Online users
???: Message???: ViewPage  

"While our state and federal constitution guarantees [sic] every citizen the right to keep and bear arms, no citizen has the right to sell old firearms to a unit of government at taxpayer expense." - Unclear on the concept.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ģ

03/10/2020, 10:14:59

Author Profile Mail author Edit


If the local pols are stupid enough to offer money to buy them, that's their constituents' problem. Citizens have every right to sell lawfully-owned firearms to anyone who isn't a criminal.

'Amazing how ignorant our 'leaders' are of First Principles.

And here's a clue for (Dem) Rep. Garza: Subdivisions of the state serve at the pleasure of the state.

If a state wants to ban localities from this practice, it has the constitutional power to do so.

IMO, no one who displays such ignorance of American civics should be permitted to hold public office.

Thus saith the TEEBONE.


wbckfm.com

Michiganís House of Rep's Pass Bill To Ban Local Gun Buy

3-4 minutes

Gun buyback programs are one of the favorite programs the Democrats believe will stop gun violence.† There is no actual data that backs that assumption up but they still like that program

Republicans and one Democrat in the State House of Representatives wanted to prevent local municipalities from using Michigan taxpayer funds to buy unwanted guns from law-abiding people.

House Bill 5479,†is a bill sponsored by Republican state Representative Annette Glenn, from Midland.† The bill would ban local governments and law enforcement from conducting gun buyback programs.††These programs use taxpayer dollars to buy guns from people who no longer want them.† †

Interesting that they call them gun "buyback" programs since they never sold the guns to them in the first place, why let logic get in the way of a good sounding name.

The goal of these gun buyback programs is to reduce gun violence.† Do you believe criminals would actually sell their guns back to the police?††If they did I would assume they would use our taxpayer dollars to buy newer and better guns.

According to†MLive†Rep. Glenn said:

While our state and federal constitution guarantees every citizen the right to keep and bear arms, no citizen has the right to sell old firearms to a unit of government at taxpayer expense

The bill passed the House of Representative 58-49, with one lone Democrat Rep. John Chirkun, D-Roseville,†voting†in support of the bill.††The remainder of Democrats in the House opposed the bill stating that it would interfere with efforts by local governments and law enforcement to keep their communities safe.††Interesting since Democrats are the party of taking control away from local governments and dictating policies from the state and federal level.

Democrat state Rep. Alex Garza said:

To tell our local governments in many ways that we as state representatives and state senators know whatís best for their communities is simply not true

Remember†back in 2016 we voted no to increase in our state gas tax and then the politicians in the House and Senate said we do not know what is best for us and raised our state gasoline taxes by 39%.†The same thing happened in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the people voted and the politicians said we do not like how you voted and struck down that law.† Now you may agree with the politicians in those two examples but please do not be fooled by the party of governmental control telling you that local governments or the people's vote matters to them.

Your thoughts on that Rep. Garza?




LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.



Modified by TEEBONE at Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 10:23:27


Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message