Speaking of scummy lawyers
Clark Garen, who was apparently not admitted to the bar for basically being a dick*, wants to take your guns:
1. Create a one year period for the United States of America to purchase at fair market value all guns and firearms, including hand guns, rifles, and even antique guns and rifles from domestic private ownership.
2. Prohibit and criminalize the domestic sale of guns and firearms, whether new or used.
3. Seize and destroy any gun or firearm found after the termination of the purchase period without compensation.
4. Prohibit and criminalize the domestic possession of a gun or firearm after the termination of the one year purchase period.
5. Provide exemptions for governmental law enforcement agencies, the armed services, and bona fide museums.
Come and get them.
* Note: Lest ye think that is just hyperbole. Check this out:
The committee’s written decision is remarkable in two respects: first, despite quite overwhelming and uncontested evidence, the committee declined to affirmatively find anything morally redeeming about Mr. Garen whatsoever; and, second, the committee failed to factually find in an explicit and objective fashion that Mr. Garen had ever committed an immoral act. Rather the committee’s adverse recommendation was ostensibly based on subjective “feelings” and “doubts” rather than objectively verifiable reasons and facts. So as not to deprive the reader of the flavor of the committee’s written decision I have attached it verbatim, as an exhibit
So, yeah, no lawyering for you because you’re a dick.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
doesn’t supply and demand pretty much guarantee that, at the end of that year, the fair market value of a firearm will approach infinity? not with my tax money, you don’t damn well buy ’em that way. nor would i sell mine on such a market, no matter what the price offered!
my point: this… person… is either not thinking his own damn proposals through to what it would look like in practice, or he’s flat out lying about his very first point. no bets as to which is the case; let’s discuss which would be the worse insult to mr. Garen, instead.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am
That’s about the only scenario where “bullets first” might actually be the best course of action.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Like, he even wants to take the hunter’s guns? Good luck with that.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
…and he claims to “relish cases that emphasize the rights of the individual.” What a flamingly hypocritical maroon.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Nomen had the same thought that I did. Prohibition has raised the value of drugs by 17000% according to the government’s own numbers, and that is an agricultural product that is consumed though use. If the government would like to pay me a 17000% markup, I would be happy to sell them the guns they already know that I have. (I will not comment about guns that they might not know I have.)
February 19th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
You know, I’m really am not one of ‘those guys’ who sits in his mom’s basement hoping for the situation to arise where I could help hit the (idiot) ‘reset button’. However, since the antigunners’ endgame is clearly what this particular idiot is proposing, I sometimes wish they’d just take a vote on it and be done. You know? If they’d just try it, for real, all at once at least we’d have a shot (sorry for the pun, I guess).
The (more realistic) alternative is, I think, slow culling of the sheepdogs from the edges of the herd until gun owners are so marginalized that we have no power. It might not happen in this generation, but without some righting of the ship, I’m afraid we’ll continue to list until we capsize.