Dems: Pay gun owners to hand over assault weapons

The Hill ^ | April 6, 2015 | Tim Devaney

[Sherman Logan]

Pay me enough, and I’ll be glad to turn my guns in.

Then I’ll use the money to buy better ones.

[Sherman Logan]

Actually, all guns were originally designed for the battlefield. Use in hunting was very much peripheral issue.

[WayneS]

“Assault Weapons” are VERY expensive and ownership requires an expensive federal license and background check (for EACH weapon purchased).

I doubt anyone who actually owns a true “assault weapon” would turn it in to the government in exchange for the small amounts of cash which would be offered under this law.

Then there is the fact that since the mid-1930s, there have been VERY VERY few people have used “assault weapons” during the commission of violent crimes.

[QT3.14]

[WayneS]

...and repeat the process at least once a year. It could be a lucrative tax shelter.

[WayneS]

The answer you’re looking for is 83.

83 is the sum of the IQs of ALL of the individuals listed in your post + the IQ of the person sponsoring the bill.

[WayneS]

Depending upon manufacturer and options, anywhere from <$500 to several thousand.

[MileHi]

“There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

Have these people EVER had an original thought?

[Sherman Logan]

I’m sure you know this.

“Assault weapon” does not mean “assault rifle,” which fits your description.

It means a scary looking semi-auto firearm with magazine loading.

I do have a question for the many gun experts on this forum. Do the features they use to define “assault weapons,” such as detachable stocks or forward grips, really make such a weapon that much more effective at mass killing of people, as opposed to a weapon with the same mechanism and magazine in a more “civilian” look?

Is there some reason these cosmetic features actually make it all that much easier to kill people?

[WayneS]

I always thought it was a firearm capable of fully automatic fire, but I could be wrong.

[Triple]

is just the lower receiver enough?

[WayneS]

The answer to both of your questions is no.

[Cry if I Wanna]

is just the lower receiver enough?

Dunno. But I'll ask someone I know in town.

[muir_redwoods]

Rep Delauro; inventor of the assault face.

[longfellow]

The old gun in the banana trick.

[MaxMax]

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,”

Read the founders, guns are for the American defense against invasion and our
Government, should they become tyrannical. Just like what happened from the
British Government way back when.

[Diamond]

I think longfellow's "anything you can assault another person with?" captured the spirit of the question.

It probably could refer to anything disapproved of by a Democrat.

Cordially,

[GeronL]

bump

[MaxMax]

Take the tax break and go by a new one!

I have a couple old rifles that I'll paint black, if the price is right.
Then go buy a newer one with the proceeds.

[longfellow]

Can we pick up harry reid and beat kerry to death with him?