Are the illogical pro-gun arguments intentionally illogical??????

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: VVV88

B) no one is making a tax penalty for gun ownership..

You 100% just pilulled that out of thin air..

Do you know how hard it is to get anything passed Congress and the senate??

Plus literally no one is proposing that and no elected official has ever proposed that..

This part is most definitely false. Feinstein wanted to include mandatory registration under the NFA of grandfathered weapons that would have been banned in the 2013 assault weapons ban, which requires a $200 tax. And yes it's actually called a tax in the NFA.

There are also state and local laws that do this already. A number of states and cities have mandatory registration with accompanying fees which are essentially a tax on ownership, although they're not technically called a tax. It's the same concept. They're making it more expensive to own a gun, which discourages people from getting one or straight up prices out the poorest people from even being able to afford one.

a reply to: face23785

Then quote the law...

Don’t just spout nonsense like you have earned the credibility for people to take your word for it..


Here I’ll do it for you..
www.congress.gov...


I read the whole thing..

Nothing you mentioned is included..

xcludes from such ban any semiautomatic assault weapon that: (1) is lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of this Act (grandfathered weapon); (2) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (3) has been rendered permanently inoperable; (4) is an antique firearm; or (5) is used for law enforcement or security purposes or for testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

So where you lying to ATS??

Or was whatever propaganda factory you copied lying to you????

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The law doesn't say that, but Feinstein did propose including that. The statement you made that no one has proposed such a thing is clearly false.

Feinstein and Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, held a separate news conference in response to LaPierre's.[10] There, Feinstein said that the bill was a work in progress and that one idea was to register grandfathered assault weapons under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and another was a buy-back program.

Source

a reply to: face23785

Just because I assume your not quick enough to see where my quote invalidates everything you said

xcludes from such ban any semiautomatic assault weapon that: (1) is lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of this Act (grandfathered weapon);

If the weapons sold before that day are excluded from the law.. then nothing in the law applies to those weapons..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

Just because I assume your not quick enough to see where my quote invalidates everything you said

xcludes from such ban any semiautomatic assault weapon that: (1) is lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of this Act (grandfathered weapon);

If the weapons sold before that day are excluded from the law.. then nothing in the law applies to those weapons..

You said no public official has ever proposed that. I linked you to a video where a public official, Feinstein, proposes that. It didn't wind up in the law, but she did propose it.

So will you acknowledge it's a fact that public officials have proposed taxing guns, or are you gonna lie?

originally posted by: [post=23189258]JoshuaCox

Truly meant no offense. I knew you had mentioned your ties to the bible belt but confused you with another member on the other issue so you have my sincere apologies. Just trying to get an understanding on how views can vary so dramatically despite similar backgrounds. Especially being raised up in the south where you're as likely to see a gun as a cell phone.

I understand how others from different parts of the nation could see us as "gun nuts" when it comes to the number of firearms we own and our defense of them. They need to understand that when family members pass away, their firearms usually go to one or two specific family members quickly increasing the number they own. For example, I'll the likely inherit my father's collection. These are family heirlooms to many and mean a lot to us.

Yes, it may start with the banning of a single weapon but have you ever known any government program or agency that didn't expand once they got started?

If you can't convince them with logic, baffle them with BS.

Except Diane Feinstein HAS said that she wants an outright ban on ownership.

www.youtube.com...

Regarding the latest iteration of the semi-auto ban, the OP keeps saying its not a real ban because you can keep the ones you own before the law, its only a ban on the sale of new weapons.
Well someone needs to learn what the term "Transfer" means.
Its specifically says that you would not be able to transfer semiauto firearms.
That's means that I could not conduct a private sale or even give a semi-auto that I legally possess to someone else after the law goes into effect.
I could not even leave it to my son if I die because THATS a transfer.
So what happens to all these guns that cant get transferred to new owners?
They will have to be destroyed unless someone wants to keep them and become illegal.
SO when all current owners die off we would have a complete ban on the ownership of semi-autos in effect.

No thanks. I like things exactly how they are and that includes the danger that crazy people might kill someone. I am willing to risk that in order to maintain my liberty.

originally posted by: Dragoon01
Except Diane Feinstein HAS said that she wants an outright ban on ownership.

www.youtube.com...

Regarding the latest iteration of the semi-auto ban, the OP keeps saying its not a real ban because you can keep the ones you own before the law, its only a ban on the sale of new weapons.
Well someone needs to learn what the term "Transfer" means.
Its specifically says that you would not be able to transfer semiauto firearms.
That's means that I could not conduct a private sale or even give a semi-auto that I legally possess to someone else after the law goes into effect.
I could not even leave it to my son if I die because THATS a transfer.
So what happens to all these guns that cant get transferred to new owners?
They will have to be destroyed unless someone wants to keep them and become illegal.
SO when all current owners die off we would have a complete ban on the ownership of semi-autos in effect.

No thanks. I like things exactly how they are and that includes the danger that crazy people might kill someone. I am willing to risk that in order to maintain my liberty.

I hadn't thought of that. It would indeed render all those guns illegal within 60 or 70 years or so, since when the current owners die no one could legally gain possession of them.

4 states can already legally come to your home with a warrant and remove ALL of your weapons. 18 states are proposing this legislation now. Where was all the yelling then?

My prediction -

Trump signs an EO banning bump stocks
A bi-partisan gun control bill dies in the House...never to be passed.
An amendment to the GFSZA that allows for carry with Concealed permit will be introduced.

NO one is taking your guns folks...

a reply to: face23785

So where is the 200$ fee???

That was the primary claim..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

So where is the 200$ fee???

That was the primary claim..

Somehow I'm not surprised you don't know anything about the National Firearms Act.

You can read about it here from the ATF. When firearms which are regulated by NFA are built, the $200 tax to initially register it is normally paid by the manufacturer. Then when the gun is sold, whoever purchased the gun has to pay a $200 tax to transfer the registration to them. If they ever sold it, the person who bought it from them would pay a $200 tax, and so on every time it's transferred. If a law like Feinstein proposed was ever passed, where currently owned semi-autos were grandfathered in but were required to be registered under NFA, someone has to pay the tax to generate the NFA registry. That would obviously fall on whoever owns the gun at the time. Everyone who owned one would have to pay a $200 tax to register their semi-auto under NFA. That's the law, it's been that way since 1934.

a reply to: face23785


You didn’t say their was a 200$ fee for the gun changing hands after registration..

A 200$ fee that is already paid, just by the manufacturers, who then raise their prices by 200$.. so a few everyone is already payong..


You said that everyone who didn’t turn them in had to pay 200$..



People are allowed to sell their preban guns.. it is included in the grand father clause.

Literally the only change is they no longer sell brand new one.


Everything else is mental masterbation.


A fight with only one side..

a reply to: face23785

People are allowed to sell their preban guns.. it is included in the grand father clause.

Literally the only change is they no longer sell brand new one.


Everything else is mental masterbation.


A fight with only one side..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785


You didn’t say their was a 200$ fee for the gun changing hands after registration..

A 200$ fee that is already paid, just by the manufacturers, who then raise their prices by 200$.. so a few everyone is already payong..


You said that everyone who didn’t turn them in had to pay 200$..



People are allowed to sell their preban guns.. it is included in the grand father clause.

Literally the only change is they no longer sell brand new one.


Everything else is mental masterbation.


A fight with only one side..

You're not following. The manufacturer of currently owned semi-autos didn't pay the $200 tax because those guns aren't currently regulated by NFA. I own a Ruger AR-556. Ruger did not pay that tax, because it's not required to be registered with NFA. The gun has already been transferred to me. If such a law were passed, I would be required to register the gun under NFA. To register it, a $200 tax has to be paid. Who's gonna pay it? I own the gun, I'm gonna pay it. The grandfather clause simply means my rifle won't be banned. If the bill contains a requirement to register it with NFA, I will have to pay a tax. That's the law.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

People are allowed to sell their preban guns.. it is included in the grand father clause.

Literally the only change is they no longer sell brand new one.


Everything else is mental masterbation.


A fight with only one side..

You don't understand the law. I'm explaining it to you, but you're choosing not to listen. The NFA requires a $200 tax to be paid to register a firearm that is regulated under NFA. If Feinstein got her wish and a new AWB included a requirement to register all the grandfathered guns under NFA, the owners of all those guns would have to pay a $200 tax to register them. Grandfathering only exempts them from the ban. You still have to comply with all other laws that are applicable to that gun, including the NFA.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Indeed. The state doesn't work as intended and could be deemed a failed state at this point, which is why gun-control should be the least of our concerns. I'm probably a few decades too early with all that, or centuries.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

In a failed state the lights don’t stay on and sewage stays put..

We have a corrupt state.

A corrupt state where you only have 2 options..

Trust the government to regulate big buisness,

Or

Trust big buisness to do whatecer they want because they are not regulated..

There is no 3rd choice.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Here's a crazy thought. What if Big Corp has become the gubbermint decades ago? Revolving revolverdoors?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It may well be that the conservative reasoning behind the second amendment support is propagandist, but as you know surely by now, that is not the place I approach this from.

I am a lefty. Tyrants must be opposed. The only argument I have against the second amendment as it stands today, is that few are prepared to use the second for what it is for, which is to destroy oppressive governments, and ensure the people are always better served by government, than the people who operate the government are.

But failure to correctly apply the second to an individual gun owners life, is not reason enough to remove their rights to arms, or the arms themselves, and with the greatest possible respect to everyone effected by gun crime, there is no number of bodies you could stack up which will ever change a damn thing in that respect. Take it from a guy who lives in a nation where even citizens in good standing, have no real right to defend themselves, and are prohibited from carrying about themselves, even the most inoffensive tools with which to defend themselves... no one should want that for their country, no matter how liberal minded or peaceful they might be.