HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Just sent to VP Biden
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:15 PM

Just sent to VP Biden

Truncated to meet character limit.

This will work:
Register all firearms to the owner by serial number & social sec number. Retroactive. Registry maintained by BATF&E. All transfers through Fed Firearms Licensee w background check. Severe penalty for failure to comply. Require liability insurance for gun ownership. Offer 1 year to comply.

License gun owners like drivers; train, test and issue license. We do that with hunters here in Texas.
Any firearm used in a crime is confiscated and destroyed. Registered owner is charged as accessory to the crime if not reported stolen/lost.

Offer a buy back program at federal level, managed by BATF&E.

Fund the program with user fee/tax on ammunition. Those who benefit from ownership pay for the privilege.

Win, win, win:
Gun rights activists keep semi auto pistols/assault weapons/extended magazines.
Law enforcement has a workable tool for enforcement.
Illegal guns eventually go away; society is safer.

Pushback has been “they will use it to take our guns” but SCOTUS has taken that argument away r.e. 2nd amd = individual right to own.

It all hinges on federal registry of ALL guns. Otherwise enforcement is impossible.

All guns will fall into three categories: legally registered, not registered and hidden in a closet (thus harmless) or found and confiscated. It will take time but it will work.

45 replies, 2650 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Just sent to VP Biden (Original post)
flamin lib Dec 2012 OP
Indydem Dec 2012 #1
flamin lib Dec 2012 #2
Indydem Dec 2012 #3
flamin lib Dec 2012 #7
TheMoreYouKnow Dec 2012 #4
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #11
PavePusher Dec 2012 #5
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #6
flamin lib Dec 2012 #8
beevul Dec 2012 #9
flamin lib Dec 2012 #12
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #18
beevul Dec 2012 #23
flamin lib Dec 2012 #29
beevul Dec 2012 #30
flamin lib Dec 2012 #31
beevul Dec 2012 #33
flamin lib Dec 2012 #34
oneshooter Dec 2012 #10
flamin lib Dec 2012 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #14
flamin lib Dec 2012 #15
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #16
DanTex Dec 2012 #17
gejohnston Dec 2012 #19
DanTex Dec 2012 #20
gejohnston Dec 2012 #22
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #24
DanTex Dec 2012 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #27
flamin lib Dec 2012 #32
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #36
flamin lib Dec 2012 #39
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #40
flamin lib Dec 2012 #41
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #42
flamin lib Dec 2012 #43
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #44
-..__... Dec 2012 #21
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #26
guyucallwhenurhurt Dec 2012 #28
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #35
flamin lib Dec 2012 #37
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #45

Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

1. Taxing ammunition is the most foolish thing to do.

Effective use of firearms for hunting, sport shooting, or home defense requires practice. Sometimes lots of practice.

If you want idiots running around with guns they barely know how to use, making ammo expensive is the best way to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:44 PM

2. Okay, how would you fund the expense of any program? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:49 PM

3. Lots of things:

Institute a licensing system with a nominal annual fee. Include mandatory safety tests and certification - charge fees for that.
Charge a nominal fee for background checks.
Charge a small tax on new firearms purchases.
Create tiered taxation for new firearms ex: 2% shotguns 3% rifles 4% handguns 5% AR style weapons

I am just telling you that as ironic as it sounds, having more people using their firearms and respecting their power and use is actually good for society. When people view them as toys or don't have proper knowledge they lead to accidental gun deaths.

Of course, none of this is going to matter to inner city gangs that aren't legally allowed to have guns and have no respect for the law anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:05 PM

7. Please contact VP Biden with these ideas. Just cut & paste to the VP's site. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:50 PM

4. We should tax any industry

 

That wrongly glorifies guns such as Hollywood or video game manufacturers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:22 PM

11. You would have First Amendment problems with that.

While I hate a lot of the crap that Hollywood cranks out, I will oppose the government telling them what they can and can't do. Censorship by the government is alway bad. It starts with great intentions, but sours fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:54 PM

5. Through the rest of the Federal Income Tax.

 

If it's a beneficial program for everybody, everybody can pay for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:03 PM

6. thoughts.

 

Register all firearms to the owner by serial number & social sec number. Retroactive. Registry maintained by BATF&E. All transfers through Fed Firearms Licensee w background check. Severe penalty for failure to comply. Require liability insurance for gun ownership. Offer 1 year to comply.

License gun owners like drivers; train, test and issue license. We do that with hunters here in Texas.
Any firearm used in a crime is confiscated and destroyed. Registered owner is charged as accessory to the crime if not reported stolen/lost.


If I am licensed, and have had a background check, then there is no reason to conduct private transfers through an FFL for a background check.

If we are going to go to universal licensing, which I support, then we will also get to buy firearms through mail order/internet again. No need to pay an extra fee to go through a middle man if I can just submit my credentials online.

Firearm liability insurance is cheap. You will probably get it for free with an NRA membership, just like the insurance you already get for free with membership. This will increase NRA memberships.

I'm not sure how you will retroactively register all the currently-held firearms.

Are you going to hold responsible registered owners of firearms that get used in crimes if the firearms were locked up in a government-approved storage device?

Offer a buy back program at federal level, managed by BATF&E.

Sounds good, but you will have to pay fair market prices or no one will bother selling. And if you aren't stopping the manufacture and import of new ones, you may just be driving sales of new firearms.

Fund the program with user fee/tax on ammunition. Those who benefit from ownership pay for the privilege.

I'm not entirely opposed to this, but somewhat. I support taxes, paid by everyone, on things like schools, because everyone benefits from having schools. If everyone benefits from decreased crime, why shouldn't everyone pay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:10 PM

8. Please forward your ideas to the VP. I beged gun enthusiasts to be involved to no avail. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:51 PM

9. Uh...No concern for the illegality of any of that?

"Register all firearms to the owner by serial number & social sec number."

Per the firearm owners protection act of 1986 - in other words , federal law - firearm registration is illegal.

"License gun owners like drivers; train, test and issue license. We do that with hunters here in Texas."

Do we require car owners to be licensed just to OWN a car?

If someones drivers license gets suspended or revoked, do we confiscate their car?

Is someone required to be insured for simple ownership of a car?

Apples and oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:43 PM

12. If not the dumbest post I've read on DU this is real close.

Laws get superseded every day. The FOPA is no more sacrosanct than any other law. That's why laws are 1000 pages long; they have to cite every previous law affected by title, section, paragraph and line. Line xx reads yada yada is amended to read do da do da.

I don't give a shit about cars, I do about guns. You say apples/oranges? We agree. License, background check, train and insure BEFORE you take possession of your precious.

Confiscate cars? Uh, yeah. They get impounded for illegal parking for crissake.

Insured for simple ownership? Ya' wanna' go there? How about if you don't meet every single aspect of gun safety laws your sorry ass goes to jail for the rest of your miserable life?

Works for me, work for you?

Note I said the post was dumb, I've not offered an opinion of the author

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:57 PM

18. asking questions is dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:53 PM

23. What a great idea.

Backing highly armed people that believe theres an agenda to punish gun ownership, into a corner.

What a great idea.



"How about if you don't meet every single aspect of gun safety laws your sorry ass goes to jail for the rest of your miserable life?"

One step away from the death penalty - perfect. That will definitely motivate people to comply peacefully.


It never occured to you that there might be a large number of people out there, that might see that as putting them in a position where they may as well just shoot it out, since they'd be going to jail "for the rest of their miserable lives" anyway, I guess.

Go ahead. Make the penalties the same as unregistered full auto. Just don't pretend to be shocked when a few million people decide to say fuck it and start getting full autos, or appaled at the carnage your suggestions lead to.

I really don't think you've stopped to rationally think this through, or think about where it might lead. You might spend some time, learning to understand people, in general - because clearly, you don't.


(note to the jury, I am not, and do not advocate such, I simply do not underestimate or sugarcoat what the suggestion of the poster I'm responding to would lead to.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:32 PM

29. Worked out great at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Republic of Texas didn't it?

And that was just the BATF&E which is woefully understaffed and underfunded. Wanna' try the Marine First Expeditionary Force? I hear they don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to armed resistance.

The big problem with a civilian insurrection is C&C. Well, that and helicopters, APCs and such. Yeah, go for it. I'm not doing anything right now, entertain me . . . .

Please don't alert on this! Way too funny to shut down this thread!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:13 PM

30. I guess it isn't dead bodies you care about so much after all, is it.

"Worked out great at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Republic of Texas didn't it?"

I didn't speak one way or the other to or about "how it worked out". But since you asked, dead bodies, is how it worked out.

"Wanna' try the Marine First Expeditionary Force?"

I don't want to try anything. I believe I made that quite crystal clear.


It is interesting to know you'd like the military used against your fellow countrymen however.

I'm glad the thought of it all "entertains" you. I guess it isn't dead bodies you care about so much after all, is it.

You didn't need to work quite so hard to illustrate that for everyone though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:41 PM

31. Uh, 'scuse me but it was you who suggested an armed insurrection might result

and I simply replied that recent history hasn't been kind to those who tried it.

What entertains me is the whole "we'll take up arms" and "my cold dead hands" mentality fostered by the NRA.

No Command and Control, no training beyond running around the woods in cammo playing soldier, no armament beyond military wanna be guns and you seriously think somebody (surely not you! ya' said so!) would take on the full force of the US military. The image of a bunch of RKBA enthusiasts going against the average local SWAT team is akin to the Keystone Cops against . . . well, just too funny!

I suggest Depends as part of the uniform . . . they'll keep the boots from making squishing noises--a 'dead' giveaway of a position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:00 AM

33. Uh...I did nothing or the sort.

I never said "armed insurection".

You took what I did say, and painted it to your own meaning as if it were a blank canvas.

I was referring to INDIVIDUALS - acting as INDIVIDUALS. I seriously doubt that its groups, preparing for armed insurrection, that are buying three years worth of high capacity magazings in 36 hours time, and emptying the inventories of gun stores at a rate which is unprecedented.

Its individuals.

My take on the environment, the "landscape, is that this country is right now, divided right down the middle, as it has never before been, and that there are a great many people that have or are close to drawing their own personal line in the sand. That could very well lead to a great many deaths, if people that meet that description are backed into a corner, as you would have them backed them into a corner if you got your way. These are people that feel under attack and have for decades, and are very much armed to the teeth, and just want to be left alone. it it were up to me, I'd say leave them alone. But its not up to me. I see what you're suggesting leading to a number - a significant number - of deaths.

I hope you don't get your way, and that I'm wrong, if you do.


I personally don't have any skin in that game either way. I neither own any "assault weapons" or "pretend military weapons", nor any high capacity clips. I own a simple bolt action .17 caliber rifle for coyotes, and a single handgun. The other rifles I own are antique and non-functional.

So much for your snark.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:18 AM

34. Ok, I'll buy the snark and wear it like a t-shirt.

Wiggle all ya' want, but you have to wear the innuendo of all your responses from "illegal" to "backed into a corner" to "oh, I didn't mean THAT," and "well there was a preposition that YOU ignored and it changed the way YOU read my post." It is always somebody else to blame, right?

It was a battle of wits and one of us was unarmed. We could probably have a meaningful conversation but history tells me not. There might be something for the two of us to contribute to the discussion, but past is prologue.

I'm goin' ta' bed . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:55 PM

10. Questions................

How would you register those firearms that have no serial number?
Many rifles, shotguns and handguns that were built before GCA68 took effect have no serial number.

Would this include muzzle loading weapons? Many, if not all hand built rifles and pistols have no serial number, and NO original arms built in the 1800's has one. Not even military firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:44 PM

13. The BATF&E issues one just like the state of Texas issues one for home made trailers. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:06 PM

14. regarding...

..."Register all firearms to the owner by serial number & social sec number. Retroactive. Registry maintained by BATF&E."


- Unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment unless the individual is engaging in interstate commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:19 PM

15. Constitutional under the 'well regulated' clause of the 2nd as per Scalia. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:51 PM

16. Only constitutional if...

...run at the state level. Nothing from Heller or McDonald voids the 10A:

10A text: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (emphasis mine)


Justice Alito from McDonald: "Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.


Can not by a federal agency but maybe by the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:55 PM

17. In that case, NFA would also have been declared unconstitutional...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:00 PM

19. the only NFA case that

went to SCOTUS after the plaintiff was dead and without council or argument. Even then, it was a different issue. NFA uses tax law, which is why the IRS enforced gun laws until ATF's creation in 1972 with the Treasury Dept. It moved to DoJ in 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:21 PM

20. So do you think NFA is unconstitutional?

Because if not, since there is already a national gun registry for certain kinds of guns, it is pretty silly to insist that creating a national gun registry for other kinds of guns would be unconstitutional.

The point is, that there are plenty of ways for the federal government to get thing done. They could also do it under interstate commerce, because there is tons of evidence that illegal gun trafficking is an interstate problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:50 PM

22. not saying NFA is

simply pointing out the difference. Another major difference
few people owned machine guns. There were a couple of reasons for it. Price and lack of utility being among them. Obviously, that is not the case of pistols today or then.
few crimes were committed with them. Mostly organized crime and the high profile roving bandits during an 18 month period, who stole them from police and national guard armories. Dillinger's Thompson was stolen from Park County Ohio Sheriff dept. One of the Thompsons used in St Valentines Day Massacre was also used in mob hits in Detroit. The SVDM also caused a public relations disaster for the mob, making them more low key. While I support NFA, (although I would reform what short barreled rifles that have to be registered. Putting a single shot with a fifteen inch barrel in the same category as machine guns is not reasonable or common sense) I think it is naive to think that it made that big of a difference.
I honestly think a large scale registration scheme you favor would be very cumbersome, expensive, and serve not save lives. The ATF would have to modernize the system because they can't process the few title two items thy have to deal with now. Unless of course, it is the transference tax you are for, which would put gun ownership more in the realm of the gated community crowd instead of lowly redneck trailer trash. We both know within a few years Ed Shultz's bolt action deer rifle will become a "sniper rifle", oh wait, that mime is already in circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:01 PM

24. An outcome...

...which I would support. It's high time that states, being closer in relation to residents therein, should properly assume the responsibility of governing individuals in that regard. For sure, if and when next a lawfully acquired full auto weapon is used in such manner as may require the intervention of law enforcement, the first officers and agents on the scene will be those deputized or otherwise charged under state or local authority with law enforcement. There is no good argument I can conceive for removing law enforcement responsibility from state and local authorities as they, and not the federal government, are constitutionally properly empowered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:13 PM

25. That's fine, but let's just be clear that you are adopting an extremely limited

constitutional interpretation of Federal power. More limited than the courts. You have every right to be an extreme states-rightser, but let's not pretend that, as a practical matter, there is any constitutional impediment to a national gun registry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:29 PM

27. While I would...

...welcome state control of NFA type weapons I'm not advocating such an action.

Should the federal government pass a law requiring all owners of semi autos to register, which federal agency will be doing the house to house? How would an unserialized firearm be registered?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:43 PM

32. Not according to Scalia. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:54 AM

36. Quote please n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:01 PM

39. *sigh* this is so tedious

"Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

'It will have to be decided in future cases,' Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also 'locational limitations' on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. 'We'll see,' he said. 'It will have to be decided.' "

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

Original comments on Fox News Sunday.

When will we learn to do our own research?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:58 PM

40. yes... tedious

"... the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns..."


The Scalia quote refers to "legislatures". Please notice the use of the plural. Every state has a legislature. Nothing in this reference would specifically indicate that the US Congress was one of those. I would further suggest that from the reference to 'locational limitations' it would be reasonable to infer that those limitations be imposed based on their locality. Perhaps California doesn't want guns at football stadiums but Arizona is fine with it except maybe the people in Phoenix who aren't. Perhaps New York wants all firearms registered but Vermont does not.

Also, by indicating that legislatureS have the power to act on these ideas (hopefully according to the preferences of their constituents) making such sweeping laws at the national level would preempt the ability of the individual legislatureS to pass their own laws.

This quote, while I consider it eminently reliable, is not from the text of SCOTUS decision/opinion. Have you found within the text of either the Heller or McDonald decisions and dissents that would support your plan being permitted?

In general, federal laws are aimed at governing the collective states and interaction between them and among individuals beyond state borders. The laws against murder, rape and robbery are state laws. Laws against smuggling, mail fraud and other crimes across state lines are generally federal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:24 PM

41. Yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:27 PM

42. I'm overwhelmed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:36 PM

43. I'm not. Same old, same old. Like the Meet the Press intrerview . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:08 PM

44. Well, have a great evening anyhow. :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:25 PM

21. Want to know why that will never happen?

 

Because even within the firearms community (all 60+ million of us), there was always a bit of friction, distaste and snobbery between EBR owners (Evil Black Rifles), and hunting and sportsman types (lovingly referred to as "Fudds"... after Elmer Fudd).

One of the most common refrains from that quarter was "What do you need one of them for, ain't no good for hunting", or "it's folks like you that are going to get all our guns banned".

The closest analogy I can think of is the battles, differences and war of words between skiers and snow boarders... recreational boat owners and jet ski owners... hikers and mountain bike riders.

That attitude cost one highly regarded firearms and hunting commentator/writer his reputation and sponsorship when he made disparaging remakes about "EBR's" and their owners... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo

Now with the events that took place in Newtown, the "assault rifle" issue has created even more of a rift between hunters, sportsman, fair weather gun owners and those who own semi-automatic rifles.

Indeed... from what I've been reading and hearing the past week, many self proclaimed 2nd amendment supporters are rethinking their positions and stating that some change is in order.

Fine, I can respect their right to express their opinions even though I disagree with them.

Those particular gun owners might even play a key role or be influential in enacting an AWB/magazine ban, and you want to alienate them.

Why would that alienate them?

Because having been in and around firearms and firearms owners for close to 35 years, the one issue that I can safely say that is particularly universal and unacceptable to the gun owning community, is the idea of licensing and registration.

Imposing taxes (especially outlandishly high ones), adds even more poison to the gun control well.

As I stated earlier... there's a clear divide amongst the various schools and interests involving firearms.

Bring forth the suggestions you offered, and whatever support and willingness to compromise by the hunting and sportsman types, will go right out the window.

Still want to say "fuck them, who needs them".

Never mind that it will never get a single Republican vote...
just see how far that goes with Dem Senators and Congressman whose constituents are hunters and sportsmen.

If you guys (the anti-gun folks), are genuinely serious about doing something... offering or suggesting
ridiculous, unpopular and over the top legislation is only going to result in your losing potential allies.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:22 PM

26. +1 and for that matter...

...the last count I saw said over 80,000,000 owners and over 300,000,000 firearms. Since more than 1 in 4 Americans own a firearm, anything remotely resembling progress that alienates or excludes them will probably fail.

Semi autos are probably more than 50% of those. A retroactive ban isn't happening. If we assume that there are maybe 10,000,000 AR-15 equivalent rifles such as SKS and AK-47 style rifles, trying to confiscate them would result in the need for compensation. The cost would easily exceed the federal budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:43 AM

35. So, your first step will be to repeal the 1986 GOPA.

Good luck with that one. Once you have that done, then you can do some/all of the rest of what you propose.

I look forward to being able to buy fully automatic weapons as a consequence of what you are trying to do.

(Not really, that was at the end, I have no need of a FA weapon, and they aren't legal in my state anyway)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:50 PM

37. You can buy a FA weapon now under Federal Law and a silencer too.

Takes about two years to get through all the investigations and then you pay the very large tax and then you can buy your M-60.

For a silencer it's a one time $200 fee plus the scrutiny.

Not repeal the GOPA, modify the parts necessary to institute the registry and other parts of a comprehensive gun safety program. Happens almost daily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:01 PM

38. it is $200 for the M-60

the procedures are the same for machine guns, silencers, short barreled weapons, and short barreled shotguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:29 PM

45. I could own a select fire weapon made *before 1986*, as long as

I never bring it into my home state.
Silencers I can have.

The hughes amendment was bullshit. You want to open the registry for semi-auto, but keep it closed for FA? Pass. Just repeal the GOPA, you get registration, you get the NFA registry and can extend it down to Semi-Auto. Package deal, done.

Or, you can play games with spaghetti code law patches. That's fine too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread