Biden to impose $200 Gun Tax

I am going to approach this as if you actually are open to an honest discussion since I don't know you. It's like the benefit of the doubt thing.

There are 200,000,000 guns owned by civilians in the United States. As a retired soldier of 28 years and a combat veteran I think I can safely say that most of our military and military veterans are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. Most of our National Guard troops are also staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. Most police are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. Who are we going to defend ourselves from? They aren't going to start a civil war with their friends, family and brothers in arms to confiscate weapons that the Constitution says we have a God given right to. Their oath REQUIRES them to protect the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

It is about our freedom. The most important amendment is the First Amendment which is is the freedom of speech. The second most important amendment is the 2nd Amendment. It's purpose is to defend the First Amendment. It's not about "belonging". It's about the idea that the govt is here to serve the citizen, not the other way around. Their is NO compromise when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. It is the shortest amendment in the Constitution for a reason. There is a reason it is written that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution does not allow compromise. We have seen what compromise leads to. It is a slippery slope where people try to bastardize the reason and meaning of the Second Amendment. You did so yourself by asking if it is necessary to have an assault rifle to protect oneself from criminals. That isn't the only purpose the Second Amendment. One could ask why people want sports cars or big houses. It could be argued that they don't need a big house. Who is the one to determine who's rights we eliminate because someone issues an edict to determine what another person does or doesn't "need"? That is in direct conflict with the a person's right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

There is always someone there to try to reduce another person's rights to serve their own purpose. This is a world where people are always trying to dictate how I will live based on what they think I "need". They can pound sand. In short, it ain't happening.

 

You can take the professors word, or you can look it up for yourself.

Those are two features that could potentially classify a gun as an assault weapon, but are you actually trying to argue that it is because of the appearance of those attachments, and not their functions? Because that's just flat out irrational

 

Yep, totally irrational but that didn't stop Clinton. Feinstein's proposed bills are all based on mostly cosmetics and not function.

"Definition of assault weapon
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[14]
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

You're right - the law that differentiates 'assault weapons' from non-'assault weapons' is flat-out irrational.

Fact remains - the appearance, not the function. of the rifle with the flash suppressor and bayonet lug is the reason it was banned, and the other was not.
The functions of the two rifles are --absolutely -- identical, and so the --function-- of the banned rifle is not the criteria upon which is was banned]

 

To wit - the "flat out irrational" 1994 AWB.

 

He offered a BUYBACK, not a confiscation

You all said the dry same thing when Obama was elected. It’s all just scare tactics to rile the base

 

The government cannot buy back the guns because the government didn't sell the guns.

What happens if you don't sell your gun to government or pay the government $200 to keep it?
I'll spell it out:
C O N F I S C A T I O N

Why do you think Biden is lying about his desire to ban and confiscate rifles, handguns and shotguns?

 

There is NOTHING in what he said where they will confiscate. You are literally making that up

 

Really.
So if I do not pay the $200 tax and register my rifle, they won't take it - confiscate it - from me?
If so, why should I bother paying the $200 tax or register the gun?

Why do you think Biden is lying about his desire to ban and confiscate rifles, handguns and shotguns?

 

Not a brilliant answer really is it?
I mean on balance its highly unlikely you will need to shoot down the hordes trying to enter your property.
But mass shootings by messed up Americans are surprisingly popular

 

Biden can't impose a tax. Only the congress can do that. A president can propose a tax, but that's all.

 

Well now that was a long time ago and we have had other methods in place for controlling dictators for quite a while now.
As an Englishman without a semiautomatic weapon, I do not live in dire fear of my government enslaving me, and we have been around a fair bit longer than you.
Further if it came to it your semi automatic would be pretty useless against the government forces were they to come for you.
When you and they had muskets that was viable, but now you have semi's and they have this.

 

Can you be more nonsensical?

 

Thank you. Very interesting read.

 

Or, ignore the unconstitutional rule entirely until it goes through the Supremes and even then ignore it if the court does not rule IAW the Constitution.

 

Um.. wonder how they'll feel about collecting it at penny a piece.

 

You think congress is going to stop it? HA!

 

Yeah. Every year, on average, for around the last 40 years, 2-3 "assault weapons" are used to kill 10-11 people in a mass shooting.
It's a real war zone.

 

Because no one ever walked away from a gunfight thinking he had too much ammunition, or his rounds hit too hard.
^^^
A brilliant answer

 

Why do you believe he fact you have no fear of your government any way means there is nothing to fear from your government?

 

You don't get how numbers work do you?

It's not my lone single semiautomatic against the entire government (there's a lot more than just mine out there).

Also, keep in mind, the government and it's military do not exist without the economy provided by the people. The government of the United States and it's military wouldn't last a couple weeks against the entire population were they to attempt something so foolish.

But, the good thing is, they know this and they wouldn't attempt it....hence the 2nd amendment. Too many people think the 2nd amendment is nonsense because it protects against something they don't even see as a possibility. They fail to realize it's the 2nd amendment and the power of the people that is precisely why they wouldn't ever attempt it.

 

So long as you're happy with that.

 

You either register them, or sell them back to the government.

But since he didn’t say a word about confiscating ‘rifles, handguns and shotguns in his platform, then your literally making that up

 

Actually the numbers work just fine. American forces are usually outnumbered in most battles but superior weaponry and tactics bring them victory. Add to that the bizarre idea that the rest of America's citizens are going to rise up simultaneously to support the 3 dozen men from the Swamp end county militia.

The point you make on the economy is very relevant and demonstrates you are far more likely to overthrow a crooked government by withdrawal of labour than you are by armed resistance. And with a lot fewer body bags.

 

If that were true, wouldn't a rifle that appears to have those features, but doesn't actually serve those functions be categorized as an assault weapon?