|Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie|
They are all exactly what we think we are.
Gillibrand Would Prosecute Gun Owners Who Don’t Turn Arms Over To Feds
August 14th, 2019
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand supports jailing gun owners who don't comply with buybacks. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)
Democratic Senator and presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand announced Wednesday that she would prosecute gun owners who refuse to turn their arms over to the federal government.
While the majority of 2020 Democrats support measures to restrict so-called “assault weapons” or other firearms technology, few join Gillibrand’s willingness to bring criminal charges against Americans who don’t surrender their legally acquired guns.
CNN anchor Poppy Harlow asked Senator Gillibrand if she supports mandatory buybacks of assault rifles with criminal prosecution for those who do not participate.
“I think both of those ideas are strong,” the senator replied, according to Politico.
“I think we should ban assault weapons as well as large magazines, and as part of passing that ban, do a buyback program across the country so that those who own them can be … compensated for their money that they spent,” Gillibrand explained.
While critics of this idea highlight how mandatory buybacks are nothing but gun confiscation, Gillibrand stressed that she doesn’t “want people to retain them [guns] because if you make them illegal, you don’t want to grandfather in all the assault weapons that are all across America,” reported Politico.
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Cory Booker, Rep. Eric Swalwell and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have also supported mandatory buy-backs at various points during their campaigns.
Acta Non Verba Trump Stands Alone...but he fights
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country
"My guns are always loaded."
What whiskey will not cure, there is no cure.
Yet these same democrats support sanctuary cities and open borders ignoring the horrendous crimes that result from violent criminal illegal aliens including rapes and murders. However they have no problem putting in prison otherwise law abiding US citizen gun owners who refuse to turn in their previously legal firearms due to unconstitutional laws they may create. Here in Illinois the democrats want to ban semi automatic rifles make it a felony to simply possess a part for an AR15 including a forearm or pistol grip.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
― Margaret Thatcher
I'll try not to get too far off topic...but when I read stories like this about some of the Democrat candidates' extremist gun control proposals I can't help but become disappointed in the NRA's political candidate rating and support evaluations. I remember when the NRA supported Kirsten Gillibrand's candidacy...and she is not the only candidate that the NRA supported who later proved to be hostile to the 2nd amendment.
|Go ahead punk, make my day|
I hear you, but to be honest the hard left / flips by the whole Democratic party has caught the country by surprise - I mean they have always been moving left, but in the past 2-3 years they have been stumbling over themselves in a race to the bottom.
And be honest, Gillibrand is searching for ANYTHING that would get her some traction and out of the 0-1% polling club. ANYTHING.
And going forward, we know not to trust a single fucking one of them.
I remember when the NRA supported Harry Reid's re-election candidacy because Reid in Nevada, a relatively strong 2A supporting state, had worked to make a large shooting complex possible and appeared at the ribbon-cutting ceremony. I'd be willing to bet there are other Democrat candidate that the NRA supported who later supported gun control proposals. Hell, even President Trump is supported by the NRA, but he pushed the Bump Stock ban through his administration (rather than allowing the process to stand the test of legislation), and has made statements against suppressor ownership and against the NRA itself.
I get the fact that (some) candidates "flip", although is it really flipping when we expect them to change their positions after receiving NRA approval? My point is that I think the NRA should be more prudent when it comes to evaluating and rating candidates and use a higher set of standards before giving a candidate a favorable rating. Part of their eval and rating system is simply relying on a standard candidate questionnaire, which obviously the candidate can answer anyway they please. Actions speak louder than words...or, as was said when I was growing up, "Talk is cheap and good whiskey costs money".
Gillibrand supposedly grew up hunting in a hunting family and supported gun ownership and use. I believe the NRA should evaluate a candidate using a more stringent set of standards and take a longer harder look at not only their answers on the questionnaire but other public comments, and not just their words but more importantly their actions. If they support gun use, hunting, sporting, and defensive use, then what actions have they taken in support of these. How often do they hunt, what firearms training have they been through and plan to go through, what certifications and/or licenses do they hold, what shooting organizations are they a member of, do they belong or have they ever belonged to a shooting range, how long have they been a member, do their family members participate in shooting activities with them, what actions have they taken to support the 2A before their candidacy, when was the last time they went shooting or hunting, what candidates have they supported in the past and what actions have these supported candidates taken regarding 2A?
I'd like the NRA to vet candidates seeking their support and ratings more stringently and hand out favorable ratings only to candidates have demonstrated 2A support and not just given lip service to it.
All it would take is an amendment of current NFA law under USC Title 26. By adding the term 'Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon' to existing law to make EVERY possession and transfer subject to NFA. While they are at it, all they would have to do is up the transfer tax from $200 (which it has been since 1934, BTW) to an amount that would 'discourage' purchases and sales. In 1934, $200 was a lot of money afterall.
Many of the NFA laws have been tested in court and found by numerous courts to be 'constitutional'. I'm suprised they would go for a new Assault Weapons Bill, when all they would have to do is amend NFA. Hopefully they aren't reading this
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|