Are all of those you mentioned for some states or all? I know in Oregon one can get automatic weapons if they buy a special permit which is like a yearly fee. Not sure about RPG's or anything like that though.
Not 100% on this, but as far as I know, they're legal unless the State specifically prohibits it. Pretty sure it all fits under the NFA, so it all requires a ton of paperwork, registration with the ATF, and a $200 tax stamp, not to mention the actual weapon will cost a few thousand dollars, easily $5,000 and up, assuming you do it legally (of course totally free if you don't mind breaking a lot of laws) but yeah - all legal. I know RPG's are legal under the NFA as well.
phobicsquirrel:
I don't think people who own guns are psyco's or what not but I do think the people that get all up in arms over even back ground checks are nuts. I mean why? And really what is wrong with a registry? Now I admit I think it's stupid to have to say, if you want to sell your friend a shotgun you need to go down to DMV and fill out paperwork. Will that be like a charge like when you have to register your car? Cuz I am always pissed when I have to sell one the fee is always higher than the last time I did it, or if I needed to change something on the title and it's past the 30 days they charge me a higher fee. That stuff should be illegal.
I only speak for myself, but the reason I'm against background checks isn't for the check itself, it's for what it can lead to. Cars, boats, etc - they can all kill people, and they require registration, but there's not a significant part of the American population trying to outlaw them either
Let me preface this by saying that I wouldn't be against universal background checks if it was the last piece of legislation by gun controllers - I'd be ok with it if the gun grabbers just stopped there. The major fear on my part is that background checks are implemented and obviously don't do anything to stop the next shooting (since criminals don't buy their guns legally at all) - so the Left will scream out to "close the loopholes" in the background check, and the next logical step is registration of all guns.
Once the Feds know who has the guns and where they are, the real fun can begin, because once the Feds know where the guns are, any laws about required taxation on those guns now has teeth (can't tax something if you've got no idea who owns what). No one's dumb enough to try forced confiscation, but there are more subtle ways - for instance, tack on a yearly registration fee, just like you have for your car. Then tack on required insurance. Then tack on some fees and levies for good measure, and allow the local gov'ts to also enact taxes. Then tax the ammo and require registration for it as well - fed level taxation + State taxation + city/municipal/local taxation . . . you're easily looking at a minimum of triple taxation.
Eventually, if you tack on enough fees, fines and taxes, guns will become prohibitively expensive to own and operate. No more trips to the range, no more shooting for fun. The poor and middle class won't be able to afford guns or ammo; only the very rich will have access to them. Most people will find it much cheaper to just sell or destroy their guns, rather than pay the taxes and fees that will be required. The few that do will eventually die out, and their heirs will likely sell or destroy the guns, especially if there's additional taxes on gun transfers.
So for me, background checks aren't a bad thing, but I'm worried about what gun control advocates plan to do once they get those checks - it's obviously not enough to assuage them, and its only a matter of time before registration will be called for (technically, registration in a weakened form was already in the Toomey-Manchin bill; it only required a few word changes to really bite hard)
phobicsquirrel:
Oh, I should ad though that using that school shooting as a launching pad for these gun debates was really bad taste. I mean it's not like it was the only one and to use that to push an agenda IMO isn't worthy. People with more guns or carrying guns won't really stop these shootings. Hell it probably will make it worse. What will keep these from being the norm will be some major economic and social changes which I fear won't happen fast enough.
Totally agree with this. There are 20 kids killed in Detroit every month or two due to gang violence and crossfire, but you never hear about it, but 20 kids killed in Connecticut is supposed to "change the conversation"? Hypocrisy, plain and simple; all deaths are equal,, but some are apparently more equal than others.
Are all of those you mentioned for some states or all? I know in Oregon one can get automatic weapons if they buy a special permit which is like a yearly fee. Not sure about RPG's or anything like that though.
Not 100% on this, but as far as I know, they're legal unless the State specifically prohibits it. Pretty sure it all fits under the NFA, so it all requires a ton of paperwork, registration with the ATF, and a $200 tax stamp, not to mention the actual weapon will cost a few thousand dollars, easily $5,000 and up, assuming you do it legally (of course totally free if you don't mind breaking a lot of laws) but yeah - all legal. I know RPG's are legal under the NFA as well.
phobicsquirrel:
I don't think people who own guns are psyco's or what not but I do think the people that get all up in arms over even back ground checks are nuts. I mean why? And really what is wrong with a registry? Now I admit I think it's stupid to have to say, if you want to sell your friend a shotgun you need to go down to DMV and fill out paperwork. Will that be like a charge like when you have to register your car? Cuz I am always pissed when I have to sell one the fee is always higher than the last time I did it, or if I needed to change something on the title and it's past the 30 days they charge me a higher fee. That stuff should be illegal.
I only speak for myself, but the reason I'm against background checks isn't for the check itself, it's for what it can lead to. Cars, boats, etc - they can all kill people, and they require registration, but there's not a significant part of the American population trying to outlaw them either
Let me preface this by saying that I wouldn't be against universal background checks if it was the last piece of legislation by gun controllers - I'd be ok with it if the gun grabbers just stopped there. The major fear on my part is that background checks are implemented and obviously don't do anything to stop the next shooting (since criminals don't buy their guns legally at all) - so the Left will scream out to "close the loopholes" in the background check, and the next logical step is registration of all guns.
Once the Feds know who has the guns and where they are, the real fun can begin, because once the Feds know where the guns are, any laws about required taxation on those guns now has teeth (can't tax something if you've got no idea who owns what). No one's dumb enough to try forced confiscation, but there are more subtle ways - for instance, tack on a yearly registration fee, just like you have for your car. Then tack on required insurance. Then tack on some fees and levies for good measure, and allow the local gov'ts to also enact taxes. Then tax the ammo and require registration for it as well - fed level taxation + State taxation + city/municipal/local taxation . . . you're easily looking at a minimum of triple taxation.
Eventually, if you tack on enough fees, fines and taxes, guns will become prohibitively expensive to own and operate. No more trips to the range, no more shooting for fun. The poor and middle class won't be able to afford guns or ammo; only the very rich will have access to them. Most people will find it much cheaper to just sell or destroy their guns, rather than pay the taxes and fees that will be required. The few that do will eventually die out, and their heirs will likely sell or destroy the guns, especially if there's additional taxes on gun transfers.
So for me, background checks aren't a bad thing, but I'm worried about what gun control advocates plan to do once they get those checks - it's obviously not enough to assuage them, and its only a matter of time before registration will be called for (technically, registration in a weakened form was already in the Toomey-Manchin bill; it only required a few word changes to really bite hard)
phobicsquirrel:
Oh, I should ad though that using that school shooting as a launching pad for these gun debates was really bad taste. I mean it's not like it was the only one and to use that to push an agenda IMO isn't worthy. People with more guns or carrying guns won't really stop these shootings. Hell it probably will make it worse. What will keep these from being the norm will be some major economic and social changes which I fear won't happen fast enough.
Totally agree with this. There are 20 kids killed in Detroit every month or two due to gang violence and crossfire, but you never hear about it, but 20 kids killed in Connecticut is supposed to "change the conversation"? Hypocrisy, plain and simple; all deaths are equal,, but some are apparently more equal than others.
I see where you are going with this. Sure I can see fees going up, hell look at liquor and tobacco. I agree that people in govt like to do things like this. I also agree that background checks probably won't keep massacres from happening nor possibly will a registry however in my state you have to have a background check even at a gun show and the serial is registered to you. So I think that if the entire country does that it might help. Still most of these shootings have happened by people who couldn't have bought the weapons or if they could have, they didn't. However just like anything being illegal I don't think people that are going to do something like that will care.
Thing is, people really don't need ar15's and handguns, and rpg's. Yes that is my opinion, however really the only thing that those weapons are used for is killing people. To hunt you don't brink an AK 47 or a rpg, or a handgun. You bring a rifle or a shotgun depending on what you are hunting. And the last time I checked a shotgun works wonders for home defense. So really I feel that both the side that is trying to push these gun controls on "especially" assault weapons are doing it due to the sandyhook shootings and thus using emotion to push an agenda. When in fact most killings are done with handguns! The side against any of these controls (like registration, background checks, and even bans) are once again using emotion along with lots of money from a lobby that makes huge profits off of the sale of these weapons. Simple truth is most Americans think background checks are a good idea.
You said you feared that if there was a registry that the govt or atf could look your name up and what not but you know they can already. And lets just say that the govt wanted to round up everyone's guns (though that hasn't happened though it's been pushed every time a democrat is in office) you really think that registry or not that it would make a difference?
Comments
Let me preface this by saying that I wouldn't be against universal background checks if it was the last piece of legislation by gun controllers - I'd be ok with it if the gun grabbers just stopped there. The major fear on my part is that background checks are implemented and obviously don't do anything to stop the next shooting (since criminals don't buy their guns legally at all) - so the Left will scream out to "close the loopholes" in the background check, and the next logical step is registration of all guns.
Once the Feds know who has the guns and where they are, the real fun can begin, because once the Feds know where the guns are, any laws about required taxation on those guns now has teeth (can't tax something if you've got no idea who owns what). No one's dumb enough to try forced confiscation, but there are more subtle ways - for instance, tack on a yearly registration fee, just like you have for your car. Then tack on required insurance. Then tack on some fees and levies for good measure, and allow the local gov'ts to also enact taxes. Then tax the ammo and require registration for it as well - fed level taxation + State taxation + city/municipal/local taxation . . . you're easily looking at a minimum of triple taxation.
Eventually, if you tack on enough fees, fines and taxes, guns will become prohibitively expensive to own and operate. No more trips to the range, no more shooting for fun. The poor and middle class won't be able to afford guns or ammo; only the very rich will have access to them. Most people will find it much cheaper to just sell or destroy their guns, rather than pay the taxes and fees that will be required. The few that do will eventually die out, and their heirs will likely sell or destroy the guns, especially if there's additional taxes on gun transfers.
So for me, background checks aren't a bad thing, but I'm worried about what gun control advocates plan to do once they get those checks - it's obviously not enough to assuage them, and its only a matter of time before registration will be called for (technically, registration in a weakened form was already in the Toomey-Manchin bill; it only required a few word changes to really bite hard) Totally agree with this. There are 20 kids killed in Detroit every month or two due to gang violence and crossfire, but you never hear about it, but 20 kids killed in Connecticut is supposed to "change the conversation"? Hypocrisy, plain and simple; all deaths are equal,, but some are apparently more equal than others.
Thing is, people really don't need ar15's and handguns, and rpg's. Yes that is my opinion, however really the only thing that those weapons are used for is killing people. To hunt you don't brink an AK 47 or a rpg, or a handgun. You bring a rifle or a shotgun depending on what you are hunting. And the last time I checked a shotgun works wonders for home defense. So really I feel that both the side that is trying to push these gun controls on "especially" assault weapons are doing it due to the sandyhook shootings and thus using emotion to push an agenda. When in fact most killings are done with handguns! The side against any of these controls (like registration, background checks, and even bans) are once again using emotion along with lots of money from a lobby that makes huge profits off of the sale of these weapons. Simple truth is most Americans think background checks are a good idea.
You said you feared that if there was a registry that the govt or atf could look your name up and what not but you know they can already. And lets just say that the govt wanted to round up everyone's guns (though that hasn't happened though it's been pushed every time a democrat is in office) you really think that registry or not that it would make a difference?