Detroit Police harass legal gun owners at 'Gun buyback'

[oneshooter]

Detroit police harassed legal gun owners at yesterday’s so-called “gun buyback” while ignoring other obvious felonies at the “No questions asked” event.
The event, held at the Second Ebenezer Church, offered $25 for non-working firearms, $50 for functional firearms, and $100 for “assault weapons.” Continental management donated the money and the Detroit Police Department ran the event.
The Detroit Police Department advertised that guns could be turned in with “No questions asked."
Doug Holloway, a local RKBA activist, organized a small group of gun owners who showed up at the event to offer to pay higher prices for legal guns than what the organizers of the “gun buyback” were willing to pay.
One person took Holloway up on his offer and sold him a Hi Point carbine, with soft case, for $160. “The seller said he was a police officer,” Holloway said. “He said he’d bought it at a gun show three years ago and decided he didn’t need it."

No sooner had Holloway completed the private sale, which is legal under Michigan law, than several Detroit Police officers swooped in and started questioning Holloway’s group.

“The officer’s lack of professionalism was disturbing,” Holloway said. “Here they are harassing me, and meanwhile people with sawed-off shotguns walking in through the door are given complete amnesty.”

See video and more here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-detroit/detroit-police-harass-legal-gun-owners-at-gun-buyback

There may be a suit filed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. Why do the RKBA people get their panties in a knot over this buy-back?

It was held at a church and funded privately.

Why the need to show up and protest? (in reference to the people handing out literature)

What's the big deal if a few old guns get taken off the streets? What skin is it off your nose?

Re: The "private purchases" at the event. I seem to remember debating someone on this forum about this very scenario. I had made mention of some Cook County cops I knew that liked to head off people at these gun buy-backs and keep or sell the good pieces themselves. I mentioned a private citizen doing this would get hassled and or arrested. The other DUer's position was that it was their right to make these buys and the cops can't touch you. I said the cops won't care and make up a law to hassle you with.

[spin]

3. The RKBA people didn't show up to just protest ...

Did you read this part of the article?

Doug Holloway, a local RKBA activist, organized a small group of gun owners who showed up at the event to offer to pay higher prices for legal guns than what the organizers of the “gun buyback” were willing to pay.

It sounds to me like some of the gun owners showed up to stop the people turning firearms in from getting totally ripped off. Occasionally some person not familiar with firearms will show up and turn in a very valuable weapon. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the police failed to destroy such firearms and they ended up in an officers personal collection or sold for a large amount of money. Admittedly most firearms collected at such events are generally worthless garbage. Few people are foolish enough to turn in a valuable weapon, although I have been at a police pistol range when a widow wanted to turn in a working handgun to the range master for free.

According to the article, one RKBA person, Rick Ector, was protesting the gun buy back by passing out literature.

I'm not familiar with gun law in Detroit, so I am not sure that the police were correct when they said that "buying guns on private property is illegal".

edited to add On rereading your post I notice that you did refer to the people who were protesting as having their panties in a wad. A question...what do you think of the actions of the people who were willing to pay a fairer price?

[Euromutt]

18. The surmises aren't mutually exclusive

The cops can, as you predicted, not care and make up a law to hassle you with. That they're physically capable of doing so, however, doesn't make it legal for them to do so.

As for what skin it is off anyone's nose, as pointed out in the piece, these "no questions asked" "buy-backs" provide a perfect opportunity for offenders to not only dispose of physical evidence with police complicity, but to actually get some money for it. Beats tossing it into the Rouge. Also, some of the firearms people might be getting rid of could be antique, rare and/or prized firearms, and most gun enthusiasts don't like the idea of those being cut up and melted down.

[lawodevolution]

31. "Why do the RKBA people get their panties in a knot over this buy-back?"

The problem with gun buyback programs is what the anti-gun police chief or mayor who promotes the gun buyback is trying to say to the community with the buyback. Do you really think a city like Detroit that probably has several million guns owned by civilians is going to be safer because you took 150 guns off the streets from people who volunteered to turn them in? It's a form of deception to run this publicity stunt and make people think that such a small amount of guns taken in will make things safer because it leaves them with the feeling that a small number of guns would be dangerous in the first place, while they remain unawares that there are as many guns as people in society and that the average gun is hundreds of times less likely to kill you than a even doctor is (in gross negligence), which would make any individual gun rather safe. When these guns are turned in voluntarily the gun owner who turns them in wasn't going to use the gun in a crime anyway.

I don't agree with the government using deception as a way to promote themselves.

[Atypical Liberal]

71. Why I don't like gun buy-backs.

I particularly dislike government-funded "buy backs", because they are spending taxpayer money on a feel-good effort that does nothing to prevent firearm-related crime.

This particular buy-back was funded by a company called "Continental Management", though the Detroit Police Department ran the actual buy-back program. Unless Continental Management also paid for the police officers' salaries, or the officers worked for free, taxpayer money was still being used to run this program which is basically just security theater.

That said, the prices offered for firearms are ridiculous. From the article, they offered $25 for non-functional firearms, $50 for functional firearms, and $100 for "assault rifles".

The article claims that over 300 firearms were bought back during the program. But one wonders what kinds of firearms these were? With the exception of the Hi-Point C9 pistol, which retails for around $100 or so, most modern pistols retail in excess of $350. Anyone who would sell a functional pistol for only $50 is either ignorant of the true value of the item or they have absolute junk.

The cheapest of assault rifles, civilian variants of the AK-47, retail to day in excess of $400. Anyone who would sell one for a mere $100 is off their rocker.

So basically, these gun buy-back programs are ripping people off.

I also have no problem with private citizens who are legally able to own firearms descending on these events and offering to out-bid the buy-back program. Who wouldn't? I'd love to attend one of these things and catch grandma about to sell grandpa's 1911 for $50 and offer her $100 for it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. I hope they sue.

If no laws are being broken, the police have no right to harass citizens.

[sharesunited]

4. What this smartass did was contrary to the spirit of the event.

If he was made to feel unwelcome, he certainly should recognize why.

[one-eyed fat man]

8. Looking for a bargain.

If some old widow in line at the bank to get change for a dollar......



I have no doubt you'd give her four new shiny quarters in a heartbeat.

[sharesunited]

9. Guns and ammo should be as scarce as Morgan Dollars.

[spin]

10. Well they are not and they will not be anytime in the foreseeable future.

You could pass a law today banning all firearms and 50 years from now there would still be at least 50 million firearms still around and plenty of ammo.

edited for spelling

[one-eyed fat man]

11. They are not scarce!

Any United States dime, quarter, half dollar or dollar that is dated 1964 or earlier is made of 90% silver. They are hoarded by collectors. They are stashed away in old geezers' sock drawers. What they are, is NOT in general circulation.

Before the change to the current series of clad coins, all the silver coins, including the Ben Franklin and Walking Liberty half dollars were in daily use up to about 1964. After WW2, the dollar coins daily use declined, but were still common as gifts and out West in casinos.

Ironically, the Kennedy design caused the slow disappearance of the half-dollar as a regular mainstream circulating coin, through a series of unrelated events. First, collectors and even ordinary citizens hoarded the coins of 1964, due to the "new" design and because of sentiment for the late President Kennedy.

The older Franklin halves of 90% silver were quickly removed from circulation by collectors and hoarders, and since the public now hoarded silver coins, most of the 90% silver 1964s, as well as the 40% silver 1965-1970 halves, saw little circulation as well. By the time the Kennedy half dollar became regular copper-nickel clad in 1971, many banks and merchants were already used to no longer stocking and using the denomination as they were prior to 1964.

With the current melt value of a Morgan or any other 90% silver dollar around $23.00 you are unlikely to see any in your change any time soon. But just because they are not in circulation. That does not make them scarce.

Many of the spectacular rarities of the series, both by grade and absolutely, can be attributed to the order to melt down 270 million silver dollars still on hand by the Pittman Act of 1918. Because of this, and subsequent melting, it is estimated that only 17% of all Morgan dollars minted still survive. However, that's still many millions of examples.

In November 1962, it was discovered that there were some rare and valuable dates, still sealed in their original mint bags, all in uncirculated condition, among the millions of dollar coins still in the Treasury vaults. Collectors/investors/dealers lined up to purchase them in $1,000 bags, trading silver certificates for the coins.

On March 25, 1964, Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon announced that Silver Certificates would no longer be redeemable for silver dollars.

Following this, the Treasury inventoried its remaining stock of dollar coins, and found approximately 3,000 bags containing 3 million coins. Many of the remaining coins were Carson City mint dollars, which even then carried a premium.

So scarce, not exactly. From the 30's through the early 60's silver dollars were popular Christmas and birthday gifts. I am quite certain many "of a certain age" can corroborate that. I am sure some still have those coins they received as gifts stashed.

[Katya Mullethov]

12. I broke a whole roll of silver quarters

into my cash register this summer . Some little bastard cleaned out his pop's sock drawer no doubt .

[sharesunited]

13. I appreciate the coin information and admire your interest in the subject.

Scarce to find out on the street is what I meant. Not circulating. Not walking around with them on one's person. Hoarded for their intrinsic premium over face value, and because they aren't being made anymore.

Public policy should seek to achieve the same kind of scarcity with regard to guns and ammo, rather than tolerate an endless abundance of new units.

[one-eyed fat man]

14. You are wrong again

"....endless abundance of new units."

Fake Trade & Morgan Silver Dollars

But there is an endless supply of NEW silver dollars:

There was a time when fake Trade Dollars were authenticated and slabbed by the most reputable third party grading services; accidentally of course. The counterfeits, out of China, were so numerous, and close to the design appearance of a United States Trade Dollar, that a few slipped through the cracks, so to speak.

Some coin collectors still don't realize a Chinese mint facility, with thousands of fake US coins in stacks exists. Other equally naive individuals fail to realize that scarcity of an item increases the incentive for the criminally inclined and villainous members of society to profit by supplying a product for which no legal or legitimate source exists.



One of these coins is real; one is a Chinese counterfeit. When the value of the coin was based on the intrinsic value of the gold or silver in it, counterfeiters tried to pass off coins of less valuable base metals.

These counterfeits are 90% silver, or about 23 bucks worth at current rates but duplicating moderately valuable coins fetching a few hundred to a thousand dollars. The counterfeiters have not tried to forge something truly rare like a business strike 1895 dollar as it would garner too much scrutiny.

[Euromutt]

19. I wrote a post some four months ago citing the example of the Maria Theresa thaler

Originally here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=333329&mesg_id=333775, but I'll re-post it.

The Maria Theresa thaler (aka "MTT") was originally minted in the Austro-Hungarian empire during the reign of the Empress Maria Theresa. It became immensely popular as an international medium of exchange (one might say, a "gold standard," a-ha-ha) that various official mints outside the Austro-Hungarian empire issued them, from Birmingham to Bombay, until the Austrian governments rescinded the licenses in 1946. A total of 389 million are estimated to have been struck from 1751 to 2000, with the Viennese mint striking 49 million post-1946. In addition, due to its long-lasting acceptance as a standard medium of exchange from Mozambique to Indonesia, many unofficial copies (i.e. forgeries, though with a coin that derives its value from its silver content, this is a relative term) have also been made. Silversmiths in the Middle East make them to this day (in the Arabian Gulf, they are often incorporated in women's jewelery, as her jewelry is one of the few possessions a woman retains if she is divorced). It was so widely accepted in Abyssinia that the Italians minted copies in Rome for use during the invasion and occupation of that country in the 1930s, and the British had copies minted in Bombay for use during the operations in 1941 to drive the Italians out. Around the same time in the (then) Dutch East Indies, the MTT was greatly preferred to the scrip issued by the Japanese government of occupation, so much so that the OSS had forgeries made for use by its agents.

If one regards as genuine MTTs only examples minted at official mints within the Austro-Hungarian empire during the reign of Maria Theresa (1741-1780), then MTTs are extremely rare. If, conversely, you're willing to accept as an MTT any coin that meets the specifications* regardless of where or when it was struck, then MTTs are common as dirt. You can buy them by the dozen (nay, dozens) in any souk on the Arabian peninsula, and for all practical purposes, they're no different from the original.

The Maria Theresa thaler is the Avtomat Kalashnikova of coins; if you want an original AK-47, manufactured in the Soviet Union between 1948 and 1959, well, it's going to cost you a lot of time and money to get hold of one. If, however, you'll settle for any copy of the Kalashnikov design manufactured somewhere in the Eurasian land mass (from East Germany to North Korea) that'll spit out the thirty 7.62x39mm rounds in its detachable magazine in three seconds without jamming, there's no shortage of options to choose from.

* - 39.5mm diameter, 2.5mm thickness, massing 28 grams (of which 5/6 fine silver), with on the obverse the portrait of Maria Theresa and the inscription "M. THERESIA D. G. R. IMP. HU. BO. REG." and on the reverse the Habsburg coat of arms and the inscription "ARCHID. AVST. DUX BURG. CO. TYR. 1780"

I will add to that that when it comes to crime guns, the criteria of demand are even looser. Various studies have indicated that, while members of the criminal element may have personal preferences for certain brands of models of firearm, when it comes to the crunch, they'll take whatever's available. There's no such thing as an armed robber or a drug gang "soldier" who will only use, say, a Browning Hi-Power or a clone thereof (e.g. a Hungarian FEG P9 or Israeli Kareen Mk.II), let alone one who refuses to use anything but, say, a Mk.III Practical variant of that pistol (I use the Mk.III Practical as an example because it's out of production and thus not readily available), and if he can't get that specific gun, he's going to turn his back on crime, take night classes at DeVry and become a plumber instead.

As long as there is a criminal demand for guns, some enterprising and unscrupulous spark will supply them. Criminals in the UK have already shown they're content to buy and use things like German-made starter pistols and Russian-made tear gas pistols, illegally converted to fire live rounds. There's whole cottage industries in the Philippines and India that make fairly sophisticated "improvised" firearms.

It's one thing to make a specific model of firearm scarce; making all firearms--including improvised ones--scarce is just a pipe dream.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. BINGO!

Crooks are not immune to fads, but for the most part they are pretty mainstream. For a short time it was MAC-10's and Tec-9, now you gotta have a "Glock Foh-tay!"

As far back the Fifties the Justice Department studies of criminal firearms have shown that the crooks tend to favor the same guns the cops are using.

Forty years ago, it was Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers in .38 special. Now it is just as likely to be a Glock in 9mm or .40. Crooks also tend to view guns as expendable commodities, they fence them, trade them for drugs. If it goes bang and is reliable, it will do.

[sharesunited]

30. As with child pornography, public policy is everything.

Do we as a society say that because children and digital cameras and memory cards are continually being produced, it is just a pipe dream to take a zero tolerance public policy position against child porn?

You don't even need to produce it. Merely possessing it is unlawful by virtue of the harm it is deemed to have the potential to cause.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. Stupidity as public policy.

Grandma Arrested for Child Porn

Couple arrested for "sex abuse" for taking photo of naked baby...

RALEIGH, N.C. — Parents who were charged with child abuse last August have been exonerated and reunited with their children.

Charbel Hamaty was charged with sexually assaulting his newborn son, and Teresa Hamaty was arrested for taking sexually explicit pictures.

The couple describe the ordeal as a "nightmare" that started over a roll of film that Charbel Hamaty dropped off at a north Raleigh Eckerd drugstore.

The photo that raised alarms shows a naked Kristoff, now 16 months old, getting a kiss from his father on the belly button, Teresa Hamaty said.

When the photos were shown to the police, the couple was arrested, and Kristoff was put in protective custody, while his half-sister, Victoria, was handed over to her birth father.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HlRL5xl8bT0/S6Pgd37_2zI/AAAAAAAAB0k/nTEDle6DSp8/s320/A+Day+with+Caroline+002.jpg

A picture of your 2 year old granddaughter kissing her 8 month old baby brother is NOT child porn. But like the zero tolerance policies that have students thrown out of school for having a hat with plastic Army men with little plastic guns the institutional drones who enforce unreasoned policies with such mindless zeal should undergo forced sterilization to keep that gene from passing!

[lawodevolution]

40. "30. As with child pornography, public policy is everything. ". Reducing the number of cameras

And supply of film will not reduce the amount of people who abuse them by making child porn, just like reducing the supply of ammo and guns will not suppress the amount of people who abuse guns.

[X_Digger]

42. This crap again?

SAT Verbal Section

Question 428.

Child Pornography is to cameras as ____ is/are to firearms.

a) morgan silver dollars
b) wal-mart photo processing
c) assault with a deadly weapon
d) derp


Let's dispense with this once and for all, shall we?

The criminal behavior (assault with a deadly weapon, producing / distributing child pornography) is proscribed, not the tool (camera or the gun.)


Repeat after me: I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies. I will make logical analogies.

[sharesunited]

43. The comparison is an apt and sound one.

It's inconsistent to condemn one and make excuses for the other.

Both things are too inherently dangerous to society to be tolerated.

Mere possession is harmful by virtue of the potential to harm.

[X_Digger]

44. You chose 'derp', I see.

Activity.. tool.

Legal activity using tool.

Illegal activity using tool.

Murder is illegal.

Producing child pornography is illegal.

Mere possession is harmful by virtue of the potential to harm.

You've had this explained to you before, and you refuse to respond in any meaningful way.

Child pornography cannot be produced without harming a child, who is not able (legally, ethically, morally) to give informed consent.

It is not the possession that represents the harm, it is the production. Possession is prima fascie evidence of a child being harmed.


If your asinine analogy held, cameras would be 'scarce'.



derp, forever, apparently.

[sharesunited]

45. Your analysis is wrong in a very important way.

Possession of CP is a crime because of its potential to be used to desensitize or groom other children by exposing them to the images.

Possession of "crime scene" photos is not ordinarily treated as criminal in any other context.

In the case of CP, production is one crime. Possession is another.

Possession of images without any participation whatsoever in their production.

The offensiveness of the images is not the reason for criminalizing them, either. That would fail on 1st Amendment grounds. It is their potential to cause harm. Their mere potential.

Why such inconsistency as to the demonstrable harm children suffer from bullets?

[Straw Man]

47. Potential to cause harm.

The offensiveness of the images is not the reason for criminalizing them, either. That would fail on 1st Amendment grounds. It is their potential to cause harm. Their mere potential.

Why such inconsistency as to the demonstrable harm children suffer from bullets?

And swimming pools? And automobiles? Cell phones? White sugar? Saturated fat?

A simple question: Can you imagine any possible positive use of firearms by anyone?

Now ask yourself the same question about child pornography.

I'm going to presume that your answer is "no" to the second. If your answer is "yes" to the first, then your analogy has failed. If your answer is "no" to the first, when do suggest we begin disarming the police and the military?

[sharesunited]

48. LOL I see why you call yourself Straw Man. Welcome to DU.

[Straw Man]

67. Thank you for the greeting.

LOL I see why you call yourself Straw Man. Welcome to DU.

Is it in lieu of a response, or is supposed to be a response?

[X_Digger]

52. Read up on the history of child pornography legislation.

Read Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition-

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted the Government summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, and in prosecuting those who promote such sexual exploitation, id., at 761. The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber.

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

derp derp derp.

[sharesunited]

53. Yes, protecting future exploitation is the rationale for banning mere possession.

And mere possession is unlawful regardless of any intention to actually engage in production.

The law attempts to take a holistic view of the problem.

If CP is out there in the hands of the public, future harm is likely to result.

A risk to be avoided despite the 1st Amendment.

Why should the 2nd be immune from the same standard when fatal injury to children (and others) is likely to occur?

Surely the State's interest in protecting life and limb is as important as protecting against exploitation.

[X_Digger]

54. Whoosh, that was the point flying by..

Did you intentionally misinterpret the decision, or did you just not get it?

Possession of CP represents a crime already committed.

Are cameras rare?

herp derp derp

[sharesunited]

58. Yes, CP is photographic representation of a crime scene.

It is also contraband as relates to possession, separate and apart from its character as evidence of a crime already committed.

[X_Digger]

59. You're going to need a comb to fix your hair...

..if you keep ducking points that fast.

If there were a market for crime scene photos that caused people to kill or maim just to produce them then crime scene photography restrictions might be justified. There is no corresponding relationship between crime scene photos and the crimes depicted in them.

Another analogy fail.

You've gone so far afield from your original asinine analogy that your logical branch has snapped- which makes sense, it's unsupportable.

[one-eyed fat man]

64. Mere possession is harmful by virtue of the potential to harm

Do you squat to piss? If, by your reasoning, the potential to do harm is justification enough to ban possession of something, then these women agree with you. They already condemn you a rapist merely because you possess the equipment necessary to do harm.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." (Marilyn French, Author; and adviser to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign)

"Every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." (Andrea Dworkin)

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas)

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." (Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students).

As those women are sure to point out, rape can be eliminated in a generation by merely killing all male babies at birth. Merely castrating them would not eliminate their potential to harm, merely to reproduce.

[Euromutt]

65. Whoa, what's that sudden smell of fish?

Oh, I see, it's a large red herring (http://fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#herring) that has suddenly been dropped into the conversation. When one analogy gets exposed as flawed, you just pretend it didn't happen and move right on the next one.

As for your bullshit child pornography analogy, we've been over this extensively. Child pornography is to freedom of the press as human sacrifice is to freedom of religion. Child pornography is illegal because its production requires the infliction of sexual acts on an individual legally incapable of giving consent. Material that meets the definition of "child pornography," in that it depicts sexual acts involving a character who is a minor, is not illegal to manufacture or possess if the character in question is not an actual minor. Live-action stuff with adult performers pretending to be minors, Japanese hentai, drawings of Simpsons characters, none are deemed illegal as child pornography (though they may still run afoul of obscenity statutes, which are bullshit too, but that's a different discussion).

The rationale for prohibiting possession of child pornography is that the possessor may develop a taste for more, thereby creating a demand which, to be filled, will require the infliction of more sexual acts upon minors legally incapable of giving consent (that last thing being the actual harm caused). Thus, it is not the material itself that is deemed to have the potential to cause harm, but rather, the act of possessing and enjoying it; and even then only indirectly, by creating a demand for more to be produced. The law is, frankly, a kludge in that it makes the assumption that simple possession will create a demand for more, but that's necessitated by the fact that possession can be objectively proven, whereas the possessor's intentions cannot.

Do we as a society say that because children and digital cameras and memory cards are continually being produced, it is just a pipe dream to take a zero tolerance public policy position against child porn?

Wrong question, due to an invalid comparison.
It would most assuredly be a pipe dream to think you can eradicate the production of child pornography by banning the production, import and sale of cameras.

[SteveM]

72. You seem to have a thing with the "child pornography" metaphor. Why?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Why do you so oppose unionized working people?

[Callisto32]

37. These buybacks should be void as to public policy.

They allow police complicity in the possible destruction of evidence...funny how you don't care about REAL criminals, just disarming the rest of us.

On second thought, maybe I should just stop feeding the trolls...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Only if the anti unionists like yourself get your way

[lawodevolution]

32. "Guns and ammo should be as scarce as Morgan Dollars." yeah, like in nigeria, haiti and jamaica

where guns are very scarce. But guess what violence is very high, so no guns should not be scarce.

In this thread I point out that gun scarcity results in greater rates of violence when comparing gun ownership rates and rates of violence among nations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915


The guy was trying to point out that it is immoral to be ripping people off by tricking them into turning in valuable guns for $100 or $50 bucks.

[Callisto32]

36. Spam, spam and eggs and spam, spam and spam with spam, spam with spam and toast and spam.....

[slackmaster]

57. There were more than 32 million Morgan dollars minted

I doubt that you'd be satisfied with that situation.

[RSillsbee]

21. What was the "spirit of the event" ? NT

[aikoaiko]

24. Your support of government harassment is noted.

This is another example of why I can't trust you.

[Callisto32]

35. Except that the letter of the law will not be ignored to enforce its spirit.

And destruction of evidence is still a felony. If you can't figure out why these events should be illegal as they are currently run, I have nothing more to say.

[Straw Man]

46. You scare me sometimes.

What this smartass did was contrary to the spirit of the event.

If he was made to feel unwelcome, he certainly should recognize why.

God forbid that one not show the proper "spirit" at a government-sponsored event. Yes, of course one should expect harassment from the organs of state security.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. +1 for the very apt screengrab.

For those unfamiliar:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/

That movie is still not available on Region 1 DVD, dammit....

[slackmaster]

56. Baloney. The idea was to give people who have guns they don't want an easy way to get rid of them.

Mission accomplished.

[Kolesar]

5. “The officer’s lack of professionalism was disturbing,”

More whining :cry:

[Euromutt]

17. Again, you sum up your own posts so well

In future, you might even take it for granted that we can guess in advance what you're going to say, and then you wouldn't have to post at all.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. Yes, good samaritans just looking to keep someone from getting ripped-off.

Suuuuure.:rofl:

[backwoodsbob]

20. not good samaritans

just people looking to get lucky and pick up a valuable firearm on the cheap.

Sleazy but not illegal

[one-eyed fat man]

23. What's so sleazy about that?

"just people looking to get lucky and pick up a valuable firearm on the cheap."

The Detroit Police Department advertised that guns could be turned in with “No questions asked."

"...people with sawed-off shotguns walking in through the door are given complete amnesty.”

Hey, not only can you get the Detroit PD to destroy the evidence by melting down the gun you used to cap Dewonne, you can get a 100 bucks toward the replacement!

Now, THAT's sleaze!

[slackmaster]

69. Looking for a good deal on something you want is "sleazy"?

Feel free to pay full retail price any time you wish.

[Euromutt]

26. That depends on your point of view

Let's not mince words: the foremost objective these guys have is to pick up firearms at bargain basement prices. They're not taking advantage of anyone who shows up with a rare and valuable firearm any more than the organizers of the "buyback" are; certainly, they wouldn't be taking any more advantage than any Detroit PD officer who snagged a desirable firearm at a "buyback" price actually paid by someone else. Shit, if I were a Detroit PD officer, I'd be honked off at these guys jinxing my opportunity to possibly pick up some nice firearms--maybe even collectors' items--at no cost to myself.

But in a sense, anyone who keeps an eye on guns being handed in, and prevents any desirable models from being scrapped, even if motivated by material gain, is doing society in general a favor by keeping firearms of possibly historical value from being melted down. Seriously; once a historical artifact is destroyed, you can't bring it back, and all too often, guns are historical artifacts.

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. Your first sentence says it all.

Maybe Howell should run an ad offering to buy historical weapons, as others do, rather than using this method.

[Euromutt]

66. I wrote more than one sentence for a reason

You don't get to ignore the rest of my post because it's inconvenient to your position.

A lot of the people turning in guns may not know what they have; to them, it's just "some old gun" that's been gathering dust in the attic since Grandpa died, they don't know that there might be people in the market for it. That's precisely why attending these "buybacks" is a good way of spotting stuff the owners want to get rid of anyway.

[Katya Mullethov]

7. "I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this elementary stuff "

I wonder why that is . lol
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-detroit/gun-buyback-detroit-video

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. Sue, sue, sue.

Every time someone's feelings are hurt they want to sue.

Detroit is broke, but what the hell, sue them anyway.

Freakin' crybabies.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewMoonTherian]

29. A agree.

The city should take the initiative and fire the officer or officers involved and present a written apology to the citizens who were unlawfully harassed. Failing that, the RKBA group's only recourse is to file suit.

In most cases, I'm right with you; we shouldn't be suing each other for selling hot coffee or making nasty Facebook posts. On the other hand, this is a clear case of government abuse of innocent citizens. The police have to be held to the very highest standard of responsibility. When one starts behaving like this, you've found yourself a person who no longer meets the requirements of an officer of the law.

[Callisto32]

38. Suing the police for harassment is being a crybaby.

The police could have avoided this by BEING EDUCATED ON THE LAWS THEY ENFORCE rather, they chose to make shit up, and harass a person breaking no laws, and he is just supposed to take it?

How long does it take you to get that mink oil off your tongue?

[TheCowsCameHome]

39. OK, if you say so.

:rofl:

Proofread much?

[Callisto32]

49. What, incorrect end of sentence punctuation?

Sorry, I get pissed when people lick boots. Sometimes my typing suffers.

Edit: I attack your idea and you respond with a post on typographical errors. I think we both know what that means.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. You wrote: "Suing the police for harassment is being a crybaby".

I presumed that's what you meant.

Oh my, how those pesky incorrect punctuation marks make a difference.

[jazzhound]

55. When you can't deal with the actual content of an

argument, create a diversion by attacking spelling?

Indeed, everyone sees this as a cheap and desperate tactic.

[TheCowsCameHome]

63. Evidently it completely changed the poster's message.

And it wasn't spelling. The poster said it was a punctuation mark.

Your concern is duly noted.

[Katya Mullethov]

51. You misspelled sewing

Therefore , you are a gibbering gibbon of man and an unreliable source for both news and opinion !

[Callisto32]

68. That's okay.

My sometimes poor spelling and punctuation doesn't stop me from bringing home A's and B's in law school. I certainly don't care what it makes someone think of me on an internet forum.

[Katya Mullethov]

70. You have the right attitude about it .

Nya Nya Nya Nya
Damned if that dont take me back .
http://noolmusic.com/videos/richard_pryor_pet_monkey.php
I have a GSD just like that too .

[lawodevolution]

41. They should sue and it is especially effective when the city is broke which will teach them a lesson

Then after that they'll inform their officers how to behave next time someone is legally offering more money than them for guns.

[Callisto32]

34. Isn't destruction of evience oh...I don't know...a felony?

At least the pro and anti RKBA folks on here should be able to agree that any program where the police are likely destroying evidence should NOT be happening?

[Katya Mullethov]

60. Meanwhile ....elsewhere in Detroit

Huthuthut hut ... hut hut huthut hut

A&E Sued over Filmed Police Killing of 7-Year-Old
From a trusted source for news
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x26381

[PavePusher]

61. I thought police were the only ones who could be trusted with guns?

Someone seems to have missed a memo...