The Gun Buyback Loophoole

Oregon: Gun turn-in pits Ceasefire against collectors with cash

Only 43 people turned in unwanted guns Saturday at Ceasefire Oregon’s latest community collection event, in the Veterans Memorial Coliseum parking lot.

Compared to 152 last year. And competition probably had something to do with it:

[Gun collectors] lined up at the parking lot’s two entrances, hoping to convince people driving in to sell them their guns rather than hand them over to police for destruction. Each gun turned in to police earned a $50 Fred Meyer gift certificate.

The gun collectors waved signs at cars approaching the lot, reading: “I buy guns, $50-$200 cash.”

By the end of the day, the collectors said they had managed to buy 10 to 15 guns that otherwise would have been turned in and destroyed.

Some guy turned in a practically-new Glock, still in its original box for a $50 grocery store card. Clear thinking on his part.

But I imagine some guys got some good deals, and the sellers got a better deal than the authorities were going to give them. And it didn’t cost taxpayers one single penny.

Liz Julee, a Ceasefire Oregon Educational Foundation board member, looked at the men and women at the parking lot entrances and refused to accept that they were there only to add to their gun collections.

“I think it’s political,” Julee said. “I think it’s unfortunate that they feel they need to have an oppositional presence.”

I doubt too many people really care what you think is unfortunate, Liz. Really. After all, it’s not like Ceasefire Oregon is un-political. You don’t like it? Get the laws changed so people can’t sell their private property to other people.

Via TTAG.

What the gun control lobby doesn’t want you to know

Meant to post this a while back but didn’t get around to it until I noticed it linked somewhere today:
The Unconcealed Truth About Carrying Guns

Steve Chapman writes about the discussion of concealed carry in Illinois and the predictions of blood running in the streets that the antis are making. Murdoc hasn’t always agreed with everything Chapman has written, but on this one I’ll give a thumbs up.

36 states now have “shall issue” concealed carry and 4 more don’t require a permit at all. Only 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, have no form of concealed carry permit available for normal folks.

Uninformed. As usual.

Banning Assault Weapons: Time For The NRA To Admit It’s All About Lifestyle

Some guy named Aaron Epple writes:

When George W. Bush quietly allowed the federal assault weapons ban expire in 2004

Wait. George W. Bush allowed the ban to expire? How? Did he veto the bill extending it?

That’s right. No bill made it out of Congress. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was voted down 8-90 in the Senate with an amendment to extend the AWB. The bill, without the amendment, passed 65-31, the following year.

Okay. Next sentence:

When Jared Loughner killed six people in 15 seconds with a Glock 9 equipped with a thirty-round magazine last month

Wait. A Glock 9? With a 30-round magazine? The weapon was a Glock 17 and he had a 33-round magazine.

This guy can’t even do the most basic simple research into his lead paragraph, yet he feels like he’s in a position to tell all the rest of us which parts of our God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights us citizens should be allowed to exercise.

The rest of his column pretty much goes downhill from there.

This is a gem from Susan in the comments section, though:

He has set out what those of us who don’t buy into the gun culture think about the subject.

To which Murdoc responded:

Yes he has. He starts his argument with statements about what happened that are just plain uninformed and show that he didn’t spend ten seconds on the internet to learn anything before deciding to tell everyone else which parts of which God-given Constitutionally-protected rights they should be allowed to have.

I’d say that he has EXACTLY set out what those who don’t buy into the so-called “gun culture” think.

The 2A is a ‘Complication’

Sebasitan writes about a Car Analogy Epic Fail in the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof. Now, one of the Murdoc’s favorite pastimes is discussing gun control with those who say gun ownership should be like car ownership and make all sorts of driver’s license analogies. Good times.

But this is Murdoc’s favorite bit of the Kristof op-ed:

Granted, the Second Amendment complicates gun regulation (I accept that the framers intended for state militias, and possibly individuals, to have the right to bear flintlocks). [emphasis Murdoc’s]

First, I love it how the self-evident God-given rights of all humans which are merely legally guaranteed in the US Constitution are simply “complications” when they don’t fit the view of the critic. Those pesky human rights; if not for all of that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness jazz, we could really get things done.

Secondly, I have a true, heartfelt appreciation for the opinion a journalist who argues that Revolutionary-era documents defining what the government can and can’t do only meant as applicable to Revolutionary-era technology and society. Especially when he argues it on the internet.

“Arms” in the Second Amendment means “flintlocks only” as much as “freedom…of the press” in the First Amendment means “set and printed on hand-operated presses and distributed via horse-drawn transport and manual labor.”

As I noted on Sebastian’s blog, I doubt that Kristof is really that dumb or really believes any of that. He just thinks his readers are and that he can get away with it.

He goes on to argue

But even among those favoring a broader interpretation, the Second Amendment hasn’t prevented bans on machine guns

Which is sort of meaningless because “those favoring a broader interpretation” aren’t the ones who created the ban on machine guns. That’s like arguing that “even among those in favor of same-sex marriage, it is still illegal in most states” supports the idea that gay marriage bans are legally fine.

And, for the record, Murdoc thinks the Founding Fathers meant machine guns, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and shoulder things that go up.

Deep Thoughts from ‘The New Internationalism’

Further Thoughts on Gun Control

…just because gun controls are likely to be politically unpopular does not make them any less necessary. It is true that the United States possesses a much stronger gun culture than that found in Europe, and once guns have been purchased, it appears incredibly difficult to see them removed from circulation, and this is a real shame. The assault weapons ban should be reinstated because it reduced the overall number of assault weapons in circulation (even if it didn’t eliminate them altogether) while the elimination of open-carrying laws would limit the number of hand-guns within public venues. People should not be allowed to brandish weapons in public places, and the whole idea of allowing concealed weapons is, at best, an utterly insane idea because it places the general public at a whole of increased risk.