April 14, 2016, 06:48 AM | #26 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,860
|
Ah, who could forget the Bonus Army marchers? With their ragged clothes, camped out in a shanty town, veterans all, a few with family members, PEACEFULLY BEGGING the government for help, in the form of an early payment for what had been promised??
Apparently nearly everyone has. And what happened. Army troops under Gen MacArther, Major Eisenhower, and Major Patton, using gas, fixed bayonets, cavalry with drawn sabers, and even TANKS, were sent in, and the 20,000 peaceful protesters were ...dispersed. Officially, no one was killed. Officially. Kind of our own version of Tiananamin Square. A shameful chapter in our history, but one that should be remembered, and pointed out to all those who think "it can't happen here". It already has.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 14, 2016, 04:45 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
An interesting thought: If the Marianas' tax is declared an Unconstitutional infringement of 2nd Amendment rights, what implications might that have for the $200 registration/transfer tax on machine guns, etc?
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
April 14, 2016, 08:14 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
|
|
April 14, 2016, 11:42 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,860
|
Quote:
Second, and most likely, is that even if the argument is brought in court, and we "win", it might not result in repeal of the tax, without further court fights. There are so many "dodges" and "loopholes" possible it looks to be a very daunting task. Whether urban legend or actual fact, I cannot say, but there is a story about income tax protestors, who seemed to be fairly common some time ago, and then we never heard about them again. Supposedly their claim was the tax was unconstitutional because it was never properly ratified. The outcome of the story goes that they finally got their day in court, and the court agreed, the tax was never properly ratified, HOWEVER, since we have been paying it for 80+ years (at the time) the court ruled it was a valid tax, and we would continue paying it. Something like this MIGHT be a possible outcome of any challenge to the NFA tax as we have been paying them since 1934. The outlook for success is not totally black, but it is bleak. There are two main sentiments about the NFA, on our side, those who feel it should be fought, with the ideal of repeal, and those who while they don't like it, believe we are better off "not poking the bear". In other words, if we bring the issue into the public eye, bring the horribly mis and under-informed public into the issue, the anti's will have a field day, shift public opinion even further off base, and we will lose more than we gain. They feel that the best we could get (and it is unlikely) is the status quo with the tax "adjusted" to today's money levels. What is felt to be more likely is not just the tax being increased but even further restrictions. Logic, reason, and our rights, will not matter. We cannot even count on support from the usual sources. I know several otherwise fine folks, and staunch 2nd Amendment supporters in general, that draw their personal line at machineguns. One friend once told me that she would trust ME with a machinegun, they were NOT something for the general public. We have over 80 years of both law and propaganda demonizing machineguns in private hands. The entertainment industry has been showing the public only bad guys with full auto (other than war movies) for such a long time, its not something you can change in one fell swoop. Even if by some miracle, we did manage to repeal the NFA, I expect some concerned legislators would instantly produce new and likely even further reaching legislation to restrict or even completely ban such arms, the Heller decision not withstanding. There is the remote possibility that such a law when it gets to the High Court could not only be upheld, but Heller might even be overturned. The people sitting on the court at the time will decide, and right now, it looks like our "friends" on the court are fewer than they were, and not likely to increase their numbers. I remind you that the US SUPREME COURT only upheld our legal individual right to arms by ONE VOTE. ONE VOTE. think on that...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 15, 2016, 12:56 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 1,277
|
If people knew what they are missing, then we will have a chance to repeal 922(o). Machine guns are so rare, that people don't know what they're missing; so it's a self perpetuating cycle of deprivation.
That's why gun owners have to stop disparaging F/A simulators like the slide fire type devices or the binary triggers. People need to get a taste of what's been taken from them. When all this stuff is common, then there will be a chance to repeal 922(0).
__________________
Sent from Motorola DynaTac 8000x |
April 15, 2016, 08:10 AM | #31 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
||
April 15, 2016, 10:44 AM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,860
|
Quote:
Also, it only applies once, when the item is manufactured. Before it is sold to the public (or distributors / dealers). Yes, it is a tax, and it is on guns, etc., but it is not significant in the sense that it changes they way people buy, own, or use the product. Most folks don't know about it, because they never SEE it. WE don't "pay" it, it is a "cost of doing business" for manufacturers, like many other taxes, fees, and permit costs. Yes, makers pass this cost on to us in the form of the retail price, but they do that with ALL their costs. There is a world of difference to the consumer between a tax the maker includes in the price, and buying an item at retail, and THEN getting hit with ANOTHER (special and specific) tax. Personally, the firearm "tax" that bugs me most, currently is the "tax" we have to pay for FFL dealers to run background checks. I don't care what they call it, to me, when the LAW spells out a cost you must pay, it is a tax. Taxes can be in the "open" and still be sneaky and not thought about most of the time. The gasoline taxes are like that. About the only time people ever think of them is when the state wants to raise them, again. Folks may know, but most are not really aware that the cost of a gallon of gasoline is pretty low but the price of that gallon is not, due to Federal and State taxes. Depending on where you live, somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the price of that gas is taxes. The main reason people don't usually think about those high taxes is that they are built into the price charged at the pump. If the pump price to fill your tank was $5, and then when you paid the cashier, you got charged an additional $30 in taxes, people would scream, loudly, EVERY DAY! It isn't, we don't, and so, we pay, and pay, and pay... AND, we BLAME the oil companies!!!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 15, 2016, 11:44 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,254
|
Federal Aid Division -- The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act
Bringing Wildlife Back -- Then and Now America the Beautiful is still the home of wondrous numbers and varieties of wild creatures. Yet, only a few decades ago, wildlife's survival was very much in doubt. The early settlers had encountered a spectacular abundance of wildlife. But, in their zeal to conquer an untamed continent, they squandered that legacy for centuries, wiping out some species and reducing others to a pitiful remnant of their original numbers. Breakthrough: Pittman-Robertson Act Then a remarkable thing happened. At the urging of organized sportsmen, State wildlife agencies, and the firearms and ammunition industries, Congress extended the life of an existing 10 percent tax on ammunition and firearms used for sport hunting, and earmarked the proceeds to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. The result was called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson (or "P-R") Act after its principal sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The measure was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937. Since then, numerous species have rebuilt their populations and extended their ranges far beyond what they were in the 1930's. Among them are the wild turkey, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, wood duck, beaver, black bear, giant Canada goose, American elk, desert bighorn sheep, bobcat, mountain lion, and several species of predatory birds. Shared Costs, Shared Benefits Federal Funding from P-R pays for up to 75 percent of project costs, with the States putting up at least 25 percent. The assurance of a steady source of earmarked funds has enabled the program's administrators, both State and Federal, to plan projects that take years to complete, as short-term strategies seldom come up with lasting solutions where living creatures are involved. In the more than 50 years since P-R began, over $2 billion in Federal excise taxes has been matched by more than $500 million in State funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Benefits to the economy have been equally impressive. National surveys show that hunters now spend some $10 billion every year on equipment and trips. Non-hunting nature lovers spend even larger sums to enjoy wildlife, on travel and on items that range from bird food to binoculars, from special footwear to camera equipment. Areas famous for their wildlife have directly benefited from this spending, but so have sporting goods and outdoor equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers. Thousands of jobs have been created. Emphasis added. In case anyone's interested, the rest of this is here. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federal...robertson.html |
April 18, 2016, 10:40 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States
Read more: http://www.atr.org/1000-gun-tax-push...#ixzz46ExD56jv
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
April 19, 2016, 06:55 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
I have thought about that and it is depressing. It is astounding that the U.S. Supreme Court almost declared a right, in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, not a right at all. An alarming number of U.S. Supreme Court justices seem to explain away an individual right by saying it is a collective right or basically no right at all. Can you imagine an argument, for example, that the 1st and 5th Amendments were a collective right? |
|
April 19, 2016, 07:01 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
@ATN082268 - the 1st Amendment survived by a single vote in the Citizens United case, so yes I can see that being rationalized away also.
|
April 19, 2016, 02:37 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 123
|
The Citizens United case is debatable. It confirmed first amendment protections for corporations and other organizations, it wasn't an issue of individual rights, which is exactly what we argue the second amendment protects.
I personally don't have a problem with corporations saying whatever they want, but I have a big problem with them buying politicians, and this case confirmed that it's legal for them to do so. Our government is supposed to be for the PEOPLE, and right now it's for the CORPORATIONS. |
April 19, 2016, 04:23 PM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,860
|
Quote:
While I admit it goes on in the real world, no one, corporation, special interest group or individual can legally "buy" a politician. They call that bribery, and its against the law. The trick is, of course, to be able to prove it in court. The law was, and should have been struck down, not because of its intent (which was good) but because of the specific wording, and the consequences of that wording. It didn't JUST prohibit "corporations" from spending money on political causes. Despite that fact that corporations spending was all the press talked about, the law, and the case was more than that. If you want politicians who cannot be bought, the only way is to elect politicians who will not be bought. And those people are rather thin on the ground in politics, these days. History shows that they always have been.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 20, 2016, 03:46 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 502
|
deductible?
Since its a tax would it be fully deductible on your income tax?
bb |
April 20, 2016, 06:16 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
It should be deductible, it's touted as a sales or excise tax.
|
April 20, 2016, 08:59 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2014
Posts: 1,965
|
If their Governor signs the bill into law, don't hold your breath on it being overturned. The only way it can be is by the voters.
We thought that would work here, but oblamer got elected for a second term as we all know. Same there, the turds got elected by the voters. The tax thing has been in the US for quite a few years. When I say this, I think of tobacco for one. Then there was the EPA in infinite wisdom decided to do it to Refrigerant 12 in order to force it out. A one dollar can of R12 rose to approximately $170 per can....all with taxes. Now they are doing the same with R22 and there are still millions of AC units using it, but if you have to have some added to the system, might as well get a home improvement loan to pay for it. |
April 20, 2016, 09:45 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2016
Posts: 167
|
Does the new tax cover gun parts too?
What about selling / buying the gun in separate parts? If they are able to successfully tax guns out of people's ability to purchase them, my guess is that we'll just start printing them ourselves. 3D metal printing is coming a long way fast and has been shown to hold up quite well in Jet engine parts. Even (Boeing?) is now manufacturing jet engine fuel nozzles using 3D metal printing. The technology has been shown to produce a better part, faster and cheaper.. and, because its 3D printed, they can include design characteristics that were not possible with conventional manufacturing. Making a handgun or rifle should be a walk in the park by comparison. |
April 20, 2016, 10:00 PM | #43 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
Also, keep in mind many of those aerospace parts are many times as expensive as an entire pistol. I worked on one aluminum part that I calculated was worth more than its weight in gold. |
|
April 20, 2016, 10:23 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
But as for taking over the government that was the other side. A group of business people tried to hire Gen. Smedley Butler to stage a coup detat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot While it wasn't a very serious threat, it is the one we have records for. FDR faced an assassination attempt that took the life of Anton Cernak. I'd say that gave him a reason to dislike guns. |
|
April 21, 2016, 09:51 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
Quote:
If gun ownership becomes that hard, we'll most likely just do what most everyone else on the planet does - revert to knives and clubs. And steal guns from the government.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
|
April 21, 2016, 10:16 AM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,860
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|
|