NJ Newspaper calls for Mandatory Gun Buybacks

[priell3]

Anti-gun politicians and media types use terms like “common sense” and “reasonable” gun restrictions when the unspoken agenda often is to eliminate as much gun ownership as possible.

But over the weekend, the largest and most influential New Jersey newspaper ran an editorial calling for “mandatory” gun buybacks, meaning gun confiscation with a token payment to the gun owner.

The New Jersey state Assembly had recently passed legislation calling for nine voluntary gun buyback events per year, but the Newark Star-Ledger says that’s not enough:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz3E34J3XWX

[God's Country]

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/s...-plot-revealed


ISIS the best advertisement for the 2nd Amendment.


Never before have I felt so naked.

Now more than ever, I wish I was armed.

And I’m not alone.

Any and all home-grown Islamic terrorism should be able, if need be, to be met by a well-armed civilian militia. The United Kingdom has had two beheadings of members of the public in the last two years, with neither Police nor civilians able to prevent it. It has prohibitive gun laws.

With news of the ISIS plot to randomly abduct members of the Australian public and behead them, Australian sentiment on guns is dramatically shifting. It appears Australians are finally understanding the importance of gun ownership, and craving it at a time when the world is increasingly unsafe.

“I’ll tell you this point blank: I’d feel safer in a country where I was legally allowed to carry around a firearm,” says J Coughran, 30, a businessman.

According to Coughran, media coverage of Islamic State is fueling the change in heart: “This ISIS stuff is seeing quite a few people changing their opinions.. one of my mates told me today- he’s coming around on the gun issue. He’s 68 years old, been against guns his whole life- now he’s turning around because of these savages.”

With Islamic supremacism a mainstream interpretation of Islam, deeply rooted in Islamic scripture and endorsed by many of Islam’s most influential scholars, Australians are beginning to understand the nature of the Islamic threat, and studying their own weaknesses in its wake.

Australians are looking to America, and not the UK for guidance.

With this sort of threat, the normal calculus of a civilized society with a small, armed (or unarmed) police force upon which the citizens are forced to rely, no longer adds up.

Kyle, 33, believes that Australian gun control is only making Islamic terrorists in Australia safer, and their objectives easier to achieve.

“Our lack of self-defense makes us a prime target. It is no surprise to me that home grown terrorism is most rampant in nations with strict gun control.

These guys want to snatch random people in Australia off the street, drape them in the ISIS flag and behead them on camera with an Arabic-emblazoned sword. If I had a gun, I’ll tell you what I’d do with those swords.”

It is times like these that Americans should thank God they have the Second Amendment, and crush any effort or force seeking to weaken or remove it.

Right now, they are the envy of a growing number of Australians that wish they were armed.

Nick Adams is the author of the new book The American Boomerang: How The World’s Greatest Turnaround Nation Will Do It Again. The foreword is written by Colonel Allen West.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Pinterest
E-mail

[priell3]

The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

–The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[GunLawyer001]

"Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun."

I'm sorry, but do they have statistics that show that most rapes, muggings, kidnappings, home invasions, and murders were committed based upon the occupation of the victim?

Are they under the impression that the only victims of crime are cops, jewelers, and people who make late night bank deposits?

Because the news would seem to run counter to that theory.

Further, we on the Right tend to believe that if a bag of cash is worth protecting, then so is your life, or your daughter. Even people who don't carry gold bars for work, are worth protecting.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Ban all guns, and that way we can get them off the streets, like we did with meth and weed and crack.

[internet troll]

The editorial in question.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...l#incart_river

There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.
And who knows? It may even do some good. Having fewer guns lying around could mean they won't end up in the hands of a curious child, abusive spouse or suicidal person. Having a gun at home makes it three times more likely that you'll be murdered by a family member or intimate partner, or successfully attempt suicide.


But let's not kid ourselves: Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don't have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates.


They don't directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven't overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?


The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That's what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.


Following a mass shooting in Tasmania that left 35 dead, Austrialia banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, and required all the newly banned weapons to be bought back by the government. This cut the number of gun-owning households by as much as half.
The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun.


We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime.


But guess what? It worked in Australia. The gun homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the suicide rate fell 65 percent. It virtually eliminated mass shootings.


And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn't involve firearms. In other words, people weren't just switching to other methods of violence -- when guns weren't as easily available, they weren't acting on these impulses at all.


So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over "gun confiscation," don't expect it to make much difference.

[steve_010]

I will gladly trade in one Lorcin for two smith and wessons.

[dannyb]

"Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun."

I'm sorry, but do they have statistics that show that most rapes, muggings, kidnappings, home invasions, and murders were committed based upon the occupation of the victim?

Are they under the impression that the only victims of crime are cops, jewelers, and people who make late night bank deposits?

Because the news would seem to run counter to that theory.

Further, we on the Right tend to believe that if a bag of cash is worth protecting, then so is your life, or your daughter. Even people who don't carry gold bars for work, are worth protecting.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Ban all guns, and that way we can get them off the streets, like we did with meth and weed and crack.

Back in the 70s, during Boston DA Newman Flanagan's reign, a man was prosecuted for manslaughter because he shot a burglar who had broken into his house instead of taking the opportunity to flee. The man was convicted. The conviction was overturned because the Mass. Supreme Court said that the law did not require the man to abandon his sleeping 14 YO daughter to the mercies of a criminal invading his house.

There is a bizarre notion among a subset of the left-wing establishment that says that all lives in all situations are equal. The criminal's life is protected even if he/she is committing a crime of violence. We've seen the effects of this philosophy again and again - when the immediate consequences of committing a violent crime are removed, such crimes increase in both frequency and violence. When car owners were told to just abandon their cars to carjackers (after all, your car is not worth your life), they became targets of violent carjackers who were perfectly willing to maim or kill the driver even if he was cooperating. Then, a few drivers responded with gunfire, a few carjackers were killed, and the rate of violent carjackings decreased when it became an unprotected occupation.

Personally, I'm a moderate not a conservative. I don't speak or vote along party lines. I do not believe in vigilante justice. I firmly believe, however, that the right of effective self defense is a critical part of controlling crime.

[wanneroo]

There is a bizarre notion among a subset of the left-wing establishment that says that all lives in all situations are equal. The criminal's life is protected even if he/she is committing a crime of violence. We've seen the effects of this philosophy again and again - when the immediate consequences of committing a violent crime are removed, such crimes increase in both frequency and violence. When car owners were told to just abandon their cars to carjackers (after all, your car is not worth your life), they became targets of violent carjackers who were perfectly willing to maim or kill the driver even if he was cooperating. Then, a few drivers responded with gunfire, a few carjackers were killed, and the rate of violent carjackings decreased when it became an unprotected occupation.

The left has a collective mindset so it's impossible for them to examine and understand individual situations. Their brain power is lacking so they have a tough time with that. Math is also a weakness for them.

I remember in the 1980's and 1990's carjackings were the latest criminal craze and were rampant. At the time we didn't have the carry laws like we have now. Lots of people died when carjackers executed them, even after handing over the car. Once carjackers started to die, I can't say I've heard much about carjacking as a crime for the past 15 years.