One thing I could never understand.....

oneounceload said:

They won't do that, however, they could make reloading too expensive with exorbitant taxes on components and do the same with ammo or magazines, leaving most with very expensive paper weights. Just look at what Cook County did regarding ammo and guns - the ammo part failed, but the gun tax was passed. All the feds have to do is enact the ammo tax. When .223 ammo costs you $5-$10 per shot, how much are you going to spend or shoot?

Click to expand...

If Crook County can't pass a tax on ammo, there's no way in hell it'll fly at the federal level.

Also, you are over exaggerating (yes, over exaggerating). Their proposed (and failed) tax was, what, 5 cents per round? That would make .223 cost, what, 35-45 cents per round for most ball ammo? $5-$10 per shot...give me a break.

Please stop the hysteria.

National Emergency...? All bets are off. Substitute a word or two, factor in a SCOTUS more inclined one way than another and ponder the following please

I, as President do declare that the national emergency still exists: that the continued private hoarding of gold and silver by subjects of the United States poses a grave threat to peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States; and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interest of our people. Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I hereby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed pending action in the due course of the law. All sales or purchases or movements of such gold and silver within the borders of the United States and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are hereby prohibited. – FDR April 5, 1933

Click to expand...

Never say never. But I'm sure, it'll never come to pass.
You ever wonder why most of the big gold mining companies in the US, like Barrick, were, or are legally Canadian corporations? Probably not if you're like most folks.

So, here is my point. Are most people assuming that prior ownership will prevent the gov't fom passing laws that will not only prevent future purchases of some of these types of guns but at the same time allow lawful owners to keep those they do have.

Click to expand...

It's the Pandora's Box effect, and it's why we're all allowed to use centerfire smokeless powder guns today. Under the exact same logic that banned machine guns and high explosives to civilians, these more powerful chamberings/propellants could have also been denied or subjected to onerous regulation. The Federal Government didn't ban them, and they became commonplace to the point that it was impossible to justify banning them out of fear; but they obviously weren't inclined to make the same mistake again.

If/when energy weapons or caseless ammo becomes possible, they will undoubtedly be unavailable to us. We are basically stuck with 50 year old designs at this point. In another fifty years, we might as well have sticks and clubs compared to the stuff (robot?) soldiers will have

...within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government.

Click to expand...

According to The Wiki, after this seizure period, the official price was raised and the profit made (by the feds) on the seized gold was put toward some "market stabilization fund" (whatever the heck that really meant). So much for gold being the ultimate safe investment; all the government has to do is force you to sell, at whatever loss they feel is commensurate (and the same goes with firearms). Failure to surrender gold was subject to ten years in a PMITA prison, if memory serves; how much gold/guns is that worth to you? It's not worth enough for me to make a machine gun I have every God-given, constitutionally-enumerated right to posses, that's for sure .

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing if people don't hold the government accountable to it. Remember that next time someone claims it's a "living document" whose meaning should reinterpreted by the very people serving at its pleasure.

TCB

I know this sounds stupid, but read Animal Farm from George Orwell.

Drail said:

Regarding confiscation or requiring owners to "turn in" their guns- years ago when I was an NRA instructor someone came up with a document that we all carried around with us everywhere we went and it essentially asked law enforcement persons if they were ordered to do gun confiscations "would you do it?" You could see them thinking about their answer. Every single one said they would resign before they would participate. It would be suicide to even try. Passing a law is easy. Enforcing it is entirely another matter. America faced this exact problem a couple hundred years ago and the fact that we were well armed was the only thing that put a stop to it.

Click to expand...

I would like to agree with you, but look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Where was the mass resignation of Law enforcement officers over that?

barnbwt said:

According to The Wiki, after this seizure period, the official price was raised and the profit made (by the feds) on the seized gold was put toward some "market stabilization fund" (whatever the heck that really meant). So much for gold being the ultimate safe investment; all the government has to do is force you to sell, at whatever loss they feel is commensurate (and the same goes with firearms). Failure to surrender gold was subject to ten years in a PMITA prison, if memory serves; how much gold/guns is that worth to you? It's not worth enough for me to make a machine gun I have every God-given, constitutionally-enumerated right to posses, that's for sure .

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing if people don't hold the government accountable to it. Remember that next time someone claims it's a "living document" whose meaning should reinterpreted by the very people serving at its pleasure.

TCB

Click to expand...

Don't depend upon the Constitution, or the Supreme Court to up hold your Rights.

The Constitution can be readily ignored if the Public doesn't care. Look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina, or in Greensburg, Kansas after the tornado, where law abiding citizens were forced out of their undamaged houses, (only about 80% of the town was destroyed or damaged) under threat of arrest, and the houses then searched and guns confiscated.

Where was the media outrage? They favored the action, the same as in New Orleans. Where were the courts? They certainly did bot act robustly to protect their rights, nor in the case of the Obama Government bailout of the car companies, where Federal Bankruptcy law was suspended, in favor of the auto unions. Federal Bankruptcy laws are supposed to be Constitutionally protected. And when a rogue President, such as FDR has had time to pack the courts with his judges, then he effectively gets to rewrite the Constitution.

Obama, now has the time to further pack the Courts with anti-Second Amendment Judges, and others who will bend the Law or ignore it completely.

I, personally, have decided to buy more guns and ammunition. If nothing else, I can provide defense for my friends and family, when the outrageous National debt catches up to us.

(By the way, I had a great uncle who was a small town banker during that time, and they didn't get his. He gave out 20 dollar gold pieces to his nephews and nieces when they got married. I still have my mothers.)

tryshoot said:

I know this sounds stupid, but read Animal Farm from George Orwell.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't!

Well no ,Justin, I've never lived under a rock. You may like Obama...I don't. The assult wepon ban came and went. Now there seem to be new rumors.
He has made very pointed comments regarding his attitudes about guns. Obama and Clinton are talking with the U.N. about a small arms treaty. Maybe you like that idea...I don't . Maybe you voted for Obama...I didn't. Nothing I can do about anything. What comes...comes.

Mark

Hardtarget said:

Well no ,Justin, I've never lived under a rock. You may like Obama...I don't. The assult wepon ban came and went. Now there seem to be new rumors.
He has made very pointed comments regarding his attitudes about guns. Obama and Clinton are talking with the U.N. about a small arms treaty. Maybe you like that idea...I don't . Maybe you voted for Obama...I didn't. Nothing I can do about anything. What comes...comes.

Mark

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the administration prior to 2008 respected the Constitution?

From the 5th amendment :

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive. That's the practical basis for legal grandfathering.

Click to expand...

Yup no way they would ignore 2 amendments at the same time...

People say they wouldn't comply. Do you really want to thumb your nose at the government by not complying? There are substantial risks.

Click to expand...

Enough people did not comply with prohibition and it ended.

Enough people did not comply with segrigation laws in the South and their ring leaders birthday is now a national holiday.

Enough people did not comply with King George and you know the rest.

22-rimfire said:

L
People say they wouldn't comply. Do you really want to thumb your nose at the government by not complying? There are substantial risks.

Let's hope that our Congress will truly represent their constituents, but firearm owners are probably a minority. However, vocal minorities get a lot of attention. For the most part, the minorities define new law whether it be something that affects business, women's "rights", public assistance and so forth.

Click to expand...

What I would like to say here would not be High Road.

Short answer: Yes.

tryshoot said:

I know this sounds stupid, but read Animal Farm from George Orwell.

Click to expand...

It's not stupid. But a better and more timely read (imho) would be Enemies Foreign and Domestic, by Matt Bracken.

Also, you are over exaggerating (yes, over exaggerating). Their proposed (and failed) tax was, what, 5 cents per round? That would make .223 cost, what, 35-45 cents per round for most ball ammo? $5-$10 per shot...give me a break.

Please stop the hysteria.

Click to expand...

Wrong - try reading the post - I did not say Cook was making 223 5-10 per round - what I DID say was that the feds could easily do that, making ammo too expensive for most folks to obtain, rendering their guns obsolete
Please stop the snide comments

There are 70 to 80 million or so gun owners in this country. These gun owners have maybe 250 to 300 million guns. There were 118091807 total votes cast for Romney and Obama. Romney got 57,644,747 votes. Obama got 60,447,060 votes.

It is very apparent to me that a lot of gun owners voted for Obama.

Part of the 5th amendment says " without just compensation " so I figure that the gov could ban your property by some law and offer just compensation and that would be that. Not sure that this would ever happen.

For those who think you will fight it out with guns and bullets to keep your firearms? The gov will label you as a major nut case , the media will print that , most will believe it and the rest of the country will continue to turn in their guns.

IMHO the most likely scenario.... You won't have a full scale gun seizure. It will be done in phases. The first will be another AWB. It will eliminate new sales of certain items and calibers. The next step will be registration. Then you'll have SCOTUS-like law. The compensation amounts will be laughable for either being very low or very high because it just means the government printed a bunch of monopoly money. (Debt and inflation are going to be the real downfall if things don't change.) Most people will comply out of fear. The mainstream media will do what it is told by the government. It will cause a black market much like any other prohibited items. People will still be allowed to own and buy certain weapons and register them.

The only thing that we can hope is that individual states want uphold their rights and refuse any type of laws from going in effect. Even though, the current administration was re-elected, it was rather close. (The distribution of electoral college votes is the main reason. If every state had an equal number of electoral college votes like they do Senate seats, the election would have been a landslide in the opposite direction.) The displeasure with the government is rather high especially when dealing with issues forcing people to do things. (e.g. Obamacare)

It would not surprise me that people would hesitate to give up their guns or register them with the government. In a recent TV survey (I saw during the election) it is estimated that 47% of US households have at least one firearm. A figure that is probably lower than real life. (Given the "non of your business" attitude upheld many people.)

In bad times, people cling to certain things. Guns are one of them.

Any one care to estimate how much 300 million guns x just compensation will cost the American tax payers ? Because if it ever came to confiscation it will be done with borrowed money so all of us will be paying for the just compensation and the confiscation of our property.

oneounceload said:

Wrong - try reading the post - I did not say Cook was making 223 5-10 per round - what I DID say was that the feds could easily do that, making ammo too expensive for most folks to obtain, rendering their guns obsolete

Click to expand...

I never said nor implied that you said that. Here is the post/reply:

oneounceload said:

They won't do that, however, they could make reloading too expensive with exorbitant taxes on components and do the same with ammo or magazines, leaving most with very expensive paper weights. Just look at what Cook County did regarding ammo and guns - the ammo part failed, but the gun tax was passed. All the feds have to do is enact the ammo tax. When .223 ammo costs you $5-$10 per shot, how much are you going to spend or shoot?

Click to expand...

Warp said:

If Crook County can't pass a tax on ammo, there's no way in hell it'll fly at the federal level.

Also, you are over exaggerating (yes, over exaggerating). Their proposed (and failed) tax was, what, 5 cents per round? That would make .223 cost, what, 35-45 cents per round for most ball ammo? $5-$10 per shot...give me a break.

Please stop the hysteria.

Click to expand...

Pleeeeease. Obama is not touching the gun control with a 6 ft pole. He has a party to support you know. This hasn't been a high priority for them for a while now and I doubt it would become one any time soon. Clinton came to power in a very different setting.

I am tired from all that paranoia, frankly. He may not be the best president but he's still a US President and Dubya was far worse as far as I am concerned. There are moderates / centrists on both sides and they need to figure out how to work together and find a compromise or this country is not going anywhere.

So, while O wasn't my choice, he gets as much support from me as any other President would. I wish him luck in running the country. God knows we need it.

It is very apparent to me that a lot of gun owners voted for Obama.

Click to expand...

Of course there were, and I'm sure they had legitimate reasons that trumped their opinions on the Second Amendment. Maybe we should work on reaching out to the "Firearms Used for Deer Slaying" folks who think their rights aren't affected by restrictions and regulation of others' firearm use.

Most folks hate raising a fuss and protesting (quiet bickering is much easier), so while they themselves are not targeted, they find it easy to tolerate "mild" creeping infringements on many things (guns, religion, gas bills, etc.). The key is to help people understand the chain of events that today's precedents will set into motion if they are not strongly countered.

TCB

Any one care to estimate how much 300 million guns x just compensation will cost the American tax payers ? Because if it ever came to confiscation it will be done with borrowed money so all of us will be paying for the just compensation and the confiscation of our property.

Click to expand...

$420 average (the average value of a gun in my collection) x 300 million=1.26 trillion

Average annual new Federal debt under Obama: 1.5 trillion (to be fair GWB was just as bad about spending, but he had a better economy and more revenue, so the deficit was smaller)
current federal debt: 15.4 trillion

And do you really think they would pay anywhere near the actual value? I don't think it will ever happen...look to machine guns to see what the statists would like to do to all guns...but to say they couldn't....they'd just run the presses a little harder. What's another trillion or so of debt and a little more inflation?

The above discussion had gone beyond tin foil hat territory.

It happened in Australia.

barnbwt said:

...and I'm sure they had legitimate reasons that trumped their opinions on the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Talk about one thing I could never understand...

No I'm not picking on you. I just could never understand how people out there could think that they can or should use their rights as negotiable instruments to get things they want.

Personally, that's the first thing I always look at with any candidate for office. If they are willing to bargain with, trade away, take away, restrict my usage of, make conditional, or sidestep any one of my rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, then they have lost my vote or will hear from me.

I don't get how others can just ignore that.

But that's just me

Rant off.

Two anti-gun candidates ran for president we shouldn't act too shocked that one of them won.