
66
@65,
Your usage of the hackneyed term "common sense" is oxymoronic. There is no suich thing as common sense, although there is uncommon sense.On the other hand, there are common sensibilities. It is my understanding that a common progressive sensibility is the notion that gov't. can make us safer by disarming :everyone". The uncommon sense that applies here is market function. Prohibition of a desired product or service has never worked, has typically led to greater lawlessness and reduced safety. You can bet that overseas arms producers will spring up like mushrooms to feed the smuggling of massive numbers of weapons and ammuntion across our southern border and the coast lines. Domestic production done underground with the aide of CNC machines and 3D printers will become epidemic. Organized crime will attempt to control the market. There will be no effective restrictions on weapons types, capabilities and ready availability to ANYONE.
In other words, prohibition will lead to chaos.
Your usage of the hackneyed term "common sense" is oxymoronic. There is no suich thing as common sense, although there is uncommon sense.On the other hand, there are common sensibilities. It is my understanding that a common progressive sensibility is the notion that gov't. can make us safer by disarming :everyone". The uncommon sense that applies here is market function. Prohibition of a desired product or service has never worked, has typically led to greater lawlessness and reduced safety. You can bet that overseas arms producers will spring up like mushrooms to feed the smuggling of massive numbers of weapons and ammuntion across our southern border and the coast lines. Domestic production done underground with the aide of CNC machines and 3D printers will become epidemic. Organized crime will attempt to control the market. There will be no effective restrictions on weapons types, capabilities and ready availability to ANYONE.
In other words, prohibition will lead to chaos.
67
It is my understanding that a common progressive sensibility is the notion that gov't. can make us safer by disarming "everyone".
Where do you get ideas like that? I'd really like to know. The gun culture I grew up with doesn't exist anymore. That's what we progressives want back. The well-regulated past in which I learned to hunt animals for food (we really WERE that poor) with a .22 single shot rifle is GONE! Everyone who owned a gun back then knew the danger and acted appropriately. Now? Now, I see people with guns overly-powerful for any legitimate purpose, and acting like assholes.
68
@67;
I get that idea from observing the speech and actions of progressives. Look back over the posts in this thread and you will find examples. I have yet to meet a progressive who wants to understands the need for high capcity mags and military style weapons. Very few understand how weapons work. I do not understand your reference to "well regulated" in the past. In the 2nd Amendment, well regulated refers to the structure and nature of the militia of the people, and not federal government legislation and regulations. For the federal legal description of the militia of the people, see US Code 10.
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I get the part about hunting for sustinence. You might be surprised to learn that sustenance hunting is making a huge come back. I have observed that the numbers of wild deer in suburban or semi-rural areas is way down. To many unemployed and hungry people. I am also puzzled by the notion of "guns overly powerful for any legitimate purpose". Is rebellion against tyranny, domestic or foreign, a legitimate purpose? As for assholes, just check out the current administration and their compatriots in Congress.
I get that idea from observing the speech and actions of progressives. Look back over the posts in this thread and you will find examples. I have yet to meet a progressive who wants to understands the need for high capcity mags and military style weapons. Very few understand how weapons work. I do not understand your reference to "well regulated" in the past. In the 2nd Amendment, well regulated refers to the structure and nature of the militia of the people, and not federal government legislation and regulations. For the federal legal description of the militia of the people, see US Code 10.
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I get the part about hunting for sustinence. You might be surprised to learn that sustenance hunting is making a huge come back. I have observed that the numbers of wild deer in suburban or semi-rural areas is way down. To many unemployed and hungry people. I am also puzzled by the notion of "guns overly powerful for any legitimate purpose". Is rebellion against tyranny, domestic or foreign, a legitimate purpose? As for assholes, just check out the current administration and their compatriots in Congress.
Comments (69) RSS