Posted on 12/24/2012 8:40:00 PM PST by neverdem
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.
“We are also looking at a buy-back program,” Feinstein said today in a press conference. “Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.”
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.
“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Australia implemented a mandatory buyback program in 1996 following a mass shooting. “The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons,” USA Today recalls. “The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 gun.”
Some liberal activists want the policy imitated here. “That would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today,” the Center for American Progress’ Matt Miller wrote after noting that Australia eliminated 20 percent of the weapons in the country. “The Australian ‘outlaw and repurchase’ option is one approach. But if Congress balks at banning certain weapons entirely, it could make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.”
Feinstein also said that that former President Bill Clinton had volunteered, on a phone call, to help her get a new gun law passed.
“[Clinton] was talking about the battle back in 1993 with the bill that, interestingly enough, was introduced and passed within the year fo 1993 and went into effect in 1994,” she said. “And, of course, he was president and the White House came alive and was very very helpful in enabling the passage of that bill both in the senate and in the House. So, to have him part of the team again is really quote special for us.”
These days, most Americans wouldn't survive in the woods for a month and almost none for a year. Nor are the woods in any condition to support them as they once were.
I thought her legacy was passing millions of acres of Death Valley into a ‘monument’ where no recreation can still happen.
She engineered that, and thousands of people are still mad about it.
And if the governors stand up and say no to the Feds, it’s over. They can easily organize everyone into militias.
Don't make me laugh. They can do whatever they want, and the 'American' people won't do squat.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
I would offer that if they in fact propose to offer us a price for the surrender of our freedom, it will be met with a counteroffer for which they are unprepared.
Perhaps one ought not be troubled by such thoughts on a beautiful Christmas morning such as this. And yet storm clouds do lurk ahead, ever more menacingly for the stubborn refusal of our leaders to recognize objective reality in so many areas of life. It would appear their lust for power knows no bounds save the practical limits that (at least) some citizens may soon choose to impose upon them.
As a matter of history, it would hardly be an unprecedented occurrence. As a matter of American history, it would exceed the life experience of even our great-great-grandparents, some of whom heard the stories of the last time, first hand.
In the recent years of American decline, I have feared that the Irish poet Yeats' cautionary words were coming true: the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Perhaps instead we have reached a historic moment when sunken conviction may be stirred back to the surface before the kettle boils over and spills all. For now, the heat has certainly been turned up.
Rosie O’Donnell has an armed bodyguard.
Another hypocrite.
The same Sam Donaldson who just got popped for DUI a couple of days ago??
Another hypocrite.
Very true. All it means is thta CW2 will be very bloody and bitter, if they intend to disarm us "the hard way."
Years and years ago there used to be a program were you could buy your relatives out of hell, dont want to mention the denomination lest I offend, but would this be along same lines?
Sen. Feinstein has done the impossible. She has underestimated the intelligence of the American people. I guess she will not be poor.
“They can easily organize everyone into militias.”
From what I’ve heard they’re already organizing and growing in membership.
That is what I was getting at, pass a registration law and then make law biding Americans scared to comply because they know it will be used to take those same guns away as in 1994.
I have said and will continue to say as loud as I can - GET INVOLVED IN YOUR STATE POLITICS.
It is doubtful that we can do much in Washington other than, at best, a stalemate. It is much easier to accomplish things right now at the state level.
If this goes down, I wouldn’t want to be in a state that is Dem controlled.
Right up there with the “cash for clunkers” idea.
Sam is wrong as usual.
The Constitution defines who the country belongs to, and tea partiers fit the bill, not the anti-Constitutionalists.
Beyond that, the Declaration defines our rights as God-given.
America is a Republic. That Republic does not “belong” to a group of voters that out-cheat and/or out-vote the rest. That’s why Franklin answered the woman who asked him what kind of government the Founders created, “a Republic, madame, if you can keep it”.
The Second Amendment is profoundly KEY to that. Like another posted, people who set out to infringe on that right or any other, are PRECISELY the people America does NOT belong to, because they are trying to destroy the Republic, not keep it.
This country could turn into Rwanda X Bosnia in an eye-blink.
These people = The democrat party = the media = Fienstien, Obama , Pelosi, Costas, Reid, Caty Couric,
Notice they are all democrats. They are ALL the EXACT SAME communist peice of crap , every single democrat wants to empower the government and at the same time take away our individual rights like gun ownership , to take away our freedom and even right to own property(slavery/socialism).
EVerything democrats do is to empower government and at the same time dis-empower the individual be it gun control, Obamacare , big government solutions, government schools , a million gov programs that “help” people no actually enslave people
capitalism can coordinate engineers, accountants ,business people, managers , shippers, drivers, factory workers ,miners etc to produce a watch for $1 one dollar at the dollar Tree. And with Google we can buy anything on the freed market .So what do we need government for? nothing except military and keeping illegals out of the country( border control , international issues). Leave us alone gov, . We don't need the thousands of government agencies at all levels of government that cripple the private sector and take away our freedom
Well said and spot on target.
Yep. And what concerns me most is that so few people seem to believe it could ever happen here. As though our iPads and ear-buds and laptops and 60" HDTVs somehow immunize us from the consequences of our most important decisions. Perhaps it's the "normalcy bias" at work. Whatever.
When the central planners finally fail to print or tax away enough money to finance their Ponzi schemes and the power goes off, food delivery stops, and hoards of urban dependents take to the streets, only those who took the time to plan and prepare will have a chance.
I know. Even admitting that such a thing might be worth pondering is to risk being labeled as a "prepper", or worse. By the standards commonly enunciated by what today laughingly passes for a free press, I might just be "worse". So be it. I plan to live.
seems theyre about the only peoples that fedzilla has sold weapons to, in order to buy *back*...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.