17 replies to this topic

[Kafkaesque]

http://beta.congress...text?q=h.r. 226

H.R. 226: a bill introduced for Americans to turn in their guns voluntarily for money.

It lists what the consider assault weapons, or other weapons such as pistols or semi-automatics.

SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT. ``(a) Allowance of Credit.-- ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.


© Assault Weapon.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `specified assault weapon'
means any of the following:
``(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
thereof:
``(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM,
MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93,
VEPR,
``(ii) AR-10,
``(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite
M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,
``(iv) AR70,
``(v) Calico Liberty,
``(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or
Dragunov SVU,
``(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,
or FNC,
``(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,
``(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1,
``(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,
``(xi) M1 Carbine,
``(xii) Saiga,
``(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800,
``(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,
``(xv) SLG 95,
``(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,
``(xvii) Steyr AUG,
``(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14,
``(xix) Tavor,
``(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or
Thompson 1927 Commando, or
``(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Gali

Edited by Eonwe, 17 January 2013 - 08:55 PM.

[aztek]

junky ak costs 300-400, tax credit 2000, hm, sounds like a buissness opportunity

[Kafkaesque]

Except for the fact they want you to voluntarily disarm yourself..

[F3SS]

aztek, on 17 January 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

junky ak costs 300-400, tax credit 2000, hm, sounds like a buissness opportunity

It's a tax credit. 300-400 is about what I would save if I didn't have to pay taxes on 2g's, if not less. It's no deal. Besides, Eonwe is right. Between things like this and something I heard about earlier where you won't be allowed to pass guns down after death through inheritance they are just trying to disarm us by attrition.

[Kafkaesque]

-Mr_Fess-, on 17 January 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

It's a tax credit. 300-400 is about what I would save if I didn't have to pay taxes on 2g's, if not less. It's no deal. Besides, Eonwe is right. Between things like this and something I heard about earlier where you won't be allowed to pass guns down after death through inheritance they are just trying to disarm us by attrition.

Precisely. They have introduced the concepts to the general populace; now it's a matter of implementing said concepts.

By associating guns with Obamacare they've already begun to classify gun ownership as a disease. Gun registration could lead to difficulties to passing down guns to children; there is no law that says you can't, anyways. My grandpa passed down his hunting rifle to me, for instance. Smart technology, like not allowing guns to fire unless the person who purchased is using it would make it very difficult to pass down weapons. We're simply in the first steps. Attrition and doctor decrees are how they aim to disarm the population at first. New York already has thousands of gun owners who are now criminals because of a ex post facto law - which is criminalizing someone for doing something that was previously legal; like making a category of illegal guns out of already legal guns - which violates the U.S. Constitution, under Article 1, Sect. 9 and Article 1, Sect.10

[F3SS]

Eonwe, on 18 January 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

Precisely. They have introduced the concepts to the general populace; now it's a matter of implementing said concepts.

By associating guns with Obamacare they've already begun to classify gun ownership as a disease. Gun registration could lead to difficulties to passing down guns to children; there is no law that says you can't, anyways. My grandpa passed down his hunting rifle to me, for instance. Smart technology, like not allowing guns to fire unless the person who purchased is using it would make it very difficult to pass down weapons. We're simply in the first steps. Attrition and doctor decrees are how they aim to disarm the population at first. New York already has thousands of gun owners who are now criminals because of a ex post facto law - which is criminalizing someone for doing something that was previously legal; like making a category of illegal guns out of already legal guns - which violates the U.S. Constitution, under Article 1, Sect. 9 and Article 1, Sect.10

Thanks for the info in the last sentence. If a doctor asks me if I own guns I'm gonna tell him it isn't his concern wether I have any or not.

[aztek]

lol you guys took it too seriously.

i realize all that, lol

and agree with you.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Why not say "sales of these guns are banned" but not "possession of these guns are illegal"?
That way noone is punished for doing something previously illegal but "action is seen to be taken". Win-Win surely?

[Legaia]

Wearer of Hats, on 18 January 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Why not say "sales of these guns are banned" but not "possession of these guns are illegal"?
That way noone is punished for doing something previously illegal but "action is seen to be taken". Win-Win surely?

I sorta think that would work, but I think the "no grandfather clause" that New York implemented is a sign of things to come.

Edited by Legaia, 18 January 2013 - 12:57 AM.

[Kafkaesque]

Legaia, on 18 January 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

I sorta think that would work, but I think the "no grandfather clause" that New York implemented is a sign of things to come.

Each state is different of course. They can choose to enforce federal law on a local level or not.

I hope New York isn't the first of many, however.

[questionmark]

Eonwe, on 19 January 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

Each state is different of course. They can choose to enforce federal law on a local level or not.

I hope New York isn't the first of many, however.

It is not, in related news:

NY Times said:

Steps to Disarm (Get Gift Card) at Ohio Church


CINCINNATI — Outside a squat Cincinnati church within sight of an elementary school, dozens of people with guns braced against the Tuesday morning cold, waiting. They had guns in their hands and guns in their handbags, guns swaddled in blankets and guns plopped in plastic bags. A .22 here, a sawed-off there, guns everywhere, a few still loaded.

Inside the church, two private security professionals with Glocks at the hip went over the ground rules for the gun buyback program about to begin. No police on the premises, no questions asked and no more than 10 people in the lobby at a time. Guns must be deemed operable before being exchanged for a $100 gift card. Oh, and the guns must be kept in bags, with muzzles down.

“I don’t want them coming in with the weapon and just saying, ‘Here you go,’ ” explained Michael Brooks, 44, an electrician by trade and the day’s lead security man, whose job was to create a controlled environment out of dozens of strangers walking into a church with guns.

Read more

[Rafterman]

Have you guys ever seen what typically gets turned in at such events?

Crap, crap and more crap.  Frankly, a lot of stuff that I would be scared to pull the trigger because it might explode in my hand.

Well worth the gift card in my opinion.

As far as turning in my M1 Carbine or M1 Garand for a tax credit - go **** yourself.

[Kafkaesque]

questionmark, on 19 January 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

It is not, in related news:

I suppose it was only a matter of time until other states adopted the same type of formula.

[Uncle Sam]

Those who turn their guns in are sheep in line for slaughter, they have nothing to protect their family and themselves. Criminals and even our government will abuse this chance if they get it.

[Kafkaesque]

Uncle Sam, on 20 January 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

Those who turn their guns in are sheep in line for slaughter, they have nothing to protect their family and themselves. Criminals and even our government will abuse this chance if they get it.

All governments are opportunists. If they can't force something unto an armed public they can work on disarming the public.

Then it's much easier to pass corrupt legislation or bully the population through intimidating acts of violence and cruelty.