Second Amendment rights exercised in Orlando

What about "gun buyback program?"

 

"Umm, nevermind. You guys can have him." - ISIS

http://nypost.com/2016/06/15/orlando-terrorist-shared-penis-pictures-on-gay-dating-website/

 

Sure, let's have the government stockpile all those weapons.

I do think hefty fines for anyone who owns more than two guns is something most reasonable people would be for. I can't imagine anyone needs more than a couple guns at most. And if you do have three or more guns, you should be put on a watchlist.

 

No need if we're talking a ban similar to what Clinton did years ago. It drove the prices so high that it took them out of the reach of most potential buyers.

There's been a lot of money made at gun shops by timing the fears of buyers. They were pretty cheap in 2006 and '07, but Obama's election caused a spike in 2008. ARs that went for $600 were selling for more than $2,000 after Sandy Hook as buyers thought 20 dead kids would result in a ban. Prices jumped after this weekend too. And will likely continue to climb for the foreseeable future.

 

I was more pointing out to DQ that there are more options available than government seizure of personal property.

A buyback would (hopefully) get some of the existing guns out of circulation, though, and it would do so in a manner that is Constitutionally permissible. Restricting access to assault weapons (and, of course, high-capacity magazines) is important, but without actually reducing the number of weapons already out there, it won't be as effective.

I'm certain the political will does not exist on either side to seize weapons from law-abiding citizens. A buyback could at least be a step in the right direction to reduce the number of guns.

 

Chicago regularly has gun buyback programs.

 

A required buyback will never fly. And I doubt if they could afford a buyback program that makes it worthwhile to the current AR/AK owners to participate.

Most buyback programs result in low-quality, cheap Saturday Night Special type specials being turned in. They'll actually make more on the buyback than selling it on the street or at a pawn shop.

 

Cool story, bro.

 

Again, I brought up the buyback in context of a poll question, but as long as we're discussing it on its merits, it's more viable than a government seizure of personal property. The NRA makes any of these scenarios highly unlikely to become reality, but it's worth discussing. Given all the chaff in the federal budget, I'm sure they can move the money around to fund this program if they have the will to do it. I just sincerely doubt anybody in Congress (on both sides) actually has the will.

Also, a buyback program is just one part of an overall policy that would have to be enacted if we're really going to make any kind of a dent in gun violence rates in this country.

 

I know the context. I was just furthering it a bit to explain why I don't see it as a workable plan.

 

And I just brought my point up because I'm not at all surprised that "Ban 'em!" polls well. The nitty-gritty nut-cuttin' reality of effecting "Ban 'em!" would be, IMO, wildly unpopular.

 

Fair enough, and I agree with you. But I'm actually curious to see what response to a poll question that included a buyback program would elicit.