When this policy was actually enacted in Australia, it was referred to (and still is) as a buyback program.
-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I guess it's a stylebook thing at the Washington Examiner; put the good idea in "scare quotes" to confuse people.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They prefer the word confiscation cause it makes assault rifle owners seem like innocent victims of the government.
-
It U force somebody to give you their property it is confiscation. The fact you may or may not pay them for the value of that product is irrelevant. On top of that the whole concept fails w/o first having a national gun registry so the Govt can go door to door searching for guns.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
5th-Amendement-compatible Confiscation, then? It is a bit wordy, admittedly.
-
It’s plain confiscation - stop trying to make shitty optics for your argument more palatable via word games.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Why, when “confiscation” is correct and unambiguous?
End of conversation
-
-
-
Nothing about compensation in official definitions. Maybe you're thinking about Eminent Domain???pic.twitter.com/YoAYhkfjcp
-
Don’t ever come in my mentions with bullshit this weak.pic.twitter.com/8ijDumLfDm
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.