Posted by MikeT23 on 1/16/2013 8:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 10:35:00 PM (view original):I'm hurt that you don't value my opinion due a misspelled word.
Frankly, the opinion of anyone who thinks the word "confiscation" has a v in it doesn't really matter that much to me. People are acting like that would be a whole new type of government activity. If the government forces people to sell them their assault weapons it's virtually the same as exercising the right of Eminent Domain on real estate. There's mountains of precedent for that. This thing is needed for government purposes, you can't have it anymore, but we will compensate you handsomely for it. Been there, done that.
If you want every weapon currently in one's hands registered, fine, I'm good with that. If you want to impose ridiculously long prison sentences for having an unregistered firearm, cool, I'm good with that also. If you want government round-ups of specific firearms that are newly illegal, nope, not having it.
Returning legally purchased firearms to the government has no precedent. Anyone who thinks it does is blatantly stupid.
Outline the difference between Eminent Domain used on real estate and government purchase of assault weapons? Other than, of course, the fact that the person whose firearm is purchased doesn't become temporarily homeless and probably still has plenty of other legal guns, whereas the person whose property is purchased and seized now likely has no property and, if they don't act fast enough, nowhere to live.