• 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.

Fienstein to introduce Assault Weapon Ban

ripjack13 said:
Anyone hear what this dipshidiot Donald Kaul, wrote about yet?..

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/ ... -register/
Click to expand...

This may sound odd, But I actually like when you find members of the anti-gun crowd expressing their opinion with such, um, "voracity". It makes for a good example to use as a counterpoint when one of them is whining about "violent gun nuts".

This clown has no problem calling for the elemination of the 2nd ammendment from the Constitution and seems to relish in the idea of high-profile politicians meeting a gruesome demise. I would imagine he, along with every other so called "journalist", would absolutely destroy anyone who would make the suggestion to eliminate the 1st Ammendment.......After all, the Founding Fathers could have never imagined the world of fast-paced, instantaneous, rarely fact checked news that we live in now. They could have never imagined an American citizen having his entire life turned upside-down due to the press finding a few hours later that they had named the wrong person. No, they would say......The 1st ammendment is crucial to the continuation of a free and independent country, they would whine.

Here's a bit of news for clowns like this "author"........The only reason the 1st ammendment exists is because the 2nd gives the people the teeth to protect it.
 
WOW... and yet everyone thinks that the people who legally own firearms and haven't killed anyone or haven't made any threats are dangerous.. MORONS
 
I renewed my membership to the terrorist organization, for some reason the death threats don't seem to bug me. Logic would dictate that if pro gun folks were as violent as anti gun nuts said they were...there would be no more anti gun nuts to speak of.
 
I have still not seen any bill numbers either in the house or senate be proposed at this moment.

But going by sen. fiensteins press release on her website that was linked earlier, something about it has been laying in the back of my mind, and I thought of it last night while laying in bed.

Aside from being unconstitutional for going against 2A, and the dick act of 1902 (establishment of the army and national and private militia, et.al), here is another entirely different view of the situation that many people are not stopping long enough to think about.

They want an entirely new classification of NFA weapon.

We'll generically call it the "Assault Weapon classification" for the sake of discussion.

NFA registration costs $200 PER WEAPON.

So, just for the sake of saying that everyone has 5 weapons to register, that will be $1000 in extra taxes that you'd have to pay. Although obviously some will own and have to pay more, some less.

My main question is why would anyone, or even for that matter, how could anyone be taxed for something they already own?

It's like, you own a bag of rice that's been in your pantry for 6 months, even though you paid sales tax on it when you bought it, and the manufacturer already paid the 11% FET tax, you're going to have to pay a NFA registration tax on it now too.

Is anyone else catching on to this unfair taxation angle?
 
I haven't thought about it quite like that, but only from the angle that precedent has been set by the rulings on obamacare that the govt can impose a tax penalty. Don't know if that can be used or not but it would make owning the firearms cost prohibitive if they went that route.

I haven't yet been able to find anything new over the last couple days either. I just keep lookin at the existing wording in complete astonishment. Especially the part about shotguns with a detachable magazine or fixed magazine with a capacity of more than 5 rounds, and also the part about arms being suitable for sporting purposes shall not be deemed suitable? I'll have to come back to that last part...
 
Obama care is a penalty if you DON'T have something.

This would not be a penalty if you didn't have something. It would essentially be a penalty/tax on what you do already own.

Not at all like obamacare tax
 
I would think if they were going to tax us...it would be like, say, building a hotrod. You paid for everything...put it together. Paid people to work on it. All the parts. All the labor. All the taxes on it paid too..you now want to use it...oops. gotta pay for a registration plus tax on it. Its property now. Then you need to keep paying the registration every year...till you sell it..or take it of the road...

Need to read what I just posted to see if I make sence to myself.....
.
 
In my book, every penny I give the gov. is a tax. Be it obvious like school/income tax to the less obvious like getting a fishing lecense or putting money into a parking meter. Call it a fee, license or whatever...it's a tax. So yes, making people buy a "permit" for something they already own is a retroactive tax. Don't forget the plans of some lib politicians to put a burdensome tax on ammo.

If they did these things it would make it harder if not impossible for poor people to defend themselves...certainly un-Constitutional in my book. I'd like to think we could rely on scotus but those days are over. They are certainly leaving no stone unturned right now. The anti's are asking for so much right now that some of this b.s. is certain to pass, especially at the state level where the big cities control their capital's. Depressing to say the least.
 
Still, the issue would be some would be taxed, while others would not.

while I do see your point about race cars, it's not a race car.

Would some cars be taxed while others wouldn not be?

That's basically what they're saying about guns if used in your context
 
I thought I seen somewhere that .22 rifles are not included in this bill. But now I cant seem to find where I read that. Anyone know details on how the bill views these rifles? And are some included based on thier look or that they have detachable mags and some not?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
 
Would some cars be taxed while others wouldn not be?

That's basically what they're saying about guns if used in your context
Click to expand...

They have talked about taxing cars that put out more pollution and get worse mileage than those that don't. I have seen proposals that would scrap my old cars and truck. Don't forget sin taxes too. Let's tax soda for being sugary but not fruit juice ect. The "fun police" are everywhere but are on guns like flies on a dog turd at the moment.

I thought I seen somewhere that .22 rifles are not included in this bill.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, the will go after all semi autos and anything over 10 rounds. I'm sure my Ruger 10/22 and 25 round mags will be attacked too. Welcome aboard and I hope you check in over at the new member welcome area!
 
awenfam said:
I thought I seen somewhere that .22 rifles are not included in this bill. But now I cant seem to find where I read that. Anyone know details on how the bill views these rifles? And are some included based on thier look or that they have detachable mags and some not?
Click to expand...


The old 1994-2004 AWB excluded 22LR magazine capacity if it was a fixed (tubular) mag, however, that was the only exemption to 22LR that I am aware of.

All that is ancient history now unless your state laws adopted laws mirroring the Federal laws.

Although Sen. fiensteins website said she was going to submit a bill on the first day of congress (yesterday), there has been no bill number posted so we can see exactly what is being proposed now but unless there are specific exeptions named, 22LR will likely be in the same boat as everything else this time around where magazine capacity is concerned, and almost certainly with detachable magazines and aftermarket folding/collapsible stocks.

But when the new bill does become available, I will add it here in this thread, so be sure to turn on your automatic email notification function in your control panel, or keep checking back here for updates.

And welcome to mossberg owners forum.
 
Thanks guys. I just picked up a 715T Flat top in camo a couple weeks ago. Been reading on this form here for about a week or so and it's great stuff. Thanks again.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
 
John A. said:
Obama care is a penalty if you DON'T have something.
Click to expand...



What if you do have something... they do this!

ObamacareTax.jpg
 
They have taxes hidden everywhere. Things on utility bills etc. Ever wonder how cheap gasoline would be if they ever took all the taxes off? The pump should say sale price and tax amount. Don't for a minute think that they don't know what they are doing. They are experts at hiding it. Stuff like a toll to pay for a new bridge but while the bridge debt is paid off the the toll is never ending. 18% of the tax on a bottle of liquor in PA goes to pay for the Johnstown flood of 1936. The damage was paid off in 1942.

Alright, now I'm gettin' pissed off! I read a lot of political science books on this crap over the years (mid 90's) but I stopped when it was getting to me to badly. My wife would cringe when she saw me with a new book. I'm feeling the same way lately.
 
Yep, no joke:

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — The old newsreel videos of the Johnstown Flood of 1936 are certainly terrifying as residents flee the rising river. The aftermath left a city destroyed with 30,000 homeless.
With such carnage apparent, Pennsylvania enacted the Johnstown Flood Tax, a tax on every bottle of alcohol purchased in the state. It was enacted to rebuild the city.
“By 1942, they had sufficient funds to rebuild the city,” says State Rep. Jim Marshall, R-Beaver Falls. “And yet the tax continued.”
“It continued and it was even expanded,” he says.
And that’s the rub. Nearly 70 years after Johnstown was rebuilt, the hidden flood tax adds 18 percent to the cost of buying alcohol in this state. It surprises most consumers.

Ric, you can laugh at Lancaster but I'm only a short drive to the anti gun state of Maryland...the land of cheap liquor! :lol:
 
lol I do laugh at Lancaster :)
I am from Johnstown but I have been to Lancaster many a times lol
I wonder where all that money is going because Johnstown sure as hell wasn't rebuilt or being built today.. Coney Island is about the only thing worth going there for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top