You Can’t Buy Back What You Never Sold

Only two of the firearms in my collection were ever sold by the federal government, a Model 1903 Springfield rifle I inherited from my father-in-law and an M1 carbine that I’ve owed for decades. Even though there were at least two intervening owners between the government and me for both rifles, I suppose it would be technically possible for the government to say it wanted to buy them back, but they’re not for sale.

Now, about my AR15 … Mine is a Colt Sporter in 7.62x39mm. That’s an odd chambering for an AR15, but the cartridge is legal for deer in Maryland—the more common .223 Rem/5.56 NATO round isn’t—and it’s my preferred deer rifle for hunting in the woods. I didn’t buy it from the the government, and even if Colt were to make an offer, it’s not for sale.

BTW, the Springfield is an interesting collector’s item. It was produced just after World War One, so it was one of the first made using the improved heat treating process for the receiver. It also has the cutout for a Pedersen Device.

5 thoughts on “You Can’t Buy Back What You Never Sold

  1. What are the main advantages of 7.62x39m vs. 7.62x51m for local game? I assume the smaller round is slightly less expensive but the larger round should have a flatter trajectory further out.

    • The longest shot I’ve ever taken in the woods here in Maryland was about 60 yards. The 7.62×39 round is in the same power class as .30/30 and flatter shooting. I bought mine because the dealer gave me a better deal on it than he would on a Marlin 336.

      A typical shot over a corn or bean field around here is 200 to 250 yards. I get best results with a Tikka T3 in .270 Win at those ranges.

      I’ve harvested more deer in Maryland with a T/C Contender pistol with a 14-in barrel in .45/70 than with anything else.

  2. Speaking as an Aussie who witnessed the Australian gun buy-back that was very successful after the Port Arthur Massacre, I can confidently say that your underlying assumptions are a bit skewed.

    There were quite a number of permits given for gun usage, ranging from sporting shooting, to farmers requiring pest control, to security personnel that had to transport cash. It wasn’t a “the Government will take everything” scenario.

    Incidentally, and sorry that I can’t find a reference quickly, according to an opinion piece published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which strives hard for genuine editorial independence from ANY outsiders (sort-of like the BBC), the early NRA was in favour of gun control, and that, over the years, has gradually become more hard-line.

    While trying a quick Google search, I came across this article from “Time” magazine. I have not the faintest idea about the perceived political position/spectrum that readers of the blog would apply to eather the magazine in general, or the author of the article in particular, but, anyway, this is what a 5-second search dug up:

    “When the NRA Supported Gun Control”

    The article is written by “Arica L. Coleman”; the third and fourth paragraphs read:

    The NRA’s opposition to gun control, however, is only a few decades , according to Adam Winkler author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Historically,” writes Winkler, “the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine.”

    Not only did the NRA support gun control for much of the 20th century, its leadership in fact lobbied for and co-authored gun control legislation.


    Now, I know that I am likely to be criticised by the readers of this blog, seeing the pro-Second-Amendment sentiments often expressed here. I’ll just say: “You pays your money and you takes your chances”, and won’t try to inflame this blog environment [any further?].

    I’ve been interested especially in the Kimberlin saga in the past, and the blog itself (not always the comment section) has impressed me highly, but, sadly, my impression is that that saga seems to be gradually fading, without sufficient justice being given out where it is due, as time elapses.

    — fred.bloggs

    • There were quite a number of permits given for gun usage” – and therein lies the fundamental difference between the USA and Australia, We are not “permitted” by our government to own our guns. We believe it is our natural right. And the main point of this post is the so-called buybacks – the government cannot buy back what it never sold us to begin with. It is not a buyback – it is mandatory confiscation with financial compensation.

Leave a Reply