The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Phase2]

Not really. That "compensation" thing is pretty important. Confiscation doesn't include it. The constitution does.

Paying $100 for a $1000 rifle is not compensation, particularly if it is mandatory. On the other hand, if they are willing to pay retail+ then the gun manufacturers will declare mandatory overtime.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Paying $100 for a $1000 rifle is not compensation, particularly if it is mandatory. On the other hand, if they are willing to pay retail+ then the gun manufacturers will declare mandatory overtime.

Just had a thought pop into my head. Whether the government "compensates" me or not, if I'm an unwilling seller, is it still a sale? Here's where I'm going... I have all my guns insured. If I'm forced to give them up, can I file a claim with my insurance company? Let's say a common thief broke in and stole all my guns, but he was nice enough to leave me a few hundred bucks for the thousands of dollars worth of guns. I'm pretty sure I could file a claim with my insurance company because they would consider it theft and not a mutually agreed upon sales transaction. I see these "buy backs" (again, how can you buy back something you never owned?) as the same situation. They're proposing "taking" peoples' property, paying a fraction of what they're worth, in a transaction to which one of the parties was not a willing participant. Sounds like theft to me.

 

[jamil]

Not really. That "compensation" thing is pretty important. Confiscation doesn't include it. The constitution does.

That's semantic jello. It's confiscation if not for a silly technicality.

If they come to my door and ask to buy back mine--assuming I have something to confiscate after the horrible boating accident--can I decline without seeing guns pointed at me at some stage?

 

[jamil]

Hey, if they're paying retail, I could probably dig up some junk somewhere to sell them.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Hey, if they're paying retail, I could probably dig up some junk somewhere to sell them.

Just to rub salt in the wounds, they'll probably make payment in Walmart gift cards.

 

[T.Lex]

That's semantic jello. It's confiscation if not for a silly technicality.

If they come to my door and ask to buy back mine--assuming I have something to confiscate after the horrible boating accident--can I decline without seeing guns pointed at me at some stage?

Well, the constitution is full of semantic jello then.

Look, I'm assuming a Dem majority would pass presumptively constitutional laws about this.

If they do - and there is a narrow way for them to do it - then it is no longer semantic, it is definitional.

How many people were prosecuted for hording gold? I honestly don't know, but it was more than 1.

 

[actaeon277]

It's confiscation.
If someone takes $30k from me, then buys my car with that money, THEY didn't buy it.
I did.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, the constitution is full of semantic jello then.

Look, I'm assuming a Dem majority would pass presumptively constitutional laws about this.

If they do - and there is a narrow way for them to do it - then it is no longer semantic, it is definitional.

How many people were prosecuted for hording gold? I honestly don't know, but it was more than 1.

I don't know how it could be twisted into something constitutional. Are criminals compensated when they forfeit their assets? No. Why? Because they were convicted of a crime. Are property owners compensated in cases of "eminent domain"? Yes, because (allegedly) their property is needed for something that will benefit the public at large. A gun "buyback" fits neither of these. A crime has not been committed, so it's not legal under asset forfeiture, and they're not giving the guns out to the public for their benefit so...

 

[actaeon277]

 

[jamil]

I don't know how it could be twisted into something constitutional. Are criminals compensated when they forfeit their assets? No. Why? Because they were convicted of a crime. Are property owners compensated in cases of "eminent domain"? Yes, because (allegedly) their property is needed for something that will benefit the public at large. A gun "buyback" fits neither of these. A crime has not been committed, so it's not legal under asset forfeiture, and they're not giving the guns out to the public for their benefit so...

Well, that opens up another can of worms. Under forfeiture laws they don't even have to break the law. The resources confiscated just have to be suspect as being used in a crime.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, that opens up another can of worms. Under forfeiture laws they don't even have to break the law. The resources confiscated just have to be suspect as being used in a crime.

Good point! So the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that my guns have been used in a crime, or at least show probable cause to believe that they were.

 

[OakRiver]

Just to rub salt in the wounds, they'll probably make payment in Walmart gift cards.

That they will then tax you on as earnings. So your firearm was confiscated by people paid by your tax dollars, your were paid off with your tax dollars, and now you have to pay taxes on what .gov paid you.

 

[Phase2]

That they will then tax you on as earnings. So your firearm was confiscated by people paid by your tax dollars, your were paid off with your tax dollars, and now you have to pay taxes on what .gov paid you.

Tell them it was an investment and you have to write it off as a loss instead.

 

[BugI02]

Uhhh, the receipts went down with the safe in the horrible boating accident. Can't even list what I had, let alone what I paid for them

 

[JettaKnight]

Beto did a AMA on Reddit... and got schooled by folks with facts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d6etv5/hi_im_beto_orourke_a_candidate_for_president/f0sje1u/

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Beto did a AMA on Reddit... and got schooled by folks with facts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d6etv5/hi_im_beto_orourke_a_candidate_for_president/f0sje1u/

They ALL get schooled when presented with the real facts. The problem is, while they should be listening to the truth, they're all

 

[ArcadiaGP]

DeBlasio is out

 

[BugI02]

He's term limited after 2022 also. Expect him to run for some other seat at the trough. The peeps can resolve this problem and the one in Albany for good in 2022, only the cities (NYC and Long Island, Buffalo, Binghampton, Rochester and Syracuse) went for either of them but it's a Chicago/Illinois situation (NYC population is 44% of state population) and you can win with just urban backing

 

[Phase2]

New Yorkers grieve that he will be able to pay attention to NYC again.

 

[Phase2]

2020 Dem Yang Says He’ll Get People to Stop Eating Meat by Taxing Producers to Make It More Expensive

Just another Democrat regressive tax on the poor.

-or-

Vote for me and I'll take stuff away from you!