How can the government buy back something from you that they did not sell to you?

 Do you know how many school shootings have happened in this country this year?  22.  Separate schools.  Who cares what we call it?  We need to get rid of guns.  We are trying to be NICE.  

Because. We have the MONEY.  So we can give you back your money and now hand over that gun.

PLAIN as DAY.  You called me an ahole,remember?    What is someone who is looking for a problem where none exists? You don't care about the gun problem.  
  They COULD just tell you to kiss off and take the gun anyway.  I think they are being nice. AND I think it is about time to TAKE CHARGE of how guns are used in this country.  PERIOD.

And if we need to pay people for their guns, fine.  Just get rid of the guns.  I don't care how.  GET RID OF THE GUNS.   Most people have zero business owning an ASSAULT RIFLE.  OKAY?  

I don't think personally that we need to do any buy- back.  We need to do a FINE back. That is what is needed for idiots who think they have the RIGHT to own weapons of mass destruction.  That is what an assault rifle is.   These guns are in the hands of the wrong people, should be illegal and handguns should be allowed ONE per household.  ONE.  Not an arsenal.  

ONE.  And that ONE weapon needs to have a background check.  

Screw the buy-back.  Everyone who owns more than one handgun should be fined 10,000 per gun. This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at September 20, 2019 1:50 AM MDT

Ok. Then they should call it a mandatory sell off. 

The main issue I have with "gun buy back" programs is ... they are illegal exchanges of firearms.
The group never has a FFL (Federal Firearms License) - necessary for a business to legally buy/sell firearms.
And no, there is no exception in the law for the groups doing these programs.
In states where a background check is required for ANY firearm transfer ... including borrowing from a friend/relative ... these "buy back" programs NEVER do the background check.

The secondary issue is that the firearms are rarely checked against crime databases.
What better way to get rid of a gun used in a crime, than sell it to a bunch of "do gooders" who will pay you for it AND destroy the evidence?
Even in the rare cases they DO check the firearm, they don't have the name of the person they bought it from.

But the thing I find humorous about "gun buy back" programs is ... sometimes they pay a set price, regardless of the gun.
There have been a couple where they paid $100 for each gun.  
They paid that amount whether it was a working gun or not.  They even paid kids who turned in water guns, pellet guns, and Nerf guns.

"Buy back" in this context does not mean that the government buys from you something that they once sold you.

It means the government agrees to pay the market price for a gun that you bought from anyone. It is a way of compensating the gun owner for the cost of something he or she must give up.

This idea may seem "anti-American" to some, especially those who support the most relaxed policies on the American constitutional right to bear arms. 

The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment states,  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But, if my understanding is correct, this statement does not logically or necessarily mean all kinds of arms.
When the amendment was written, no one had imagined the future existence of automatic or semi-automatic weapons with firepower far beyond the level necessary for personal self-defence.
We could imagine that one day a government could come to power which is so unjust that a civilian militia might need enough power to defeat the government's combined armed forces. Now that's asking a lot. That would mean civilians having a finger on at least as many nuclear weapons as the USA now has in storage - and the willingness to drop such bombs on their own cities, war centres, industries, and infrastructure.
Which would raise the question - just how far would Americans really want to push this issue?

As I see it, no one would need even one semi-automatic weapon to pull down a corrupt or despotic government.
All you'd have to do is pull the plug on the electricity (and the back-up generators.)

Even the most conservative Americans have long agreed that if someone is proven to be mad, chronically violent, severely depressed, psychopathic or criminal, then he or she has no right to own or use arms such as guns. This already places a limit on who has a right.

Then we have the problem that one can never predict who might go mad in future. We know with certainty, according to statistics, that a certain percentage of people will go mad at some point in their lives - and we cannot predict which ones.
Some of those who go mad will get hold of a powerful gun if they can and commit a massacre.
When the means are available, in a population of 327.2 million, increasingly frequent massacres are inevitable.

So it's really a choice.
If the freedoms remain the same, the frequency and size of massacres will continue to rise.
If the right to own a gun is limited to less powerful weapons and to a system based on licensing for specific purposes and training in responsible uses and precautions - then people retain their capacity for self-defence.

And as for militia - it would be wiser for the serious organisers of revolution to study strategy. Without well-informed planning, no weapon in the world would have a chance against the might of the American armed forces.

America is not static. It is a dynamic culture continually evolving. Conditions and technologies change.
The reason why democracies are designed for flexibility in legislation is so that society can adapt to the effects of change.

Come after my guns, and there will be a war in my yard.  This post was edited by my2cents at September 28, 2019 7:23 PM MDT

We haven't had a mass shooting in Australia since the buyback 23 years ago. Coincidence?

IT WORKS.