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

[stigmata]

Don't know how this is legal, but I'm sure this is not why we put this idiots in office, to screw us, beacuse im sure the criminals don't give a flying F... about tax increases and laws imposed on firearms because Im pretty sure they would just commit another crime to get them.

 

[Bobster]

As one who has been a gun eNthUsiasT in the US for decades, I can tell you that Dumpocraps have been pulling this shit for as long as I can remember. They will propose the most outlandish and onerous gun control proposals hoping that something "small" will stick. And it usually does--some "small" change or law will be added to the books. Then the same thing will happen the next shooting and the next shooting, slowly chipping away at our rights. This is why you tell your elected officials "NO COMPROMISE!" And "IMPEACH BIDEN!"...

PS: and speaking of 1000% tax, aluminum prices have gone up almost 400% since Bidet took office. An aluminum order that would cost me $500 is now over $1500!

 

[MikeD]

Id rather see extream bills like this than bans that will actually gain traction.

 

[John A.]

Well, they taxed sawed of shotguns and sbr's and machineguns and silencers about that much during the 1934 nfa. The $200 tax was equivalent to around $4000 at the time. The workaround was that it was a tax. Not a ban. because of course, that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the supreme court. Not even then.

But, by taxing it, only the rich could afford it. So, it only affected the poor people. Not the rich people and corporations.

Has anyone mentioned in a while that the US Government is a corporation? It is.

Anyway, the supreme court also said obamacare was legal since it was a tax.

So, yeah, they'd probably pass another tax for that too.

Would give those 85,000 new irs workers something to do I suppose.

I'll just start buying all of my stuff face to face. I don't need a gun dealer or the fbi background check to know I'm legally allowed to buy. So, that's not on me.

Oh, you ask about universal background checks?

OK. Prove that I didn't own it prior to the new law.

Oh, read the last three paragraphs especially. The atf doesn't even hide it anymore.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atf-releases-2017-report-firearms-commerce-us

 

[Ernst]

Although history doesn't seem to be important to most folks anymore it would only take a few minutes of study to see how effective the government's taxiation and later prohbition on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933 worked out. Speakeasies prospered during this time and the black market provided anything you wanted for a price.

It won't be any different in the U.S. nor in Canada if the governments restrict the ownership or prohibit the sales of firearms and ammuntion. Where do they really think 300 to 400 million weapons are going? The black market exists today and the volume would only grow.

Regards

 

[John A.]

^You are very correct.

The government was a big reason of the cause of all the organized crime for alcohol following prohibition.

Then, they banned a bunch of guns they didn't like.

Fast forward to the war on drugs and current timeframe. Again, they're blaming all the gang wars and turf shootouts on guns again.

You want history, there's a history lesson that many today would not be able to handle seeing how they are being used and lied to exactly the same as 100 years ago.

Government isn't the solution to the problem.

Government IS the problem.

 

[Rodburner]

I saw an article regarding this also. I have no need or use for an AR style weapon, had my fill in the military, but I would prefer enhanced background checks to weed out the worst of the riffraff, probably because I know it wouldn't affect me when I buy a new weapon. What really concerned me was in another article, where they espoused the same 1000% on ammo. That would hit all gun owners, not just sport rifleman.

 

[John A.]

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.

 

[stigmata]

Good points and conversations.

I know the government has always tried to overstep its boundaries even if it is a small thing at a time.

The 2nd amendment specifically says shall not be infringed but they sure as hell have no problem infringing on our rights. You don't see these ass clowns going after the 1st, 3rd, 5th or any other amendment but the 2nd each and every time something happens with a firearm.

There are 10x more deaths caused by knifes and other objects each year than firearms, you don't see them trying to ban that other shit like they do firearms.

If you want to use this same logic on everything that happens then if someone driving under the influence kills someone with their car, then why don't they ban cars....thats how stupid their point is with guns.
It's not the object it's the person operating it.

 

[John A.]

If you want to use this same logic on everything that happens then if someone driving under the influence kills someone with their car, then why don't they ban cars....thats how stupid their point is with guns.

biden tried to make the generally ignorant masses believe that gun makers couldn't be sued. That was a blatant lie.

Gun manufacturers can in fact be sued for a bad firearm or defect in their product just like almost every other company. Notice I said "ALMOST ANY OTHER COMPANY". I'll explain that more in a second.

Gun makers just can't be frivolously be sued because someone misused their product in a manner like the president and others are wanting to start doing (again). That's the reason the frivolous lawsuit protections began because ambulance chasing lawyers and politicians believe that they should be sued and were trying to stop manufacturers by recklessly bankrupting them through lawsuits. They want gun makers to turn out like the boy scouts of america. Just keep suing them until they lose so much money that they give up and are bankrupt.

But, certain pharmaceutical companies have even better protections. You can't even sue medicine makers for something that DID damage and harm your body. According to 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, "No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

You also can't sue the food and drug administration under the pretext of sovereign immunity as another example if they approved a bad drug. cough--covid vaccine-cough.

So, for biden to stand there and deliberately LIE in order to achieve another of his long term goals, he can pound sand.

I'll also mention that cannons were not banned prior, during, or anytime after the Revolutionary war. That too is a LIE that biden often tells.

Cannons are just as legal to purchase now as they were in the 1600 and 1700's. And there are not even any background checks necessary or required for it. They are treated like any other black powder antique arm. You can order them direct to your door no questions asked. That's more lies that biden uses to drive his point home about the 2A not being absolute. That's another popular lie that he tells. But, it's still a lie!

It was only after kennedy was assassinated that everyone started having to do background checks. Again, more proof that they are mainly concerned about their worthless hides being shot than are worried about yours being shot. That's when the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was enacted into law requiring serial numbers and background checks and so many other infringements.

And I very much would like to point out, the most recent yarn that biden tries to tell is where he said "9mm was a high caliber bullet that blows your lung out of your body". https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...t-does-not-blow-the-lung-out-of-the-body.html

During his statement, he said a trauma doctor showed x rays and things which showed that he was correct, but that doctor(s) would either be guilty of negligence of not knowing what they were doing, or had committed multiple felonies by violating hippa laws disclosing medical records without patient authorizations.

I have asked multiple media outlets to ask which doctor(s) told him that. But alas, they don't want to touch that.

So, of course that was more lies by biden and his ilk trying to deceive and lie to the American public. Yet, the media is unsurprisingly still quiet on the subject and just dismissed it outright and called it "another gaffe".

Listen folks, they are not gaffes. They are intentional blatant lies and the public should not tolerate it.

 

[Bobster]

I have no need or use for an AR style weapon

And I'm sure you are not the only one who feels this way. I didn't have my first AR until probably 10 years ago. Didn't think I had a need. Then I got one for cheap and said "this is kind of cool" and bought a serialized receiver and built my own. Ammo was reasonable for them, as well. If I had the time, I'd probably be into 3-gun.

Same thing went for shotguns, too--didn't think I had a need as I wasn't a hunter. I WANT to go hunting, I just don't have the time or someone close willing to take me.

But as I've matured (is that even possible? ) and become more aware of the political "system", it is apparent the power-brokers want uncontested control over the masses, either through indoctrination or subjugation. You can see this even today in a room full of masked politicians in various country's Parliaments. CV was a "test" and the unarmed lemmings complied wonderfully. I can see their end game and it will not end until everyone is entirely disarmed.

So OK, everyone in the US dutifully turns in (you can stop laughing now) their ARs, AKs, .50BMGs, .338Lapuas, x.xCreedmores, 10/22s, 590s, Auto-5s, hi-cap mags, body armor, etc., etc. and anything else that could be called an "Assault Weapon" or "Weapon of War". Then of course handguns, probably all of them. Now what? Probably the NEXT guns to be collected will be those dangerous "Sniper Rifles" with the ability to kill from a mile away! You know, the guns you have in the safe waiting for the next hunt. Then it will be pump shotguns because of their destructive force and ability to kill dozens at a time . So you MUST NOT be willing to give up one type of gun, just because they don't want your type. It will only be a matter of time.

There should be NO COMPROMISE from your elected officials on this. My senators claim to support 2A, yet they are on the red-flag bandwagon. As long as the Republicans don't snatch defeat from the hands of victory, Bidet will be impeached in 2023. But if those weinies compromise and give us up, then people like me may not even go to the polls this November...

 

[Rodburner]

And I'm sure you are not the only one who feels this way. I didn't have my first AR until probably 10 years ago. Didn't think I had a need. Then I got one for cheap and said "this is kind of cool" and bought a serialized receiver and built my own. Ammo was reasonable for them, as well. If I had the time, I'd probably be into 3-gun.

Same thing went for shotguns, too--didn't think I had a need as I wasn't a hunter. I WANT to go hunting, I just don't have the time or someone close willing to take me.

But as I've matured (is that even possible? ) and become more aware of the political "system", it is apparent the power-brokers want uncontested control over the masses, either through indoctrination or subjugation. You can see this even today in a room full of masked politicians in various country's Parliaments. CV was a "test" and the unarmed lemmings complied wonderfully. I can see their end game and it will not end until everyone is entirely disarmed.

So OK, everyone in the US dutifully turns in (you can stop laughing now) their ARs, AKs, .50BMGs, .338Lapuas, x.xCreedmores, 10/22s, 590s, Auto-5s, hi-cap mags, body armor, etc., etc. and anything else that could be called an "Assault Weapon" or "Weapon of War". Then of course handguns, probably all of them. Now what? Probably the NEXT guns to be collected will be those dangerous "Sniper Rifles" with the ability to kill from a mile away! You know, the guns you have in the safe waiting for the next hunt. Then it will be pump shotguns because of their destructive force and ability to kill dozens at a time . So you MUST NOT be willing to give up one type of gun, just because they don't want your type. It will only be a matter of time.

There should be NO COMPROMISE from your elected officials on this. My senators claim to support 2A, yet they are on the red-flag bandwagon. As long as the Republicans don't snatch defeat from the hands of victory, Bidet will be impeached in 2023. But if those weinies compromise and give us up, then people like me may not even go to the polls this November...

As far as ARs,AKs, etc. I don’t have any problem with them. They are fun to shoot. If my brother’s estate hadn’t done any research of gun values, his Norinko would be hanging on my bedroom wall right now. Of the 6 house’s closest to mine, 4 have AR and AKs in the rack, several custom built by the 5th house. I don’t advocate banning, confiscation, forced voluntary surrender or any of that other crap. I like guns, every adult in my family and extended family is a gun owner. What I also don’t have a problem with, is expanded background checks, logical waiting periods, age limitations and verifiable red flag situations. They don’t deny ownership of a gun to a person who meets the criteria, but I feel they do give a person some time to reflect on what they are really doing it for. It’s not gonna stop thieves or criminals from getting a gun, or any of the rest of us. It may slow down the kid who’s girlfriend dumped him and now she’s gotta pay, or some loner or some nut job in general. But of course, like everything in life, we are all never gonna agree on everything. I try to respect other’s positions. They lived somewhere where guns were an every day thing. Their parents instilled beliefs in them about god and country and guns, that would not be a consideration somewhere else. That’s cool. But personally I get a little tired of the blanket grouping, be it demoncrat or repubtard, that shows up so frequently in discussions of this nature. I try to believe that not all democrats support old Joe, just as I believe that 45s my way or the highway is not good for the rest of that party. There, I said it..

 

[John A.]

Well, Trump certainly wasn't the worst president of all time. But, I never agreed with everything he said or did either. But, he certainly is hands down better than the clown in office and whoever is running the government behind the scenes now. It has gotten so bad that I couldn't count his failures using both hands and feet in just the year and a half he's been there.

I'm curious what "expanded background checks" even means.

You're already checked through the fbi to make sure you don't have a criminal history and background that is cross checked nation wide. That's already plenty far enough for background checks. Again though, that only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals don't even participate in the government program

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.

You can already call in to tip lines locally to open investigations on anyone now, and there are already federal tip lines available to online threats and things as well.
https://www.fbi.gov/tips

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. Too many people are already tangled up with wrongful epo's and everything else stemming from jilted spouses and girlfriends and lawyers who advise such things to get a leg up in custody cases. That is already abused far too often. I will never get onboard with that. That's UN-American. That's dictator BS.

I believe most of us members here are men. Who have either been accused of wrongdoing in those situations, and if not, at least know someone (or multiple people) that was. That's how rampant false allegations are.

I don't think I'd support red flag laws even if you were able to sue the person making a wrongful claim for everything they have or could ever have. Even their food stamps and the clothes on their back before they were allowed to leave the courtroom when they lost. Leave them with nothing and no hope of ever having nothing ever again. And lengthy prison sentences too. What would be even better, have to serve the rest of the persons life they were trying to destroy before being eligible for release as mandantory. If they are going to be part of denying someones rights for the rest of their lives, they should be required to serve a sentence just as lengthy as the one they're trying to impose.

As an American, you are born with inalienable rights.

You don't have government granted rights. You don't have revokeable rights based on what some politician or stranger or vagrant says. Or some doctor who has a different religion or belief. They are given to you at birth and are supposed to stand until your death.

I'm not just saying protect my rights. I'm saying to protect yours too. Even though we don't agree on this. I'm even fighting for your rights, even if you are perfectly content waiving yours. I am not.

You have a right to remain silent too. But, no one is making you do that. But I'm not giving up any more of my rights for some bought and paid for politician that is getting rich accepting money and gifts and campaign contributions from Anti2A orgs and other countries that wants to see America be weakened. I've seen this for what it is. An attack on American sovereignty. And an attack on you and me personally.

As for wait limits. That's also pretty goofy. For starters, we already own guns. We wouldn't go out and buy a new one just to hurt someone. There are more guns in the US than there are individual citizens. So, my statement holds true for almost everyone that wants a gun. Most do already, as you pointed out with your neighbors. So, I see waiting limits as harassment. You pass the background check, you paid for the property. It's yours. You shouldn't have to wait a week before you're allowed to drive your car home from the car dealership either. That's just silly. And it's not going to stop anything (the "cool down period" as some like to call it). If they were bent on buying a gun to hurt someone today, they're just as likely to use that in 3 days from now. Or a week from now. Or whatever arbitrary number they assign will change absolutely nothing. If anything, having the extra time to think about it, may even provide them enough time to make a better fool proof plan on how to carry it out.

 

[Ernst]

There's an old saying that "Locks Keep Out the Honest People".

More oversight, expanded background checks, longer wait period also only impact the "honest" people. Plus some states have already tried many of these measures without much success.

The majority of folks who commit crime or are planning to do bad things don't buy a tracable firearm. They either buy them off the street or steal them. And the few criminals that do legally buy them generally have other problems, mostly mental.

Maybe the best solution would be to proscute those who lie on the questionaire form currently required to buy a firearm. And I suspect those numbers are increasing given the relaxing of the drug laws in many states. Secondly, applying mandatory sentences, which judges can not overturn, to anyone who commits a a crime while using a firearm. Lets say five years in prision if you use a firearm during the commission of a crime no matter the circumstances.

Plus it's hard to implement "one size fits all" restrictions that fairly apply to areas ranging from intercities to the rural wilds of states like Wyoming where ranchers, farmers and cowboys carry weapons every day no different than intercity folks carry a smartphone.

One size typically doesn't fit all!

Regards

 

[Rodburner]

John, All valid and logical, just as I expected. You are a qualified gun owner and are not the person most of these harassment’s would effect. By the time all of these “ownership qualifications “ are debated, litigated and bs’d into oblivion, not much will come from it and a new regime will be in place. I’m glad you defend the rights of others so vigorously. Thanks. As I mentioned, there is never a total agreement on any issue. Where you see a red flag law as you described, I don’t give it nearly the impact on the system. I see a watered down, you scratch my back, I scratch yours, partial lip service to placate the masses. All the other points will meet the same fate as well.

 

[John A.]

Thank you. I'm just being honest with you. Just as I respect that you're being honest with me.

As for lip service to the masses, they don't have to like my choices any more than I like some of theirs. I don't need their permission to own any gun of my choosing.

I don't have to ask for their blessing or permission or approval.

Nor will I.

And I'm not going to be harassed with red flag laws because of it.

 

[cmcdonald]

Sorry fellas...Canuckistani gun control propaganda is seeping across the border.

Seriously though, this all feels far too coincidental on both sides of the border. Something stinks......

 

[cmcdonald]

I saw an article regarding this also. I have no need or use for an AR style weapon, had my fill in the military, but I would prefer enhanced background checks to weed out the worst of the riffraff, probably because I know it wouldn't affect me when I buy a new weapon. What really concerned me was in another article, where they espoused the same 1000% on ammo. That would hit all gun owners, not just sport rifleman.

I totally understand this point of view but it's part of what has led us to this point. "I don't really care cuz it doesn't affect me." Believe me, one day it will. Maybe not for you but for your kids or grand-kids. I've never understood why a duck or deer hunter without any personal need for an AR wouldn't support the rights of sport shooter to own one. And, stand firmly on the principle that a gun is a gun no matter what it looks like or how it functions. It's just semantics. They all go bang and are just as deadly in the hands of a determined criminal.

 

[Rodburner]

I totally understand this point of view but it's part of what has led us to this point. "I don't really care cuz it doesn't affect me." Believe me, one day it will. Maybe not for you but for your kids or grand-kids. I've never understood why a duck or deer hunter without any personal need for an AR wouldn't support the rights of sport shooter to own one. And, stand firmly on the principle that a gun is a gun no matter what it looks like or how it functions. It's just semantics. They all go bang and are just as deadly in the hands of a determined criminal.

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.

 

[Daryll]

I totally understand this point of view but it's part of what has led us to this point. "I don't really care cuz it doesn't affect me." Believe me, one day it will. Maybe not for you but for your kids or grand-kids. I've never understood why a duck or deer hunter without any personal need for an AR wouldn't support the rights of sport shooter to own one. And, stand firmly on the principle that a gun is a gun no matter what it looks like or how it functions. It's just semantics. They all go bang and are just as deadly in the hands of a determined criminal.

Yep, thats exactly what has happened in the UK... back in 1986 after the Hungerford massacre the government asked various shooting bodies about semi auto rifles... our NRA said that they didn't care as their rules only cover bolt action rifles, so they sold out C/F semi auto rifles.
The same with high cap shotguns.. the Clay Pigeon Shooting Assn said that they were limited to 2 shots, so the gov limited shotguns to 3 rnds for the sake of hunting.

After the Dunblane massacre all the shooting bodies apart from the National Pistol Assn didn't care about pistols, so didn't raise any objections to a ban... the NPA obviously did, but one of their directors made some insensitive comments about the massacre so the NPA was dismissed as a "bunch of wannabe cowboys" and ignored.

Support your Shooting Rights organisations, and make it clear to them to support ALL shooting activities.