[robertusa123]

just posing a scenario. Been trying to think like a gun hating politicians, trying to get around the 2nd amendment in order to ban gun ownership. I think I figured out how they are going to do it. They will use the IRS taxation and insurance, they will not out law guns they will just pass mandatory insurance laws that will make it too expensive for the average gun owners to afford to do so. It will be just like Obama care you will have to buy liability insurance in order to own a gun. And if you don't buy the insurance you will have to pay a fee/tax. I can just see the pitch every one should have insurance in case of a mishap and someone gets killed or injured by your gun. What responsible gun owner wouldn't want that. but heres the problem. if every gun owner is required to have lets say 1 million dollars liability insurance, it will open a flood gate of law suits because the slip and fall lawyers going to see the dollars signs every time theres a shooting no matter how justified. then theres the cost of it. lets say the average cost is 100 a year. and then if i made the law i would not allow multiple gun to be covered by just one policy. so the cost goes up per gun I have 7, 3 hand gun and 4 rifles that would be 7 insurance policies times 7. thats 700 a year and that assuming the policy is only 100 a year I pay a lot more for auto insurance and that doesn't cover anywhere near one million. and of course if you don't buy the mandatory insurance you will be hit with a tax by the IRS and just think what would happen if you don't pay them.

 

[bkt]

Sure, after Obamacare the government can mandate a level of training that is unnecessary and expensive (overseen by government employees, of course), insurance for owning firearms - several million dollars per firearm to cover you in the event someone is hurt or killed by your firearm, and so on.

While this is possible, it's probably not likely even if Obama gets another four years. Never say never, though; anything is possible these days.

 

[dog2000tj]

like bkt said, thanks to the SCOTUS the Fed's can tax us just about any way they choose

want to buy a Beta mag? sure, only $239 at CheaperthanDirt ..... plus $1000 TAX!
want a Ergo pistol grip? sure, only $19 at BravoCompany .... plus $1000 TAX!
want a Vortex flash suppressor? sure, only $60 at Midway .... don't forget that $1000TAX!


not only Obama ... but at least 2/3'ds of the Congress needs to be laid off as well come Nov 12'!

 

[c3shooter]

Robert- welcome to the forum- when you get a minute, drop by the intro thread and say howdy. You DO have a very good point- a lot of stuff starts in a roundabout way. They got Al Capone on income tax evasion- and the FBI went after John Dilllinger for interstate transportation of a stolen car.

 

[PanBaccha]

just posing a scenario. Been trying to think like a gun hating politicians, trying to get around the 2nd amendment in order to ban gun ownership. I think I figured out how they are going to do it. They will use the IRS taxation and insurance, they will not out law guns they will just pass mandatory insurance laws that will make it too expensive for the average gun owners to afford to do so. It will be just like Obama care you will have to buy liability insurance in order to own a gun. And if you don't buy the insurance you will have to pay a fee/tax. I can just see the pitch every one should have insurance in case of a mishap and someone gets killed or injured by your gun. What responsible gun owner wouldn't want that. but heres the problem. if every gun owner is required to have lets say 1 million dollars liability insurance, it will open a flood gate of law suits because the slip and fall lawyers going to see the dollars signs every time theres a shooting no matter how justified. then theres the cost of it. lets say the average cost is 100 a year. and then if i made the law i would not allow multiple gun to be covered by just one policy. so the cost goes up per gun I have 7, 3 hand gun and 4 rifles that would be 7 insurance policies times 7. thats 700 a year and that assuming the policy is only 100 a year I pay a lot more for auto insurance and that doesn't cover anywhere near one million. and of course if you don't buy the mandatory insurance you will be hit with a tax by the IRS and just think what would happen if you don't pay them.

There is another way currently being considered by the United Nations, thanks largely to Hilary Clinton & Barack Obama, that gives them the option to declare a global ban on ammo. Thereby negating the usefulness of firearms.

 

[levelcross]

Way ahead of you on this one, I received a email about 2 years ago that had a clip of the Obama care act verbiage. It stated that owning a firearm disqualified you from having health insurance, as well as smoking, so you would be subject to the fines and penalties for not having insurance.

I could not find it anywhere but that email, so I do not know if it is true or B/S. I still have not found anything on guns in the Obama care, or anything that makes any sense at all for that much. There is also supposed to be a section requiring the IRS to have ALL banking information and access to your accounts, under the slow or non payment clause. Guess the to big to fail banks will go under pretty quick then as I will only deal with cash at this point.

 

[locutus]

Sorry I can't remember the state, but there was one of the NE states about 20 years ago, where a state legislator introduced a bill that would have required a 40 hour training course in the safery, use and legality of handguns every year, and a 20 hour course every year for rifles and shotguns.

These courses would have been conducted by the state police at the police academy once a year.
No fee was specified, but you can imagine what it would have been.
Of course it was laughed out of committee back then, but today it just might be taken seriously.

Again, they know they can't outlaw guns. But they can regulate them out of existance.

Many EU countries have done exactly this. The rich can still have their lawyers do the paperwork and get the permits for exorbitant fees, but middle class "Joe lunchbox" types just can't own a gun.



It isn't illegal for "Joe Lunchbox" to own a gun, he just can't afford the permit fees, and/or so-called "training" requirements.

Keep a sharp eye out for "reasonable" safety proposals.

 

[Tackleberry1]

The potential scams are endless and mind numbing...to dwel on them before there proposed is pointless.

Ultimately, nothing short of a second civil war will restore and guarantee liberty be it guns or any other encroached upon freedom.

All of us have already decided that the current status quo is acceptable so the only question is...what would it take to push you beyond peaceful acceptance and into violent opposition?

Mandatory Registration?
Mandatory Confiscation?
Excessive Taxation?
Imprisonment for Violations?

If you answered yes to any of the above your either a hippocrite or a coward.

Many of our fellow citizens already live under these abuses of our liberty so if not already acting...your blowing hot air.

Tack

 

[orangello]

The feds can make whatever laws they want; i've complied with all i plan to. More laws = more criminals.

 

[USEBOTHHANDS]

the only problem is................ALL OF US COMING TOGETHER AS ONE UNIT AND NOT GETTIN TAKEN OUT BY THE MILITARY (OR MERCS) IN SMALL, UNORGANIZED, ROUST-ABOUT GANGS.

 

[UKShootist]

Look to the UK if you want an example of gun control by stealth (As well as obstructive laws). The absolute ludicrous performance we have to go through to acquire a firearm would stun you all. apart from all the law, which I won't bore you all with, as we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, the side lines in obstruction are amazing. If I want to buy a new firearm and I haven't got a space on my firearms licence (we have to provide a 'good reason' to own every firearm. Self defence is categorically prohibited as a 'good reason' except in Northern Ireland for some reason ) I have to apply for a slot, which requires me to submit in full an application for every firearm I currently own as well as a new one. This can take up to a couple of months to sort out.

I can buy a limited quantity of ammunition, usually 200 for centrefire, and 500 for rimfire. and keep only a limited quantity, usually 250 for centrefire, 600 for rimfire. Exceed this and I commit a criminal offence which will almost certainly mean my firearms licence will be revoked. If I want to purchase expanding ammunition, that requires a separate authorisation, which you won't get unless you prove you are hunting. Getting permission to hunt here is not easy, as there ain't that much land. And any land has to be 'cleared' by the police as suitable for the calibre requested, unless you have an 'open' firearms licence, which is granted usually to someone who has hunted for five years (the duration of a firearms certificate) without incident.

It get's difficult if you want two rifles of the same calibre. If I have a 10/22, for instance to use in club comps, and want another semi auto, I have to find a separate reason, such as hunting with a night sight, as I already have my 'good reason' filled by the 10/22. We have to be very creative if we want to gather any quantity of arms. Of course, all pistols are banned in UK (Except for Northern Ireland, for some reason )

Just about every UK shooter knows someone who has abandoned the sport because of the PITA procedures and paperwork. I've barely scratched the surface of the situation here. Overall, just about every aspect of firearms ownership is subject to endless obstruction from the administration. Interestingly, the very same administrators who, if they had done their job properly, would have prevented all but one of the major shooting spree incidents that have been used to justify our onerous firearms laws.

 

[Ranger-6]

If guns were insured, licensed, and plated like that of a vehicle, it might put a crippling effect on ownership.

 

[WebleyFosbery38]

Anyone have a doggy? Guess what, your homeowners insurance can tax you for that! If it werent sanctioned by our government, they couldnt charge us extra to have a pet! Firearms are the next Insurance company Elephant in the room, if you own them, you are gonna have to have insurance at some point and the way things are going, it will be sooner, not later.

Do you think its gonna be cheap and reasonable to cover yourself for owning a firearm? The possibilities of damage, death and injury make it a lucrative tax, after all, once insured, its a goldmine and if you hurt yourself or someone else with one, the cost will be huge therefor the premiums for coverage are gonna be huge also!

Doctors, Lawyers and their focus groups hate firearms and lobby against them every day, why dont they do the same with cars that kill so many more each day than privately owned guns do each month?

UK Shootist is a voice we should listen to closely. His country is the epitome of FOOG Policy and law. Their Politi-crats have removed all possibility of their citizens ever becoming adults. No matter what the choice is, you gotta ask the Queen and her Henchmen for permission.

I have chatted with a semi famous gentleman in England that has one of the most complete collections of Webley Fosberry Pistols in the world. He's been collecting most of his life and was at one time a Semi Professional Bisley shooter on a regular basis. He no longer shoots; all of his Webley's sit silent in safes and showcases and he has reluctantly come to accept of that fact. Never again will his collection be anything but a museum.

We are way too close to that folks, so close you couldnt imagine. If Mr Milner can go from avid shooter enthusiast to archivist in 30 years time, why wouldnt we think it could happen here?

 

[orangello]

If Mr Milner can go from avid shooter enthusiast to archivist in 30 years time, why wouldnt we think it could happen here?

Don't forget, my ancestors (and maybe yours too) either left or were kicked out of all those decent, serf-filled countries with all that "successful" gun control.