What if it's not a gun grab?

[jwinter]

First, I believe we are in for some kind of ban. Magazine capacities, "black guns", amount of ammo that you are aloud to purchase at one time, etc. But nothing to the extent that some of the conversations are suggesting. I may be wrong but I don't think the rank and file politicians would want to commit that kind of political suicide. What does have me I curious is the so called gun show loop hole. What would be gained by the government with this kind of legislation? You could still hurt someone with the gun purchased at a gun show, it won'tprevent anything from happening. Some people may be stopped but they willjust by a gun through other channels.

I believe it would be taxes. No one has talked about it (I have missed it if this has been discussed) but it makes perfect sense with the political mindset. Think about the untaxed revenue that flows through the purchase and sale of firearms between private individuals in this country. What politician wouldn't like to get their hands on a piece of that action. What form that would take, I don't know. Maybe it would just be a $50 cost for us to do a private background check, or maybe we will have to give the type of firearm and cost as part of the background check, thus supplying the government with a way to asses the proper "tax" that must be payed. Maybe that is part of the gun registration talk that is being floated. Sure it could be used as a way to know where the guns are if there was a gun grab, but what if it is to set it up like car sales, just a way to quantify a tax. Just something to think about.

Again, I may just be clueless about the whole thing. I probably am. :)

[GlockSpock]

It is my understanding that the Federal Government currently makes no money off of background checks. TN Government does, but that is besides the point here. I agree that part of the "battle" is that there is possibly money to be made. For example Walmart would benefit greatly if private sales were banned. If the Federal Government sticks a $5, $10, $100 fee for a background check, yes that will add up quickly as long as they don't restrict ownership so much that legal sales drop drastically.

If/when registration finally arrives, fully expect taxation to arrive at the same time or shortly after.

Registration...Taxation...Confiscation.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He can't get a taxing bill through the House or Senate any better than some kind of weapon or magazine ban. He just

got a heck of a tax increase by doing very little from a stupid Speaker and some stupid previous legislators. That's his

last tax increase. All he cares about is disarming you and I so he and future liberals can enslave us. He doesn't care a

bit about money. This is all about absolute power and control. Money is just something for him to throw away. 

 

I won't speculate past that.

[Mark@Sea]

Banning private sales is useless without registration. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation. The Senate, except for the usual suspects, isn't gonna push a ban, Obamas' hi-viz anti-gun advertising campaign to the contrary. The House, if there is a functional brain cell left among them, isn't gonna pass anything either. Any bans, or additions under the NFA, would have to be by executive order. They wouldn't pass judicial review in any federal district court review or SCOTUS. Things are likely going to get really interesting, really soon.

[Oh Shoot]

Banning private sales is useless without registration....

 

Playing the logical devil's advocate,  a simple ban on private sells without registration would prevent most folks from selling to someone they didn't know real well.

 

There is no way to know how many firearms have been sold just in this state to folks who are prohibited under existing laws from owning firearms.

 

You or I might have even have done it.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

Playing the logical devil's advocate,  a simple ban on private sells without registration would prevent most folks from selling to someone they didn't know real well.

 

There is no way to know how many firearms have been sold just in this state to folks who are prohibited under existing laws from owning firearms.

 

You or I might have even have done it.

 

- OS

 

The only one I'm worried about is that Il Duce guy. :rofl:  Swapped pistols with him in the Chili's parking lot

[Wingshooter]

He can't get a taxing bill through the House or Senate any better than some kind of weapon or magazine ban. He just
got a heck of a tax increase by doing very little from a stupid Speaker and some stupid previous legislators. That's his
last tax increase. All he cares about is disarming you and I so he and future liberals can enslave us. He doesn't care a
bit about money. This is all about absolute power and control. Money is just something for him to throw away. 
 
I won't speculate past that.

I completely agree. It isn't about the money or even anyone's safety for that matter... It's all about the control. An armed society cannot be tolerated by a power-hungry liberal with an agenda.

[Oh Shoot]

The only one I'm worried about is that Il Duce guy. :rofl:  Swapped pistols with him in the Chili's parking lot

 

That gun moll he runs with is highly suspect too.

[mikegideon]

That gun moll he runs with is highly suspect too.

 

Only woman I know that shoots a cannon :). She handles machine guns pretty well too (I hope you're reading this Feinstein, you old hag).

[m16ty]

I'll be honest, if we come out the other side of this with only a private sale ban I wouldn't count it as a win but they are talking about much, much worse . In my opinion it's about the least offensive measure I've heard proposed.

 

There's really no way to enforce it outside of public places like gun shows unless they also pass registration. I don't see many people registering their guns though.

[Oh Shoot]

I'll be honest, if we come out the other side of this with only a private sale ban I wouldn't count it as a win but they are talking about much, much worse . In my opinion it's about the least offensive measure I've heard proposed.

 

Hell, I was predicting we'd have that during this term even before CT.

 

I'll also admit I'd be pert pleased at this point if that were the worst ding.

 

- OS

[Wingshooter]

I'll be honest, if we come out the other side of this with only a private sale ban I wouldn't count it as a win but they are talking about much, much worse . In my opinion it's about the least offensive measure I've heard proposed.
 
There's really no way to enforce it outside of public places like gun shows unless they also pass registration. I don't see many people registering their guns though.

Hell, I was predicting we'd have that during this term even before CT.
 
I'll also admit I'd be pert pleased at this point if that were the worst ding.
 
- OS

I agree. I'll still oppose that strongly, but that seems to pale in comparison to what I think they might attempt.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll be honest, if we come out the other side of this with only a private sale ban I wouldn't count it as a win but they are talking about much, much worse . In my opinion it's about the least offensive measure I've heard proposed.

 

There's really no way to enforce it outside of public places like gun shows unless they also pass registration. I don't see many people registering their guns though.

Well, that's the way they get everything. Demand the moon and get what they want, which might take time. I can't see giving them an inch.

 

They've got us all speculating on what the outcome will be, which is exactly where they want us. I don't see anything logical about giving

anything to anyone. The 2nd needs to stand. Screw the liberals. I will not set the stage for compromise and there had damned well better

not be any Republicans thinking about it, either. Vote for me, I'll set you free!

 

The narrative has to be taken away from them. They have no argument, only emotion.

[Commando68]

The colonists under king George were indeed living in the land of the free. Even under the despot kings rule they were 1000% more liberated than we collective slaves are today. Even king george would have Never dreamed of the oppressive taxes and govt overreach we have today. he would feel like an underachiever. All the frogs are overly steamed, poached and indeed fully cooked at this stage.

[mcurrier]

Well, that's the way they get everything. Demand the moon and get what they want, which might take time. I can't see giving them an inch.

 

They've got us all speculating on what the outcome will be, which is exactly where they want us. I don't see anything logical about giving

anything to anyone. The 2nd needs to stand. Screw the liberals. I will not set the stage for compromise and there had damned well better

not be any Republicans thinking about it, either. Vote for me, I'll set you free!

 

The narrative has to be taken away from them. They have no argument, only emotion.

 

Political termites.  Slowly getting their desired end result.  One bite at a time.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And they never give up, unlike the opposition. Statism, progressivism or communism, all the same, is held together with the same

thread: 'til the last person's dead. Utopia is nothing more than death to them. It can't reside in reality. If you can't get a grip around

that, you're doomed to their end game. The trouble is, they don't know that, either.

[No_0ne]

First, I believe we are in for some kind of ban. Magazine capacities, "black guns", amount of ammo that you are aloud to purchase at one time, etc. But nothing to the extent that some of the conversations are suggesting. I may be wrong but I don't think the rank and file politicians would want to commit that kind of political suicide. What does have me I curious is the so called gun show loop hole. What would be gained by the government with this kind of legislation? You could still hurt someone with the gun purchased at a gun show, it won'tprevent anything from happening. Some people may be stopped but they willjust by a gun through other channels.

I believe it would be taxes. No one has talked about it (I have missed it if this has been discussed) but it makes perfect sense with the political mindset. Think about the untaxed revenue that flows through the purchase and sale of firearms between private individuals in this country. What politician wouldn't like to get their hands on a piece of that action. What form that would take, I don't know. Maybe it would just be a $50 cost for us to do a private background check, or maybe we will have to give the type of firearm and cost as part of the background check, thus supplying the government with a way to asses the proper "tax" that must be payed. Maybe that is part of the gun registration talk that is being floated. Sure it could be used as a way to know where the guns are if there was a gun grab, but what if it is to set it up like car sales, just a way to quantify a tax. Just something to think about.

Again, I may just be clueless about the whole thing. I probably am. :)

While I'm absolutely sure that all politicians love new tax revenue (grease for new earmark passage) I'm not sure gun sales would amount to much.  There are @ 300 million firearms in this country.  Let's say that 10% pass through private untaxed sales annually (I would be surprised if it's that high, but bear with me a sec).  That's 30 million potential sales.  At an average price of $500 each, total gross sales would be $15 billion.  Figure an average tax rate (sales, use, property, whatever) of 10%.  You just raised $1.5 billion in taxes.  Chump change, not worth the effort for the average politician in Washington.