Gun Confiscation Bill Introduced in Congress

www.infowars.com

On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.

Cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence” and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.

I was thinking we should just all buy a few assault weapons and get our $2000 credit a few times over, but then read this section of the bill:

``(3) Denial of double benefit.--The taxpayer may elect the application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified assault weapon.

So instead I think we should buy an assault weapon, turn it in for the credit, then go buy a few handguns and shotguns with the credit money! Well, we won't have to because this bill won't pass... but you can very well bet that more of these 'gun confiscation' bills will be introduced.

HR 226

Why are people so scared to stand up for themselves? I need a handgun to protect myself from criminals. I need a rifle to hunt game. I need an Assualt rifle to defend my rights during revolution, and, which won't happen, a foreign invasion.

Each weapon type is needed for certain circumstances. Assault weapons are man killers, and FMJ is needed to penetrate personal body armor. We have to be able to compete with what the government will field.

Why do all these bills need to be titled in such a way as to have an acronym that spells out something asinine?

It's really irritating.

reply to post by milkyway12


I think one of the problems here is that people think of guns as weapons and not tools, like they are. Yes they are tools for killing, but like any tool, if used appropriately, will not harm innocent people.

I own the appropriate fire-arm for any given situation, none of which I will be turning in, to anyone.

Looking through it I don't see any wording that could be construed as a confiscation. It just gives a tax credit for a single assault style weapon if it is surrendered to the authorities. This would just be something similar to the local gun buy back programs that have been done by local authorities throughout the states. I wish I had a beat up AK or SKS laying around that I could turn in for an easy 2k, but sadly I lost all of my firearms recently.

Every time a new gun bill is legislated it is more of an action of appeasement than real gun control. Any bill that would pass would grandfather existing weapons. This new bill is aimed at getting the grandfathered guns off the street.

Originally posted by watchitburn
Why do all these bills need to be titled in such a way as to have an acronym that spells out something asinine?

It's really irritating.

reply to post by milkyway12


Oh creepy. I didn't even notice it spelled out SAFER Streets. I think I might start paying attention more now.

Luckily, I don't think this will happen where I live.

Ya I heard about this bill this more while watching prisonplanet.tv. Its pretty crazy. Only the idiots will give their guns. I know I won't. No matter what they do most of us will NEVER give their guns up. Weapons and tactics isn't bad. For many of us prior military we do this as a hobby. We want to be trained, fast and elite. Those who understand these skill will fully understand what I mean. For anyone that hasn't seen them. Watch the art of the tactical carbine 1/2 + pistol and aerial operations. Should be on youtube in some way. Great training for anyone, even if you've never been in the service. If you have you can always get better. Remember, in this situations its life and death. So no mistakes can be made. Laterz

reply to post by SpaDe_


call it what you want... 'coming for the guns' is the main concept and there are countless ways being thought of to do so.

but whatever is introduced or enforced, people will ultimately either find a way around it, or make it work in their favor. thats the angle i was looking at anyway.

or the fact that some gun owners' addresses are being publicly announced/released... maybe criminals will have field day knowing where they can get possible assault weapons to turn in. yes THIS bill says "the weapon must be lawfully owned". but that wasn't the case in california where they didn't ask questions to those that turned in guns for groceries. something else like that can definitely be thought up on a larger scale.

looks like i might finally get some money for my POS calico 22 its got a 100 round mag standard (22 lr) and i only payed 100 bucks for it so i guess if this passes ill be making some money to finance some new gun purchases,so hey look on the bright side if this passes we can get rid of all our broken and crappy guns and get 10X what they are worth back from the government ,read through the link didn't see anything about confiscations though so this doesn't make me nervous as far as gun rights go ...kinda creepy how they seem to like their acronyms and whatnot but thanks from bringing this to our attention op

reply to post by wrksstudios


naw we can give them some of our guns,the broken ones the ones that we dont want and cant sell for any decent amount of money if this passes just buy up a junk gun and trade it in for 2 grand,easy way to make uncle sam feel good about giving us money for stuff thats crap or already broken....nothing in the law says they have to be working lol we will just keep the good guns and give them the crap

Originally posted by watchitburn
Why do all these bills need to be titled in such a way as to have an acronym that spells out something asinine?

It's really irritating.

I think a libertarian congressman should introduce a bill to protect gun ownership, and call it the
Freedom Under the Constitution, Keepers Of the Founding Fathers' vision act.

Or some other acronym that imparts the same message.

pretty soon all guns will be deemed "assault" weapons, and with this relentless administration, it's scary to think of that they will do or try to do next. and that doesn't go just for this administration, but democrats and republicans alike. they will change the definition of whatever word or phrase they wish to get the desired effect.

maybe they will come up with "Gold for Guns!"... then they may get millions to participate. unfortunately the participants will only get gold-plated tungsten or pyrite

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Looking through it I don't see any wording that could be construed as a confiscation

That's because Alex Jones did his usual fear-mongering spin. And the OP, instead of reading something first before posting, perpetuated that false spin onto this forum.

Every time an anti-gun law is introduced, a progressive gets his wings.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by watchitburn
Why do all these bills need to be titled in such a way as to have an acronym that spells out something asinine?

It's really irritating.

I think a libertarian congressman should introduce a bill to protect gun ownership, and call it the
Freedom Under the Constitution, Keepers Of the Founding Fathers' vision act.

Or some other acronym that imparts the same message.

That right there deserves an applause no doubt. You da man...... I think the slower among us might not get it though.

no confiscation proposed - this should be in HOAX. isn't it against the T&C's to post untrue information?

reply to post by _BoneZ_

another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns

^^ from the OP, i guess we both need to learn how to read

the title is such as to follow t&c, not to mention that if you read the OP its obviously a credit program and also that I mention the fact that I dont think it has any chance of passing, but keep deflecting i guess

Why is everybody so pissed off? They want to ban Assault weapons. That makes complete sense. Not to mention that seriously, there is something really wrong with you if you own an assault rifle. Why on earth would you need one? Do you plan on invading a country? Is a pistol not enough? Really. Why all the fuss about it, it's normal to not allow everybody to own assault rifles

reply to post by six67seven


Here's an intersting side note...

If this passes, tax-paying gun owners in this Country, will in effect, be paying to remove many desirable guns from the land, forever...The taxes credited will have to be made up with other taxes. OUR TAXES. So, the Feds want to borrow the money from us, to buy guns for them, that we can't have....???

Originally posted by six67seven
the title is such as to follow t&c

We know the actual bill has nothing to do with confiscation. Therefore, the title is false. You could've chosen a different source than fear-mongering Info-Wars/Prison-Planet to disseminate the topic of this bill.

But, you missed #15 in the T & C:

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Your title is false, misleading, and inaccurate. And to leave it as such, also makes it knowingly false. Please change the title of this thread. Thanks.