The purpose of gun control?

Not open for further replies.


Oct 7, 2003
I was just sitting, thinking, as I often do. Then I began to wonder, why can most gun restrictions can be circumvented by getting expensive licenses?Without sounding like an arrogant commie (not my purpose), is it so that the rich elite can have superior firepower? Their body guards all have full automatic submachine guns and assault rifles. Why can't the common man? They are too expensive to be throw-away weapons from murders, so their only purpose is self defense against a large force. If people in gang territory could have these, gang violence would be almost nonexistant! So is gun control's only purpose to keep the masses held down?
I think you are correct. In '34 the government still had enough fear of the populace and knew that an outright ban on autos would not go over--at all. So, they took the stance that applying an expensive tax would seriously curb the pourchase of automatic weapons. Little did they know, the only affect that had was to stop the law-abiding people from buying becaus they could not afford the $200 tax.

The regulate ot now not by the tax but by how much of a PITA they have made it to buy an auto.

Gun control isnt about guns. Its about control.

I ran $200 in 1934 money through an inflation calculator. Lets not go there.
From yours truly:

It's all about CONTROL
The more I think about this, the more it rings true.

If you plug the gun grabber's agenda into a formula with their stated goals (reducing crime), their actions make no sense. They know it makes no sense, that's why they have to lie and twist the facts.

However, If you plug their agenda into a formula with their unstated goal (gun confiscation and eventual total control) their actions make perfect sense. Each little piece fits nicely into the puzzle.

They (the gun grabbers) are going after "assault weapons", I think, because the "assault weapons" owners are considered a "fringe group" by most, even by some of their gun owning brethren.

The next "fringe" group? Handguns. Again, handgun owner's are considered by most of the populace, and even by some of their gun owning brethren, to be a "fringe group".

The next group? The "hunting only" shotgun and rifle guys.

Once the guns are gone, it's all over. The United States of America will be no longer. We will all wear yokes, and see the rest of our rights taken by a corrupt, power mad, out of control, mutated excuse for govt.

There is an anecdote, don't know who created it but recently I saw it illustrated in a political cartoon:

They banned gays, but I didn't care because it wouldn't affect me. They banned Bible thumpers and again, I didn't care because it didn't affect me. They oppressed minorities and I didn't care, it didn't affect me. They went to ban what I am, and I stood up to fight. The problem was, there was no one left to stand with me.

<< Gets on soapbox>>
All of us, as gun owners, need to stand together. Now. We need to fight every single piece of legislation that might affect ANY gun owner. We must put the brakes on further infringement of our rights NOW. Any little concession is one we will probably never get back, so there must be no concessions.
<< Gets off soapbox>>
The original 1934 NFA had all handguns included as regulated weapons. But they took it out of the bill because they figured another revolution would start if they did that.

Too bad antigunners have nothing to fear these days, otherwise they'd think twice about pushing for their precious bans.
Too bad antigunners have nothing to fear these days, otherwise they'd think twice about pushing for their precious bans.

They have to worry only about two things:

- being un-elected if they aren't successful


- being killed if they are successful

Gun control is a political equivalent of trying to bind and gag someone in preparation for a violent rape and murder, and people who try that won't live long past any meaningful successes (even AWB wasn't a success because it pushed literally millions into getting guns, bigger guns and training).
Oleg, I like your line about gun control being the equivalent of binding and gaging a person.

Do you care if I use it in other forums and in anything I write?
gundam, from time immemorial the purpose of weapon control has been to disarm the rulees to empower the rulers. "There were no blacksmiths in Israel because the Philistines were determined to keep the Hebrews from making swords and spears." 1 Samuel 13:19-22 (Good News) (FYI, the "Good News" in the citation references the version of the Bible [Good News is popular in the Methodist church], and is proper Blue Book citation form).

You see the exact same lessons in every historical period and culture--the American War for Independence, Chinese, Japanese, Fillipino, English, German, antebellum South, the South during Reconstruction, the Sullivan Law, Chicago's handgun freeze, D.C.'s gun ban, Ronnie Raygun's California laws, today, inter alia.

The answer to your question is a very decisive "yes."
why can most gun restrictions can be circumvented by getting expensive licenses?Without sounding like an arrogant commie (not my purpose), is it so that the rich elite can have superior firepower?

If you can find a copy of the September 1996 issue of Liberty, read "Guns and the Power Elite" by William Tonso.

If anyone knows where a copy of this is online, that would be great too (since I threw out my print edition years ago).

they could not afford the $200 tax.

As Tonso pointed out in his article, $200 in 1934 was about $2,000 in 1996.

Just to check for myself, using the inflation calculator at

What cost $200 in 1934 would cost $2,351.95 in 1996.

What cost $200 in 1934 would cost $2,717.31 in 2003.

Let it also be known that at one point the special "permit" needed for what was then recently out-laws firearms was non-existent. You couldn't possess the "illegal" firearm without possession of the permit, but you had to present your firearm when making application for the permit. Consequently you were an immediate felon. Oh, did I forget to mention that the permits never existed either.

I don't have all the details, but I think this is from the '34 Act. Saw a documentary on it. Turns out that the fellow pushing this law did it for a couple of reasons, none of which was to thwart crime and all of which were for control and/or his own agenda (read: power play).
"Then I began to wonder, why can most gun restrictions can be circumvented by getting expensive licenses?"

To own a full auto, select fire, suppressed, or short barreled rifle/shotgun, you don't need any kind of license (Federal Law). You simply fill out some paperwork and pay a transfer tax of $200. As was mentioned, the original purpose of the tax was probably to prevent the average Joe and Jane from being able to afford the tax, however in more modern times, $200 isn't an obstacle to many people. So another barrier had to be constructed to takes it's place. This was achieved by passing another law preventing any new machine guns (suppressors and SBRs are not effected) from being manufactured and sold to the common man. You can still buy the guns that were already registered as NFA weapons, but not new ones. Therefore the law of supply and demand takes over. The supply is finite, the demand stays the same. Therefore the price of the weapons themselves skyrocketed. Now what prevents people from buying machine guns is the price of the gun itself. With the price of even the cheapest machine gun being several thousand dollars, the $200 transfer tax is chump change.

Note that in most of this legislation, "they" don't ban the guns outright. They go in through the back door. They ban new guns (as in this example or in the recent AWB), but let you keep the old ones to pacify the people who arn't thinking about it. In this way, they can play both sides of the fence. They can tell the antis they are banning this stuff, yet at the same time they tell the gun owner that he can keep what he has, but can't get any new ones. Again, the law of supply and demand takes effect.
Note that in most of this legislation, "they" don't ban the guns outright. They go in through the back door.

Between the end of the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it wasn't illegal for blacks to vote.

But for some reason, literacy tests and poll taxes produced nearly the same result.

For 100 years, the 15th Amendment was as widely ignored and unenforced as the 2nd Amendment is today.
People like Rosie O'Donuts are indifferent about us, the "Great Unwashed." Our lives are unimportant to the rich elite. However, she wants armed guards to protect her and her "family." You don't have to be a mental heavyweight to figure that out.
Fresh off the press. Gun control pushers are sociopaths.

OMG that girl is ...

very pretty


agree'd tho... it seems the either do it for political agenda, personal mis-information, personal emotions, or just cause of a pre-planned agenda... I don't know how someone accepts office and DOESN"T think - ok this is a right - that some people don't want to be a right - but its a RIGHT... as a gurantee form 200+ years ago ... a right that stands to this day just as do the other rights ... why should THIS right be declined as unimportant...


Allright, I have found this great quote about gun control either here at THR or on another firearms discussion forum. It sum it up perfectly:

'Gun Control' is not designed to protect citizens from criminals.

It is designed to protect politicians from citizens!

Many thanks to the guy who came up with this unbelievable logical statement.

I can't hear the antis stupid and surreal "arguments" any longer :banghead:
I agree strongly with the sentiments here about "gun control" being all about control. As far as certain gun owners being labeled "fringe", yes I have seen/experienced that at least to a small degree. I work with a fella that's a member of the "shotguns are acceptable, but you don't need an AK to hunt deer, the NRA wants to give away guns at schools" cabal. Not only should we keep working on the anti's, but maybe we sometimes overlook the "hunting only" type of gun owner. At least they don't have an inexplicable fear of firearms. What a political juggernaut the gun owning populace would be if (let's think positive: when) we get these folks to see the big picture. (grasps chin between thumb and forefinger and gazes ceilingward, pondering said juggernautness).

Another interesting twist of the knife is when one is forced to obtain permission from local LE to carry or even purchase a handgun. Thoughts on this also?

By the way Oleg, I have always wanted to tell you how profound and inspiring I find your website to be!
political motivations?

Democrats and Republicans are entirely motivated by power and money. The religious rhetoric and "do it for the children" flag waving BS is just a public cover for the real financial motivations behind everything they do. We've seen the BS, so where's the power and money behind it? There is a lot of money in protecting gun ownership (I submit the spending habits of myself and my fellow THR members as evidence :D) but where is the money in opposing it? What do Democrats have to gain by pushing gun control? It seems there are way more pro-gun one-issue voters than there are anti-gun one-issue voters, so I seriously doubt that gun control is helping the Democrats win elections. This whole "control of the masses" argument has some merit, but I think it fails to identify the true incentive. I think somebody is getting rich off this, and I want to know who it is.
"you don't need an AK to hunt deer"

This is another example of the smoke and mirrors. The statement is true, you don't need an AK to hunt deer, so it is palatable by the masses and sounds good if you don't know any better. However it has nothing to do with the second amendment or the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms: The second amendment has nothing to do with deer hunting.

I am sure that there is a term for this type of argument, but I am one of the uneducated members of society. I am referring to an argument where the statement you make is true, but has nothing to do with the subject being argued.

I'm not sure what you were getting at in your response about the AK/deer thing. Please correct me if I misunderstood:

I wholeheartedly agree that the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with an idividual right to keep and bear arms, period. I was just pointing out (as you probably already know) that there are gun owners out there who see hunting/skeet shooting as the only legitimate purpose for firearms, and the only thing protected by the 2nd amendment, and that I work with such a person. I was also trying to say that these folks could be staunch allies in preserving and regaining the freedoms of all gun owners, not just hunters, if they could be convinced of the deeper meaning of gun ownership, as an antidote to tyranny, that is.

(BTW, as a new member, I'm thrilled when I get responses, or if someone considers what I've said. Thanks!!
Not open for further replies.