• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

1000% tax on AR15s proposed by House Democrats...WTF.

Rodburner said:
What I also don’t have a problem with, is expanded background checks, logical waiting periods, age limitations and verifiable red flag situations.
Click to expand...

Let me try to enlighten you about "Universal Background Checks" which is what they are proposing. Maybe that is what you mean by "expanded". In many free states, you can give or sell a gun to someone else as long as it is legal for them to possess/own a gun (ie: of age, not a felon, from in-state). They call this the "Gun Show Loophole" but there are no loops or holes and also no paperwork required--the person hands you the cash--you hand the person the gun. As one who has done this dozens of times, I have always looked at their/offered my ID and checked the serial number of the gun online at a FL "Stolen Property" webpage for guns. Most guns I've sold I've even done a bill of sale and gave the buyer a copy. I turned one guy down because he was visiting from IL--sorry, not going to risk it. Everyone else has seemed decent. And many wiser people can tell when they are being lied to or when something just doesn't feel right. Even FFLs. If the person fills out the 4473 and passes the BGC, the FFL is obligated to sell/transfer the gun after the waiting period :rolleyes:. If they smell like booze or pot they can be denied but the FFL can't just call the FBI on a hunch nor should he/she.

In a world with UBC, EVERY possession change of a firearm will require a 8873 be filled out, ID checked, wait period elapsed, background check done and fees paid. And what if computers are down? "Sorry, can't transfer the gun to you today." With Bidet's Dept. of "Justice" goons making it harder to get an FFL, the UBC may not be easily obtainable, especially with poorer folk. Those of us who know, know this is just a ploy to computerize/record EVERY firearms transaction for eventual registration, then confiscation. Call me paranoid but first prove me wrong... ;)

As far as waiting periods, I don't believe in them and believe they are more likely to adversely affect a potential victim looking to arm herself from an immediate threat rather than keep some hothead from shooting up a restaurant or depressed from taking their own life. I DO believe in physician-assisted suicide and Dr. Kevorkian to be Bidet's personal physician...

IMO, FL has a decent system in that ANY waiting period is waived if you have a carry permit. Getting a permit requires a certain amount of training but a hunter education cert will count as will NRA classes or instructor cert. If you don't have the required training, you can always go to a gun show and take the 4-hour? class and "fire" a simulated weapon to get it. As an educator, I see the value and safety of training and believe one should take a basic "test" to get a "gun card" which will allow you to purchase any firearm. No records would be kept and if you lose the card you have to take the test again.

Red Flag Laws are too open to abuse, IMO. Our Senator, then Gubna, Cunt Scott knee-jerked a bunch of shit legislation down our throats after the MSD shooting, including RFL. The problem was the FBI and local sheriff clearly dropped the ball on the BGC because the shooter was known to be a wack. But honest gunowners were set to take the rap. Fortunately, the FL State Leg. is Republican-controlled and a lot of very BS amendments the Dumpos wanted were not included in the law. But higher age (21) was, as well as arming teachers but most schools boards are farking lib weinies and would rather waste taxpayer money on a Resource Officer who is actually a sworn sheriff. And they can only be in one place at a time. It could take them 10 minutes to get from one side of the campus to the other, then what? Not all teachers are progressive, and many really do care about the constitutionality of what they teach, and would also voluntarily carry a gun on campus.

Now imagine your weenie neighbor is tired of your dog shitting in his yard and he knows you have guns having seen you walk to the car with them. He could easily do a search on you (as I did), find out what kind of guns you have and so on. Then make an anonymous call to "red flag" you, your door gets kicked down and guns confiscated/tossed around by 5-0 and stored in a dank evidence locker until you can come up with the money for a lawyer and psychiatrist, etc. to prove your sanity. You can see I just did a simple search, nothing probing but imagine what someone that knows your full name and address could do?

rodburner.JPG
 
John A. said:
Red flag laws.

I'm 100% totally against. Only in communist and socialist countries are you allowed no due process and be convicted of a crime before losing your rights. If the US were to enact that, we would be no better than any other craphole anywhere else in the world.

But, to strip you of your rights with just a phone call from anyone at any time, and with no recourse and no due process, hell no.
Click to expand...

John,

I know you are a very high-IQ intelligent man. But here is where we perhaps differ...

There is always within the red flag law a recourse and due process. First there has to be investigators who compile and present before a judge a claim of imminent danger. The judge can accept the claim or not, and that is based of course upon local political climate. And the judge must interview the accused owner before rendering a decision. Guns aren't seized based merely on a phone call.

If guns are temporarily seized, the owner has an automatic and absolute right to petition the court to have the guns returned. That sounds like due process. Nobody can up and seize guns with just a phone call.

Is that a giant PITA? Hell YES.

However, given that 99% of gun owners are responsible and do not alarm anyone I don't believe that they are at risk for losing their rights under red flag laws. I must admit that the active shooters I have studied were initially sending telltale and finally glaring warnings that they wanted to kill people.

When I was a cop, we presented complaints of domestic abuse to our court and that sometimes was unfounded, and sometimes it resulted in Protection from Abuse orders which had an expiration date before the accused was able to plead to the judge that it was bogus. Most of the time the PFA didn't last very long. But while it was in effect there were occasions where the judge ordered the accused to surrender his firearms temporarily. Most of the time they got their guns back pretty quickly. And that PFA was pretty much based on provable and physical evidence that the accused was physically abusing someone, but when things settled down the accused got all the guns back.
 
It's OK that we don't agree on everything. Nor do we have to.

But, I know a lot of people with many many thousands of dollars in firearms and ammunition and other things, who could lose all of their money and investments based on "that guys dog poops near my yard and I don't like the way he looks at me and there are cars that come to his house after dark" as being the real underlying cause while their complaints may be totally fabricated into far worse.

Sorry. But, no.

Someone makes threats to harm someone, arrest the person doing it for terroristic threatening or whatever. But seizing property with ex parte hearings where you aren't even allowed to be present for, no. Absolutely no in all regards.

I have just the type of neighbors that would call in a false complaint just to try to show what kind of a terrible person that I am because I own a gun for no other reason than to dig at me some more. They would like nothing more than to do that. And I really feel they would the first time I pissed them off trying to enjoy a cup of hot coffee on my own porch early in the morning just because they're upset that I didn't die in my sleep the night before.

I know several guys who have been accused of abuse and other things which were false. EPO's are abused far too often in my state. All they have to say in the complaint is they have a "FEAR THAT THEY MAY HARM ME". That's it. Bam. You're being served an emergency protection order by a deputy sheriff. The constable or ALJ or whomever gets the complaint would much rather "err on the side of caution" than to deny a claim from someone which may possibly come to fruition because it would put them in a bad light. So, virtually no complaints get rejected. Then there you are hiring lawyers and spending your money to try to defend yourself needlessly because of what someone else said or thought.

I don't want to speculate about anything that isn't written and signed into law. But, I'm 100% against it. Most of us have too much to lose from a false claim. Their investment money, rights, freedoms, etc.

No. That's just straight up BS.

Someone makes a threat, there are already multiple ways to legally deal with that than seize property at the risk of damage, loss, or just getting a liberal judge or psychiatrist or whatever that fundamentally believes you should have a gun in the first place. Too many things that can be abused and could go wrong with that. Just, no.

And besides, we already know that's not going to make schools safe anyway. You can already report people for making threats without screwing around with making a federal law about it.
 
John A. said:
2A has nothing to do with sports.

Nor was deer hunting mentioned anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights.

And, there are already background checks through the fbi to make sure you're not a felon or domestic abuser. But, listening to them, they'd be OK with prohibiting anyone for getting caught cheating on their third grade math test. It's just another means to the end. Anything they can do to harass and push and punish lawful gun owners.

At the end of the day, it's the criminals that are doing this and breaking the laws. Not the majority (or even the minority) of lawful gun owners. Criminals alread don't follow laws. So, harder background checks for the law abiding isn't going to fix anything. It's only going to make it harder for people that aren't doing anything wrong.

As for taxing guns. That's illegal too. You can't tax a newspaper because it violates the right of speech. You can't charge a poll tax to vote because it violates your right to cast your vote and choose your elected reps.

You can't charge a tax on a gun because it violates your second amendment right.

But, they sure infringe the living hell out of a right that says very plainly "shall not be infringed".

You may not be aware, but there are already sales taxes on firearms and ammunition. There are firearm excise taxes charged to manufacturers for every gun and bullet that is made. And the damned government already charges $200 for many commonly used firearms already too. In my opinion, unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

This will not stop school shootings. This will not stop retards from doing stupid stuff. And criminals aren't going to be trying to get them through legal routes anyway. Hell, the federal government (ATF specifically) even trafficked guns to mexican cartels in a program under the obama administration called fast and furious and project gunwalker. Look them up if you don't believe me.

It's nothing more than a concerted effort to take guns away from everyone.

Well, everyone except those in power. And those are the last people you want having guns. And why the 2A was written the way that it was as a dead mans switch for the citizens to put a stop to them if/when they get out of hand.

At the end of the day, the government doesn't care about kids getting shot.

They care about THEM not getting shot and that is what is keeping them awake at night.

They have cabinet meetings every single week about that now.
Click to expand...
10 out of 10 thumbs up!!!
 
Rodburner said:
C, the part that doesn’t affect me or you is being law abiding, legal age, able to easily pass the proposed new rules, when and if they come. I have no problem with sport shooters wanting or owning any kind of weapon, just because I can’t afford to plink with a Barrett 50 doesn’t mean nobody else can.lol I think this is how most of these discussions start and sometimes end badly, the inability to put into words, a thought or opinion, that leaves no question where the person stands on the subject. Hell, my wife and kids can’t get a read on me most of the time.
Click to expand...
RB, opinions are like a-holes...everyone's got one! :lol:

Misunderstandings in printed word are easy. Sometimes, it's hard to articulate just exactly what you mean. That is unless you're John A. or nitesite. LOL!

Scoop said:
@nitesite & @John A.
You two are the greatest tagteam in this redflag discussion. Thank you both.

Registration = Confiscation
Click to expand...

This is the whole debate in a nutshell. And, it is absolutely true.
 
TheRude1 said:
Glad I already have 8 :)
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter how many someone already has. It's all those moving forward that is at issue. What about those that your grandchildren or great grandchildren that aren't even born yet may want? This is our fight for them; right now to offer them the same freedoms and protections as we have now. Weakening future generations on our watch is unconscionable.

I've heard a few people say "go ahead, it doesn't affect me".

Which is true, but that's how the democrats work. It makes a complacency to where there is not as much opposition for them to have to overcome. But eventually, their goal is achieved through attrition and time. They are in it for the long haul. And sadly, a lot of opposition can't see past the end of their nose.
 
John A. said:
It doesn't matter how many someone already has. It's all those moving forward that is at issue. What about those that your grandchildren or great grandchildren that aren't even born yet may want? This is our fight for them; right now to offer them the same freedoms and protections as we have now. Weakening future generations on our watch is unconscionable.

I've heard a few people say "go ahead, it doesn't affect me".

Which is true, but that's how the democrats work. It makes a complacency to where there is not as much opposition for them to have to overcome. But eventually, their goal is achieved through attrition and time. They are in it for the long haul. And sadly, a lot of opposition can't see past the end of their nose.
Click to expand...
7 are 80%ers,all Aero precision and 1 stag arms parts and trimmed with Magpul. 1 was a private sale. So I have a few to spread around. And I'm not saying that I don't care about the future as a whole. I'm thinking all this foot stomping and mashing of teeth will be greatly diminished overtime once the facts and the numbers of lawful gun use against crime come out. I remember when the Zero was saying the same things until the CDC came out with a report of lawful gun usage and then it faded away. And I refer to Obama as the 0, cause he was worthless and had no value.
 
Big props for making your own.

They've had statistics for years. But, just like polls, they twist and lie about them. Even suicides are counted against guns and gun owners. They're just lying thieving bastards and many prostitute themselves out for money. Maybe not sexually, but for whatever trick and favor that their donors want them to do, which makes them the same as prostitutes in my opinion. Male or female or other, is all the same in my book.

And snopes doesn't even bother to put the correct facts out in their fact checks:

example: half of all Americans die of gun shots

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-150-million-gun-deaths/
 
100% Agreed, 98% of everyone in DC is crooked a a dog's back leg. And any website or business that has "fact check" in the title is full of BS. I'll do my own fact checking, thank you very much. It is such on long list of lies I wouldn't know where to start.
 
John A. said:
Big props for making your own.
They've had statistics for years. But, just like polls, they twist and lie about them. ...

And snopes doesn't even bother to put the correct facts out in their fact checks:
example: half of all Americans die of gun shots
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-150-million-gun-deaths/
Click to expand...

John A,
I can see why you thought Snopes made the wrong rating on the claim about 150 Million Americans Killed.
When I first read that I had the same impression.
BUT, Snopes did not rate the claim about the number.
The claim was that Joe Biden said that number in a speech. Which he did indeed say. Excerpt from Snopes below:

Did Joe Biden Say 150 Million Americans Have Been Killed By Guns Since ’07?
For perspective, the United States has roughly 330 million residents.

CLAIM:
Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden said during a debate that "150 million people have been killed [by guns] since 2007."

Rating
rating-correctly-attributed.png
Correct Attribution
About this rating

Biden did indeed make the comment. Below is a transcript of the remark, which can also be heard in the video that follows:

In addition to that, I passed the Brady Bill with waiting periods. I led that fight. But my friend to my right and others have in fact also given to the gun manufacturers absolute immunity. Imagine if I stood here and said we’d give immunity to drug companies. We would give immunity to tobacco companies. That has caused carnage on our streets. 150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on.

The New York Times reported that more than 33,000 people die in firearm-related deaths in the U.S. every year, which is an annual average compiled from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That would mean that an estimated 429,000 people were killed on average since the start of 2007 to the end of 2019.​
-- END OF EXCERPT --

So the Correct Attribution rating was about whether Joe said those figures, not whether the figures were correct.
 
Maybe the fact checkers need to be more honest and forthcoming. No one questioned whether he said it. Everyone knew he did.

But even then, they won't admit that he lied.

They're not gaffes.

They're lies.

Anyone noticed my new signature I've been using? This is yet another reason why.
 
Read this today. They can't twist their ideology around on stupidity. It's attrition. Plain and simple. They get it just as well as we do. But they don't care.

waxman quote.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top