I fouond this, posted in the NFA forum, by Jim Keenan, and I think it has a bearing here. It deals with the NFA, as originally proposed.
Quote:
Actually, the Attorney General, one Homer S. Cummings, and the FDR administration proposed a sliding transfer tax that was intended to be prohibitory. IIRC, the transfer tax was $5000 on a machinegun, $2000 on a handgun, $1000 on a rifle and $500 on a shotgun. In addition, there would be a tax of $50 on each round of handgun ammo, $20 on each round of rifle ammo, $5 on each shotshell, and $.50 on each round of .22 ammo. Multiply by around $40 for today's dollar values.
All guns had to be registered and no inheritance would be allowed. But NOTE, as Sen. Obama emphasizes, no one would TAKE AWAY any guns. Until you die, then into the furnace went your guns.
When Congress got done in 1934, the bill was watered down to what is essentially the NFA as it exists today as part of GCA '68.
|
Think about this, every time you hear some politician say how they don't want to take away our guns. I believe that neither side will work for our best interest when it comes to gun ownership. The difference, as I see it, is that one side will gladly sign any anti-gun bill that hits the President's desk, and the other side will actively work to see that such a bill does cross that same desk.
Mr Cooper, by donating money to the side I believe will actively work against gun ownership, has done a disservice to both himself, his employees, and all of us. Remember that even if they keep their promise not to "take them away", that doesn't mean that they won't make it more difficult and expensive to own, or allow us to buy any more (or buy ammo), or even sell what we have, or pass them on to our children. They can do all that, and still have "kept their promise".
And, considering how many other promises that they have made, and later broken, I prefer not to give them the opportunity.