for 300 million weapons? If not, how do you get around the takings clause of the 4th ammendment? At $500 per weapon that would be about 150 billion dollars.

Starting with the already illegal guns...there could be a "used" exchange fee. Let the military buy them...save lots of money. New jobs. And there are certain exceptions, as I mentioned. And it's a process...a shifting of cultural focus.

We did it for alcohol, too, and they didn't confiscate their stills. Just found a more appropriate market and regulation for it.

Red Herring.

confiscating weapons. I just asked you some questions directly related to that. If you know anything about the gold confiscation, what the government did to fund the payments was pay at (IIRC) $27 per oz. Then they reset the price of gold to $35 per oz and sold a portion of it.

I assume your proposal would not have the government reselling the weapons so I asked you how you would pay the approx. 150 billion price tag of this program. If you know about the price of weapons then you would know that $500 per weapon (used) is probably on the low side.

The Illegal guns (and those added to the illegal list, such as WMD) should be confiscated...EOS. I'm sure most would serve well where they were designed for...the battlefield. The Pentagon buys gadzillions of them, some on a Black Budget. Consider it a contribution to the general welfare. Net gain.

Phase II ... Now we're down to legal weapons being registered and owner/operators complete a training course, and licensed by the government. All ammunition being tagged for Identification in a crime. The owner of the gun, just like a car, is primarily liable. Even my cat has to have an annual license/responsible owner.

Phase III ... High taxes and ammunition costs, annual re-registration and physical inspection, like a car and smog test, and licenses posted on the wall in a public place...like Labor Dept. work regulations. Lots of revenue possible here to manage any budgeting problems and/or lost jobs in the labor/gun sector. Highly punative legal results for injury or death or robbery using a firearm. And financial penalties...say 10 times a DUI charge.

I believe it would be revenue neutral and the cost and regulation of guns would approximate that of motor vehicles. And no one loses money there.

I think this is a better direction, albeit imperfect, than continued placing flowers at elementary schools, people avoiding the shopping malls while allowing every 18-year-old and up who feels fearful to purchase guns and ammo to feel safe. Or, our Congressfolk chit-chatting about a couple of lines here and there in some ineffective, postsuring-for-the-voters "bill".

would get around the 4th amendment takings clause for those weapons in phase I of your plan that you say would be "confiscated ... EOS"?

I think your plan could pass constitutional muster if you pay for the weapons, just like any other government taking.

property...they don't get to keep it. If it is a legal gun, it's a matter of going through the process. They literally start teaching kids at school about gun laws/safety/rules...just like they do drugs now. Kids talk to their parents. The element of fear slowly subsides (hopefully) Of course it doesn't cure the problem, but if shifts the conversation, literally.

One Blue State place I lived, they had a county-wide "no questions asked" gun day. Everyone got $100 for any gun they brought in...no questions asked. It was hugely popular. There are other ways, as well...moratoriums...but taking the conversation back from the streets and those still hiding out circa 1776....and the very rich corporations that actually collect the profits.

I must admit, I've undergone some changes in my thought ... Thanks for your comments.

my bad! I thought you were referring to stolen weapons AND weapons that were legally purchased and owned (and registered where required) that were put on a list that would not be grandfathered in. I believe we are in total agreement with stolen weapons. Although, if you want to ban some types of weapons (ie ar-15's) I think you could certainly ban the manufacture/import (like the old AWB) but if you wanted to confiscate the currently owned ones you would need to compensate the owners, just like any other taking.

Agree, good conversation!

criteria. We do this with automobiles and I'm sure it didn't just happen in a year or so. I found this...
back frorm 2009.


Cicero's law is different in two ways: first, it's mandatory registration instead of a ban, and second, it applies to all firearms, including rifles and shotguns. So, although gun rights supporters may not like it, even if we assume the Second Amendment applies to the states, current law seems to offer Montenegro a defensible position. More on this tomorrow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5256348-504383.html

Marijuana used to be legal, too, until it wasn't, or kind of is again. Booze used to be legal, then it was illegal, now it's legal. Even the gun laws...they change with the wind. They can require registration, thus legalization, of anything they choose.

Something you seem to have trouble wrapping you head around

Used value or new value? Kind of a "buy them back" program? Actually, a county in California did something similar and it worked a bit. There was a 3-day moratorium where they gave everyone $100 for every gun they turned in...no questions asked...hot or not.

Every weapon that can take any life must either be legal and registered and renewed every couple of years and the owner held accountable or surrendered. Call it a Gun Census. Someone suggested it would take 10 years for a gun DNA program, but got to start somewhere.

Ask some grieving families if they give a shit what Lanza's guns were worth.

how do you get all those gangs, for instance, to register their guns?

Canada ran into this same situation with their long-gun registry (which since has been scrapped)

The truth is you can't do it- not for monetary reasons, but for shear lack of resources. You simply do not have an adequate number of people capable of doing the job. It would most likely require a massive diversion of Law Enforcement resources- might there be unintended consequences to that as well? What happens if we have to take cops of gang squads to go door to door making sure people register their guns?

however. And notice how quickly the TSA got up and running. Nancy Reagan was made fun of initially for her Just Say No Program, for instance, but it shifted the conversation and gave it a focus and resources followed. Classes started in schools, money was set aside for community programs, etc.

I do not think many legal gun owners would mind at all voluntarily re-registering their guns...especially in light of the dead babies we are burying. There will be increased fees. You could put an officer at certain gun stores, for instance, and do it there. We don't lack the creativity or ability to do it...just the will.

and still leave tens of millions of weapons in circulation.

who feel the same way this Christmas.

The old saying "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." has majorly changed definitions. You know, of course that 250 years ago, the right to hold/own property meant women and children and slaves...called chattel. It got updated. And that part of our Constitution still holds firm, as far as I know. Arms used to mean a musket...now they can mow down hundreds. Time to update.

So if the current age Jeffersons and Franklins want to force a Constitutional crisis, then more and more of us will get on board for that. It's not easy...no one said it is...but neither is the abyss to which many of our citizens are forced to descend after events like Newtown. And these are just the public heartbreaks. No less parents whose kid just happened to be a clerk at 7-11 at the wrong time, or parent of a ghetto kid, or other "accident".

In Jefferson's day arms also included artillery and mortars, and in Lincoln's time it included the Gatling gun and repeating rifles and pistols.

In any case, I doubt anything good is going to come out of this latest tragedy. Formerly impossible agenda's being implemented tends to be the primary result of legislation rushed through due to public outrage.

that there were other times and difficult issues when drastic measures were necessary...for the good of the greater public. Prohibition didn't quite cut it because there wasn't really anything tangible to confiscate and regulate and it was easily "corporatized for profit" which is likely what is happening with marijuana, as well. Substances rather than "possessions".