TexasCHLforum.com

cling wrote:

srothstein wrote:

cling wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.

It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

That depends on how you define working.

anygunanywhere specifically asked about Americans being able to keep firearms that are registered.

That was the question asked and answered truthfully. I have been able to keep everything I have on the national registry. His response to that dose of reality was ad hominem attacks. I thought there was a forum rule against that but maybe I should thank him for the reminder why I spend my online time in other venues.

Good luck to all of you. With friend like him, you're going to need it.

And Cling, you still haven't addressed why you even think this is OK. It's one thing if you purchased an NFA item, knowing that you would have to jump through all these hoops to get permission to BUY the item. But how can you in good conscience say that there is no harm done by requiring gun owners to pay thousands of dollars in fees retroactively for purchases made when no such fees were necessary at the time of purchase? Those retroactive fees constitute a taking, since if they are not paid, the items in question would be confiscated. Can't you even see the injustice of this? And if you can, how is it that you're still OK with it?

And if you're OK with it, how can you be surprised that your intransigence angers people, since you're OK with them getting screwed for having made a perfectly legal purchase at the time?

I am frankly surprised that you are surprised at the reaction to the injustice you propose, your avatar being a representation of the Most Just. Or is it a symbol that means nothing to you?

VMI77 wrote:

cling wrote:

srothstein wrote:

cling wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.

It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

That depends on how you define working.

anygunanywhere specifically asked about Americans being able to keep firearms that are registered.

That was the question asked and answered truthfully. I have been able to keep everything I have on the national registry. His response to that dose of reality was ad hominem attacks. I thought there was a forum rule against that but maybe I should thank him for the reminder why I spend my online time in other venues.

Good luck to all of you. With friend like him, you're going to need it.

You realize that the current proposal is for a $200 tax on every banned rifle and every magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, right? If you have an AR15 and five 30 round pmags you'll be paying $1200 to register them. I hope you also realize that this isn't 1930 and the context of registration is entirely different. Therefore, you can't reliably extrapolate the past into the future. You're on new ground and you can't depend on what has happened in the past.

EXACTLY! I'm doing the math in my head right now, and to be "ALLOWED TO KEEP" that which I have already legally purchased, my own investment in fees would be $800 in fees for the rifles, $600 in fees for the pistols, and $10,000 (roughly, I was trying to count them all in my head) in fees for magazines. Clinger, you say that we are not very good observers of this forum's rules, but when you so casually dismiss the financial burden tied to being ALLOWED TO KEEP that which is already legally ours, how can you possibly fault anyone for getting angry? I'm not a rich man, but you're suggesting that it is perfectly OK for the government to force me to pay more in fees than the total value of my guns JUST TO BE "ALLOWED TO KEEP" THEM?"

"ALLOWED TO KEEP" is the single most arrogant thing anybody has ever said on these pages which involves me personally. How DARE anyone in arrogant and grasping officialdom assume that they have a right to determine what I should be "ALLOWED TO KEEP" when I bought it legally to begin with? THAT is EXACTLY the attitude that WILL eventually result in the burning of the Constitution. People think it stinks when conservatives begin to discuss the possibility of door to door confiscations and political violence? THAT is the attitude that gets people to talking about it.

And in a world when BATF can take up to a year to process the paperwork for a single suppressor, how long does anybody with a brain think it is going to take to process (and approve) all these new registrations? And what are we supposed to do with our guns until we get the paperwork back? Are they to be impounded somewhere until the paperwork is approved?

I can't even believe that I'm having to mention the obvious to someone who purports to support the 2nd Amendment.

(EDITED TO FIX A FORMATTING TAG....)

cling wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.

Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

"ALLOWED TO KEEP?!?!?!?! Jesus wept. Whatever happened to THESE words:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

......and......

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If this passes, I become an active enemy of my government, and an active enemy of anybody who votes for or supports or accepts this abomination. I will NOT submit. I will NOT agree to obtain permission to KEEP my legally purchased property. I will NOT surrender my legally purchased property. Anybody who thinks that these things are OK becomes the enemy of my Constitution and my country. End of story.

srothstein wrote:That depends on how you define working. Remember that the original tax was the same $200 it is now, which put them out of reach for most people when the law passed.

And then all it took was one minor little change as part of a compromise to ban them from the market. In 1986, they just closed the registry and no new full auto weapons could be put on the list or bought. The price of the existing ones went up by about 1000% (from an average of $2000 to more than $20,000) and is still climbing. Have you tried to buy one lately?

When my son and I went to the "Silencers are Legal" event at Elm Fork Shooting Range earlier this year, I talked to a guy at one booth who was offering an M16 auto-sear for $17,000...........no trigger, no hammer, no bolt, no other internal parts, no receiver upper or lower, or anything. Just the auto-sear. $17,000. Said he paid $13,500 for it.

VMI77 wrote:BTW, a ban on all semi-auto rifles and handguns that can accept a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is a ban on ALL rifles and handguns that use detachable magazines.

Exactly. Even if there wasn't a single 30 round magazine in the entire U.S., any AR15 will accept one, whether or not it was purchased with one. Even if there isn't a single 15 round magazine in existence in the U.S., all Glock 19s will accept one. By her own definition, a Glock 19 would be as illegal as any AR15—including all the Glock 19s sold in California with 10 round magazines only...........because they can accept a 15 round magazine.

Now do people see why I hate that treasonous witch?

oldtexan wrote:One thing I forgot to mention is that I think it's important not to get ensnared in our side's propaganda, particularly from entities who stand to make money from our fear of more gun control. Of course it's easy to spot propaganda from the opposing side; we're predisposed to look for it. We're not as likely to see propaganda from our side as being what it is, which is an attempt to manipulate us and others. It's easy to believe that everyone on our side is honest, but the plain truth is that some folks on both sides use propaganda and distortion of truth to demonize the other side. The gun control advocates use fear of children dying to scare folks into supporting them. Some organizations on our side use fear of tyranny to whip us up. Some folks on our side tell us that anyone who proposes any gun control measure is actually concealing their true desire to confiscate all our guns so they can institute a totalitarian dictatorship and send us to concentration camps. I have no doubt some folks on the other side would like to get rid of all guns, but they are an unrealistic, politically isolated fringe. Just like there are different views on our side of the issue, there are different views on their side. It helps to look for manipulative, emotion-laden words in what both sides are saying; they use those to stir up easily manipulated emotions. Some folks on both sides are sincere and believe what they are advocating is good policy, and I'm sure there are lying, manipulative folks with their own selfish agendas on both sides, as well.

Oldtexan, I have nothing to gain financially by being alarmed, or by communicating my alarm at what I see happening......other than that of protecting the financial investment I have made in having purchased certain firearms which may or may not be banned down the road. Mine are not for sale, so I have nothing to gain by the current speculative pricing on guns and ammo. The only thing I have to gain by being alarmed and communicating it is the preservation of my right to buy whatever the heck I want to, when I want to, at a price made reasonable by the economies of scale.

I resent the HADES out of elected officials who seek to turn me into an instant felon for possessing something which is totally legal today. I dislike that people price gouge in response to the panic, but as an ardent capitalist, I totally understand it. They're not doing anything different from what happens on the stock market every day. It's Econ 101. You threaten the supply of something, whether it is oil & gas, or guns and ammo, and it will drive the price up. When there is a big freeze in citrus producing regions, the price of oranges as a commodity goes way up......but is an organic fluctuation in the market, not one that has been engineered for the purpose of squeezing (pun intended) the public's wallets. In the case of guns, the fault doesn't really lie with the speculators—they're just trying to maximize their profit on a commodity that is threatening to become irreplaceable. The major fault lies with those who create the artificial situation which leads to the speculative pricing. I call it "artificial" because it is not economically organic. It is strictly man made, and it is not done for speculative reasons, it is done to crush a liberty. When OPEC raised prices in the 1970s, it wasn't because some stuffed-shirt politician on a power jag was threatening to make gasoline illegal at the pump. But what that quisling Feinstein is proposing has nothing to do with the ability to produce a steady supply of firearms to the market, and EVERYTHING to do with illegalizing the retail purchase of specific types of firearms........creating a whole new class of felons in the process.

The rules of this forum do not permit me to use the kind of language best describing the degree and depth of Diane Feinstein's evil depravity, or what I think of it. I've been a law-abiding gun owner ever since I got my first gun. I have never harmed anyone with one of my guns. I have never done a straw purchase, or made a firearm available to anyone outside of my direct supervision, or for an illegal purpose.

So, I get what you're saying when you advise people to be calm and to wait and see what is coming down the pike before getting our unmentionables in a twist, but my response to that is this: I want to make SO much noise about this, and I want others to make SO much noise, that a female dog like Feinstein will think twice about actually submitting her bill for fear of having everything else she sponsors getting eviscerated in the Senate. Her state will continue to elect her no matter what, as long as she keeps running, because......well, because its California. But maybe when everything she does is ineffective and she stops getting pork for California because the rest of the right thinking Senate will simply no longer "do business" with her, then maybe the commies in California will get tired of reelecting an impotent senator, and they'll replace her. There is literally NO difference between the degree of evil of what she is doing, and the evil of making pornography a required elementary school subject, or garroting everyone over the age of 65 to reduce Social Security outlays. If she were proposing a bill to require elementary schools to expose children to pornography, or to strangle everyone over 65, I trust that you would not be advising people to pipe down and wait to see what happens.......because either of those two possibilities would be so outlandish and outrageous that you would either have to laugh it off as preposterous, or start pounding the table with your shoe. There would be no real in-between. And if Feinstein had actually prepared a bill to require elementary school porn, or garroting seniors, and then she had actually posted the highlights of that bill on her senate website, you would not have the luxury of laughing it off as preposterous.

Well, I can't laugh off the notion of a Feinstein AWB, because she has actually posted the details of it on her senate website, and has repeatedly stated her intention to file it. It is as evil as the two other examples of porn and seniorcide, and the only fitting response is to pound the table with one's shoe. I'm not going to pretend like the threat isn't real, or that there is no possibility of at least part of it getting signed into law. I have too much invested, as a gun owner, and as a patriotic American invested in the Constitution not be extremely agitated about it. It's not about fear. It's about speaking out against tremendous evil, because all that is necessary for that evil to prosper is for people like you and me to do nothing.

(EDITED TO CORRECT A MISSPELLING)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/TVq4dXPg



I could ALMOST sign this petition!