[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gun control compromise (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/14/2012 6:49:29 PM EDT
| Would you support a repeal of 922(o) in exchange for a 500 dollar transfer tax on machine guns? |
|
Yes. Its certainly a step in the right direction. Plus, even with a 500.00 tax, machine guns would be cheaper than they are today. Even if the law was only good for a short time, and somehow got repealed, it would add thousands of legal guns to the registry, and drive prices down for a long time. |
|
Quoted:
no. the tax was put in place as a de facto ban Inflation adjusted that $200 is $3,438.49 today. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Average salary in 1934 $1,368 http://www.paper-dragon.com/1939/priceguide.html So if they revisited this issue to consider raising the amount, what are the odds some things would fall off NFA, or NFA go away completely? |
|
Quoted:
Compromise is how we got where we are now. It's time to stop compromising before all our second amendment rights are gone. I'm curious, how would this take away a constitutional right? It's raising the cost of the tax stamp but allowing (from what I understand) firearms to be imported instead of them having to be destroyed and then rebuilt with parts kits... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Compromise is how we got where we are now. It's time to stop compromising before all our second amendment rights are gone. I'm curious, how would this take away a constitutional right? It's raising the cost of the tax stamp but allowing (from what I understand) firearms to be imported instead of them having to be destroyed and then rebuilt with parts kits... That's 922(r). 922(o) is the MG ban. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises???  The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises??? The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises??? The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Whatever 
Back on topic............... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises??? The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Whatever
Back on topic............... So, wait, you start a topic about compromise, then get all "can we move on to another topic" when somone points out how shitty the "we should compromise" position is in the first place? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises??? The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners. It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises??? The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners.
It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. |
|
Scrap the Hughes amendment in exchange for raising the transfer tax. The fact is, we'd come out way ahead. I was thinking this exact thing actually. My thinking was that in order to get it through, the tax would have to be more like $1000. The resulting drop in cost due to new supply in the marketplace would likely dwarf the increased tax, and it could be sold as a revenue source due to the volume of transfers that would likely result. Let's face it, we're stuck with Hughes now, getting rid of that would be a huge win, IMHO |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All taxes and paperwork are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed. Yeah? How's that working out for you? Better than the compromises we found in FOPA. What compromises??? The fucking Hughes Amendment? That wasn't a 'compromise'. It was a poison pill And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners.
It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. Rep William Hughes of New Jersey did. Hence why it is called the 'Hughes Amendment' He also tried to ban silencers in 1986. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners. It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Heck, even after the Republican landslide in 1994 Newt Gingrich couldn't repeal the AW Ban. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners.
It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Heck, even after the Republican landslide in 1994 Newt Gingrich couldn't repeal the AW Ban. Have you seen the video of the Hughes Amendment attachment? It had NOTHING to do with machine guns the FOPA could have passed without it but for Rangel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners.
It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Heck, even after the Republican landslide in 1994 Newt Gingrich couldn't repeal the AW Ban. Have you seen the video of the Hughes Amendment attachment? It had NOTHING to do with machine guns the FOPA could have passed without it but for Rangel. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Would you support a repeal of 922(o) in exchange for a 500 dollar transfer tax on machine guns? NO, we are going to yank 922 (o) out from under their fucking feet. And the NFA while were at it. Fuck compromising. We're going to jam this shit up their fucking asses. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners.
It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Heck, even after the Republican landslide in 1994 Newt Gingrich couldn't repeal the AW Ban. Have you seen the video of the Hughes Amendment attachment? It had NOTHING to do with machine guns the FOPA could have passed without it but for Rangel. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Do you think putting his opinion in bold makes it more valid? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Would you support a repeal of 922(o) in exchange for a 500 dollar transfer tax on machine guns? NO, we are going to yank 922 (o) out from under their fucking feet. And the NFA while were at it. Fuck compromising. We're going to jam this shit up their fucking asses. I'd like to think this will happen |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would you support a repeal of 922(o) in exchange for a 500 dollar transfer tax on machine guns? NO, we are going to yank 922 (o) out from under their fucking feet. And the NFA while were at it. Fuck compromising. We're going to jam this shit up their fucking asses. I'd like to think this will happen I'd like a unicorn to ride to work, where I stuff gold into magic bags we hand out to everybody. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Heck, even after the Republican landslide in 1994 Newt Gingrich couldn't repeal the AW Ban. Have you seen the video of the Hughes Amendment attachment? It had NOTHING to do with machine guns the FOPA could have passed without it but for Rangel. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Do you think putting his opinion in bold makes it more valid? It's not opinion, it's fact: In 1986, the Democrats held a solid majority in the House of Representatives. Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill of Massachusetts was the Speaker of the House. The Democrats controlled all the committees and all the leadership positions. They ran the show and controlled the House floor and the House votes. The only reason Rangel was in a position to do what he did during the FOPA vote was because his party was in the majority. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would you support a repeal of 922(o) in exchange for a 500 dollar transfer tax on machine guns? NO, we are going to yank 922 (o) out from under their fucking feet. And the NFA while were at it. Fuck compromising. We're going to jam this shit up their fucking asses. How so? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And Reagan should have sunk it. The fag. Right. Because FOPA contained nothing else that would benefit gun owners.
It took several years to get FOPA to the point where it could get past Congress. The anti-gunners wanted to kill it, which is why they put the provision there in first place. They didn't care about machine guns; they wanted to kill everything else in the bill, like the nationwide free travel provision and the end to ammo registration and the restrictions on ATFE inspections of gun dealers. Your "no compromise" attitude would result in more regulations on the average gun owner, not less. If the FOPA could pass with a poison pill, it could pass without it. ETA: Nobody, including Congress, knew you could legally buy machine guns at the time. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Heck, even after the Republican landslide in 1994 Newt Gingrich couldn't repeal the AW Ban. Have you seen the video of the Hughes Amendment attachment? It had NOTHING to do with machine guns the FOPA could have passed without it but for Rangel. The Democrats, led by liberal Tip O'Neill, controlled the House at the time. You're badly mistaken if you think they would have let FOPA pass untouched –– which, incidentally, is why they attached the poison pill in the first place. Do you think putting his opinion in bold makes it more valid? Rangel was a Democrat. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would you support a repeal of 922(o) in exchange for a 500 dollar transfer tax on machine guns? NO, we are going to yank 922 (o) out from under their fucking feet. And the NFA while were at it. Fuck compromising. We're going to jam this shit up their fucking asses. I'd like to think this will happen We're working on it from several angles. Sadly, we've gotten more opposition and negativity from gun owners than anything. We're remembering who's supported us completely and who hasn't and the ones that haven't can explain themselves later. Right now, we're going to get rid of these insane laws. |
|
I say forget about the feds and use the law to our own advantage
(o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. have a nice state department of firearms licensing, charge a $20 tax from the state and tell the ATF to stuff it. |