Walmart to stop selling semi-auto rifles (inc AR-15s)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Typical things Liberals are called
-Idiots
-Hippies
-Commies
-Socialists
-Granola Eaters
Stoners
-Dumb college students
etc
It goes both ways

You are assuming that I believe two wrongs make a right. When you say "It goes both ways" you also shows your belief that only those who lean right own guns.

**cincydooley**

Which brings us back to the difference in a government buyback of 1M handguns vs 100M handguns.

**Jerram**

Ouze wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.

Yeah, I suspect a lot of the people who argue that we need to go with a strict, literal reading of the constitution, and eliminate everything not specifically provided for (meaning the EPA, and the Department of Education) don't realize under this theory, the Army would also need to disbanded. I think the founding father were pretty clear on how bad an idea they thought standing armies were, and by the fact they explicitly called for the creation of a Post Office and left nothing whatsoever for a standing army.

Of course, in 2015 that's no longer a good idea. Conscript armies thrown together on the fly haven't been unworkable in forever. It's almost like the founding fathers knew they they needed to have a flexible document that allowed for societal evolution.

That would be incorrect,

The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies. Arguing such is as incorrect as trying to argue the second should only apply to muskets and not modern day weapons. When people talk about a literal reading they mean specifically the differences between enumerated powers and reserved powers. Raising and supporting an army is quite clearly an enumerated power of the federal government.

**Ouze**

Jerram wrote:
The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies.

Doesn't clause 12 restrict the timeline for said army to two years?

**Kilkrazy**

Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.

If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.

However the popular will does not exist.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.

If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.

However the popular will does not exist.

Thank goodness.

To avoid being attacked your best bet is good situational awareness. However, when that fails, un-concealing your concealed handgun can go a long ways towards stopping the attack, often without having to fire a shot.

As for $250 per handgun, screw that. No handgun I've ever owned only cost that much and all held their value pretty damned well. The laser sight grip on my wife's Kimber costs more than that alone.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.

If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.

However the popular will does not exist.

Thank goodness.

To avoid being attacked your best bet is good situational awareness. However, when that fails, un-concealing your concealed handgun can go a long ways towards stopping the attack, often without having to fire a shot.

As for $250 per handgun, screw that. No handgun I've ever owned only cost that much and all held their value pretty damned well. The laser sight grip on my wife's Kimber costs more than that alone.

I have a box full of .380s that were about $50 - $100 a piece, but other than that...yea no way. I shot a Ruger target pistol so much the frame finally cracked. I would give that up for $250.

**Co'tor Shas**

Wait a second, are you saying the bullets were $50-$100 a pop, or per box?

**Nostromodamus**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Wait a second, are you saying the bullets were $50-$100 a pop, or per box?

I think he means pistols chambered in .380...

**Co'tor Shas**

Ah, that would make more sense.

I was thinking that those would be some damn expensive bullets.

**kronk**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore.

Actually your ancestors were invited to a Mexican territory, they squatted in it, then at the right time called it their own.

I'm picturing Jesse from Breaking Bad shouting "Squatters Rights, Bitch!" for some reason.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Wait a second, are you saying the bullets were $50-$100 a pop, or per box?

those were pistols. I'd proffer a box of 50 rounds is about $18. They are more expensive than 9mm but I haven't bought any in years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Good thing my ancestors' kicked your ancestors' asses so we wouldn't have to listen to that claptrap anymore.

Actually your ancestors were invited to a Mexican territory, they squatted in it, then at the right time called it their own.

I'm picturing Jesse from Breaking Bad shouting "Squatters Rights, Bitch!" for some reason.

Put them on horseback shooting Colt revolvers at the land's lawful owners and you'd be pretty spot on.

**Breotan**

CptJake wrote:
As for $250 per handgun, screw that. No handgun I've ever owned only cost that much and all held their value pretty damned well. The laser sight grip on my wife's Kimber costs more than that alone.

My .357 Rhino cost about $800 after all taxes and fees.

**Grey Templar**

Ouze wrote:
Jerram wrote:
The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies.

Doesn't clause 12 restrict the timeline for said army to two years?

You can easily just resign all the paperwork every 2 years.

**Jihadin**

Grey Templar wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Jerram wrote:
The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies.

Doesn't clause 12 restrict the timeline for said army to two years?

You can easily just resign all the paperwork every 2 years.

Example would be WWII military service. Believe is was for "Duration of"

As for the two years it reminds me of Gettysburg scene of the two year contract group joining Chamberlain regiment.

Also contracts today......actually back when I joined, depending on MOS, you can go as low as two years. Now its three years min I believe. Six years if Aviation or Medical Field (MOS's)
Also the Military can Stop Loss you once. A second Stop Loss can be implemented but it has to be a critical MOS IIRC. Third Stop Loss no longer around which I think SCOTUS was involved in that. Course I might have this all mixed up. Stop Loss was removed in 08 IIRC. I was a bit busy in the Box but I remember hearing about Stop Loss was no longer in play

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.

If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.

However the popular will does not exist.

Offering $250 for a pistol? Maybe for Hi-Points.

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:

Also contracts today......actually back when I joined, depending on MOS, you can go as low as two years. Now its three years min I believe. Six years if Aviation or Medical Field (MOS's)
Also the Military can Stop Loss you once. A second Stop Loss can be implemented but it has to be a critical MOS IIRC. Third Stop Loss no longer around which I think SCOTUS was involved in that. Course I might have this all mixed up. Stop Loss was removed in 08 IIRC. I was a bit busy in the Box but I remember hearing about Stop Loss was no longer in play

They're always 8 years (unless you re-up for Indef). It may be 2-3 on active, but you are considered IRR until the full 8 is up, and they can call you back based on that.

**Grey Templar**

Jihadin wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Jerram wrote:
The constitution gives the congress the authority the right to raise and support armies, no where does it limit it to draft armies.

Doesn't clause 12 restrict the timeline for said army to two years?

You can easily just resign all the paperwork every 2 years.

Example would be WWII military service. Believe is was for "Duration of"

As for the two years it reminds me of Gettysburg scene of the two year contract group joining Chamberlain regiment.

Also contracts today......actually back when I joined, depending on MOS, you can go as low as two years. Now its three years min I believe. Six years if Aviation or Medical Field (MOS's)
Also the Military can Stop Loss you once. A second Stop Loss can be implemented but it has to be a critical MOS IIRC. Third Stop Loss no longer around which I think SCOTUS was involved in that. Course I might have this all mixed up. Stop Loss was removed in 08 IIRC. I was a bit busy in the Box but I remember hearing about Stop Loss was no longer in play

Maybe easy was a poor word choice.

Anyway, you could satisfy it by just doing a paperwork change every two years to renew the armed forces. Its not like it would necessitate a total disbandment every two years.

**cincydooley**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone knows that a rifle or shotgun is a much better weapon than a pistol for defending yourself or attacking other people, unless you want concealment. If you want to avoid being attacked, a concealed weapon is a silly idea anyway, as it can't frighten anyone.

If the popular will existed in the USA to get rid of pistols, it could be done in a few years, with a buy-back. The federal budget last year was over $3 trillion. If you value the pistols at $250 each it will take 27.5 billion dollars to buy them back. That is is under a percent of the annual federal budget. Do it in stages over five years and the cost becomes a rounding error.

However the popular will does not exist.

$250. That's hilarious. That $250 can go feth itself. A very basic glock costs double that.

$250 is laughably insulting.

**CptJake**

And lets be serious, 'Buy Back' in his context is a polite way of saying confiscation, but with a tiny bit of remittance. It is still done coercively.

feth tyranical ideas like that.

**Nostromodamus**

Several gun buy backs I've heard about give you $100 for rifles and $150-$200 for handguns.

As far as theorising about mandatory buy backs go, $250 is quite generous when compared to actual voluntary buy backs that have happened before.

Not that I endorse them at all. I even hate the term. Implies the guns were government property to begin with.

**Grey Templar**

Buy-backs are total jokes.

The only people who will participate in one are already law abiding citizens. The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.

**kronk**

CptJake wrote:
And lets be serious, 'Buy Back' in his context is a polite way of saying confiscation, but with a tiny bit of remittance. It is still done coercively.

feth tyranical ideas like that.

Easy guys. Not everyone in the world has our Freedoms!

**KaptinBadrukk**

Walmart sold guns in the first place?

**kronk**

KaptinBadrukk wrote:
Walmart sold guns in the first place?

Sure. Ammo, too. I've bought shotgun shells and .22 rounds from them in the past.

**Manchu**

KaptinBadrukk wrote:
Walmart sold guns in the first place?

"Sells" not "sold."

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
Buy-backs are total jokes.

The only people who will participate in one are already law abiding citizens. The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.

Well they might turn in YOUR guns for their cash.

**Spetulhu**

Frazzled wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The criminals, the ones who you want to take guns away from, will not be turning their guns in for cash.

Well they might turn in YOUR guns for their cash.

Aye, this you have right. If they have a box full of stolen cheap handguns and are offered 250$ for each piece the criminals may well offer up a lot of them. It just needs to be a voluntary drive where you're not taken in and prosecuted for "returning" a gun. We've had some of those here too, since there were a lot of war trophy guns etc floating around.

**Manchu**

So the government should say "turn over your property for no compensation"?

**Jihadin**

KABUL — It’s not exactly Cash for Clunkers — more like Cash for Cache.

A Defense Department program under which Afghans can tip off foreign forces about hidden mines or weapons and get money in return has paid out nearly $200,000 in its first three months, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said in a statement Friday.

Since Oct. 1, about 150 Afghans have cashed in on the incentives, which range from $50 to $10,000 for information that leads to weapons caches or “the disruption of enemy activities,” ISAF said.

Recent tips from “Operation Jaeza,” or reward, have led to the discovery of 43 rockets, 40 recoilless rifle rounds, 40 mortars, five anti-tank missiles, several anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, and anti-aircraft weapons, it said.

The program assures people who provide tips their anonymity.

“This program helps international forces protect innocent civilians who might become victims of terrorism,” said the program’s spokeswoman, Navy Capt. Jane Campbell. “It also provides citizens a channel to fight back against violent attacks without placing themselves or their families in danger.”

“This is a program we fully support,” said Zarguna Hammeed, a representative of the Women of Paktia rights group.

“People who discover information about improvised explosive devices should stop and report it,” she said in the statement. “The money offered helps families as they help protect others by reporting the IEDs.”

IEDs are the weapon of choice for insurgents in the war-ravaged country.

The number of known IEDs placed by insurgents in Afghanistan has nearly tripled since 2007, as has the number of coalition forces killed and wounded by the blasts, according to figures kept by international forces.

Similar cash-for-weapons programs have been instituted by the U.S-backed government in Iraq, including one started in 2004 under which Shiite militia members got paid for turning in weapons.

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki ordered the government to give an Iraqi citizen a reward of $85,000 last week for a tip-off that a Syrian was about to set off a car bomb in western Baghdad.

He has offered a the same reward for anyone who gives similar information.

Depends on the country your in