A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax -- and

[In It to Win It]

it could pass Congress without GOP votes.

Business Insider via Yahoo News

The US has experienced a string of mass shootings in the past three weeks in Buffalo, New York; Uvalde, Texas; and Tulsa, Oklahoma, that have left scores of adults and children dead.

The recent violence is prompting one House Democrat to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.

"What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to to qualify for reconciliation."

New AR-15-style guns range from $500 to over $2,000 depending on location, NBC News reported. That means a 1,000% tax on the weapon would add $5,000 to $20,000 to their final sales price — and would keep it out of reach from many young Americans.

[Walleye]

1. Do it!!!

Time to get creative

[lindysalsagal]

2. Absolutely.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Yes, we're always told money brings stability and wisdom

so the GOP would go along with this whole hog, amiright?

[moonshinegnomie]

4. put the tax on ar-15 ammo too.

[viva la]

5. Good ideas-- too many AR-15s are already bought

Taxing ammo would make it more expensive to use the already purchased ones too.

[pandr32]

76. Excellent idea

[Fla_Democrat]

6. What is ar-15 ammo?

What is ar-15 ammo?

[intheflow]

8. Bullets. n/t

[Fla_Democrat]

10. So... every bullet?

Every caliber? From .22 short to .50 BMG? Should it include .410 to 4 gauge (do they even still make 4 gauge?) let's say 10 gauge?

Might be a tough sell....

[intheflow]

12. Bullets aren't sold individually.

[Fla_Democrat]

17. Depends, but ok

But back to the point. Should the tax apply to every caliber that ar-15s are chambered in?

[intheflow]

20. Can a bullet in any chamber kill someone?

Then, yes.

[Fla_Democrat]

40. Thank you

[moonshinegnomie]

19. it can be tailored to the muzzle velocity of the round

its the velocity that is responsible for the devastating effect of ar-15's

the energy of the bullet is 1/2mv^2 where m is the mass and v is the speed of the bullet.
a typical ar-15 bullet travels 4x as fast as a typical handgun bullet. even though the ar-15 bullet weighs 1/2-1/3 as much as a handgun bullet the speed difference give it 5x as much energy or more

[NickB79]

22. 5.56mm fires at the same muzzle velocity as most deer rifles

2700-3200 fps has been standard since the 1940's.

You'd need more criteria than just muzzle velocity. I've toyed with the idea of cumulative kinetic energy. For example, a .300 Win Mag bolt action rifle holds 3 rounds, and each one puts out around 3300 ft-lb of energy. So, the rifle holds 10,000 ft-lb of energy.

10 rounds of 5.56mm also hold 10,000 ft-lb of energy.

25 rounds of 9mm, same.

In the UK they do something similar with air rifles. Over 12 ft-lb, and that pellet rifle is legally defined as a real gun. So, pellet guns are built to stay right at 11.9 ft-lb.

[CaptainTruth]

50. That's a very interesting idea...

[NickB79]

61. Might have to recalibrate with handgun ammo

Set the ft-lb threshold to 500 for handguns instead, that leaves 12 rd in 9mm, 10 in .45, etc.

[Sgent]

168. I'd also give a big reduction

for how fast they can be shot. Me with a .308 lever action or my brother with his .223 bolt action both with 5 round magazines are a lot less lethal than someone with a 7.72 or 5.56 chambered AR-15 and 30 round magazines.

That said I would be in favor of banning all semi-auto rifles and pistols at this point except for maybe .22 rimfire.

[CaptainTruth]

172. Limiting rate of fire is also an interesting idea.

[James48]

85. I don't think an "energy tax " will work.

You will get people cutting off the end of their barrel in order to reduce muzzle velocity below the tax limit.
That would be counter productive.

[Lancero]

148. Getting guncels to destroy their own guns is counter-productive?

Lopping off the barrel might work for shotguns, where accuracy isn't exactly a prime concern given the nature of its ammo, but it's not going to work out well for any gun where you want at least a bare minimum of accuracy.

If they're going to saw off the barrel of a rifle, that'd cut the range and accuracy. At that point they'd be left with a functionally useless pistol.

[moonshinegnomie]

174. if you saw off the barrel of a rifle there a good chance you commit a federal crime

there are strict limits to barrel and over all lengths of rifles. to short and it falls under teh same rules as a fully auto weapon.

possession of one without teh required permit is a major felony.

[The Bopper]

56. Kinda gaslighting us

I would say any caliber chambered for frontline military use. You can buy an “assault “ type rifle in many calibers but you won’t find them being used by a military. Having said that there is no legitimate civilian use for 50 cal. Your “all caliber “ BS is just gaslighting us.

[Fla_Democrat]

81. So, a .223 is to be taxed

But a .300 AAC isn't.



Even though it is just a necked down .223. They use the same lower, same BCG, same magazine, just a different barrel (maybe a different gas block, I haven't built a .300 upper). The 7.62 X 39 (AK, SKS, AR) would be taxed, but not the 7.62 X 35mm (300 Blackout)

9 mm (the lung blower) should be taxed, but not 10 mm. Both of which are easily found in AR platforms, so could be covered under the "put the tax on ar-15 ammo too" umbrella. Although, the AR's in 9mm are not typically called -15's, but the ones in .22 lr are called 15-22's.

For the record, my all caliber was in response to an answer of " Bullets. n/t". Which I believe was confirmed by the reply of " Can a bullet in any chamber kill someone? Then, yes.". It wasn't "gaslighting", it was a RFI to a specific post.

As for no legitimate purpose for a .50 BMG, I don't know. I live in Florida (see the name), where deer (males) here weigh am average of 115lb. But I know that other game, in other states tend to be much larger, and have larger open spaces to hunt in. If I was going to research it, I certainly wouldn't think of using DU as a source.

[moonshinegnomie]

175. so tax ALL rifle ammo that has an enertgy over x amount

a normal hunter doesnt need more than 10 or so rounds. if he doesnt he shouldnt be hunting.

use a 1000% tax on teh ammo and a strict limit of monthly purchase quantities

[iemanja]

106. This is their game

to pretend you need a gun enthusiast's knowledge of guns to even propose anything. They are nothing if not transparent.

[EX500rider]

147. When trying to pass useful laws it helps to know the subject matter.

Or you will pass useless laws.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

150. Like the body armor ban in NY

It appears they banned kevlar but did not address rifle plates and plate carriers. Which, honestly, i'm not sure how effective a ban on those would be since they are literally a steel plate and a harness that holds the plate to the body, in most cases. I guess ceramic plates would be easier to control.

[Jake97]

159. Like the California compliant sub 2000

No pistol grips allowed? Put a fin on it. It can still function like a pistol grip.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2021/04/07/sub2000-featureless/

[Kaleva]

166. So your issue is with the cartridge and not the gun itself

An AR-15 style gun chambered to fire shotgun shells is not an issue with you.

[whopis01]

67. Pretty sure AR-15s don't use 10 gauge... n/t

[KS Toronado]

79. Friend of mine has one chambered in 12 gauge

After questioning him why he needed that, I came away with gun humpers want or need to buy
the latest & greatest killing machines for bragging rights with their fellow gun humpers.
ie: "I got something you don't have, aren't you jealous?" Kinda like having a new Corvette with
all factory options plus aftermarket goodies.

[Fla_Democrat]

86. I don't know that

Some of those Turkish manufactures are a bit off the chain.



However, the wide range of ammo listed was geared towards a specific post, espousing an idea. I was seeking a clarification on that idea, which I received in a follow up post. Addressed here.... https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216764861#post81

[xmas74]

7. Not on the ammo

Put the tax on the magazine.

A tax on magazine can apply to certain magazine size, no matter the caliber. It would apply across the board.

[paleotn]

32. Bingo!

[Fla_Democrat]

99. 3D printer go Brrrrrrrrrrr

A story from 2011.....

https://www.pcworld.com/article/477238/criminals_find_new_uses_for_3d_printing.html








The FGC-9 was 2 years ago..... (wow, tempus fugit)

[xmas74]

103. Include if caught with ammo without a serial number on the magazine

Cartridge it should be an automatic federal crime,even if no other crime is committed.

[MichMan]

105. Maybe we can give the police blanket authority to stop and frisk people

to check for any illegal ammunition in anyone's possession.

I suppose it is always possible they might check for illegal drugs and open warrants at the same time.

[xmas74]

127. Maybe more like

They're pulled over for a tail light, officer notices weapon in vehicle, sees the mags and questions them. How about the little idiots out target shooting on country roads? At the most a misdemeanor for trespassing if the property owner files a complaint but if officer responds and discovers no serial numbers? Huh.

In my state there's a law that says our LEOs are not allowed to cooperate with feds for any gun cases. Maybe use magazines as a work around.

[MichMan]

132. In Lansing and some others, police are prohibited from stopping people for non moving violations

Even though they have shown from prior years that illegal guns are sometimes found as a result.

[Fla_Democrat]

120. Magazines would have to be serialized now?

Regulated under the NFA? Buy a gun, fill out a 4473. Buy a magazine, fill out a 4473. Buy ammunition, fill out a 4473.

I do like the idea of making firearm crimes federal. Less chance of DA's plea bargaining them down. It's that way with bank robberies, that's federal. Postal crimes, etc. Would have to see how it was laid out before I could go all in, but it is interesting. (FWIW, I heard someone mention that Friday on the radio, so I had a chance to kick it around a bit).

[xmas74]

126. Why shouldn't they be serialized?

It might be easier to catch someone with a serialized mag. Someone gets in a shootout, gets away, they'll probably take their weapon. Magazine, otoh, could be left behind in the confusion.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

151. What is to be done with the already existing ones?

Buyback? Confiscation? Can't grandfather them since few are serialized. And there are high hundreds of millions or low billions of them in circulation right now.

[NickB79]

15. There are about 50 different calibers AR's are chambered in

You probably mean 5.56mm, which is the most common one.

[Kaleva]

164. AR-15 style guns can be chambered to fire anything from .22 LRs to shotgun shells.

[Ferrets are Cool]

9. While I can back this sentiment, I can see the ads now...

"THE PARTY OF HIGHER TAXES" is trying to take away your guns.

You just know they will.

[Blecht]

30. Democratic leadership often thinks this way. It has to stop.

Not doing something because Republicans will use it for propaganda purposes is moronic.

Republicans will say it even if you don't do it, and people will believe it anyway.

Do something. Let the Republicans squawk and squirm. If they're squirming, we're winning.

[Novara]

38. Absolutely

Make them whine about it. I don't fucking care, just DO SOMETHING.

[MichMan]

39. Might as well just make banning of all guns an official party policy

It might be very effective the next election cycle.

[Blecht]

47. You say this as if Republicans are not already doing this

And nice strawman leap there.

Tax on ammo = banning all guns.

[MichMan]

48. Just saying if the intent is to make Republicans squirm, just go all the way

A tax on ammunition clearly won't be ruled constitutional, so it will only be symbolism anyway.

[Blecht]

55. Symbolism is good!

Action is good!

Inaction is the opposite of good.

[gldstwmn]

113. How about we just run on a message of trying to stop the murder of children?

Not effective enough?

[paleotn]

36. Countered by ads....

featuring murdered school children, teachers, doctors, medical receptionists, grocery store shoppers.....just in the last couple weeks. I can think of many ways to blunt the "take my gunz!"

[Fla_Democrat]

88. If they were smart....

If they were smart, they would go the class angle. Nothing says elitisms quite like pointing out how the libruls in their gated compounds want to deny the same right of self protection to poor and middle class, that they enjoy surrounded by armed security.

[Sogo]

96. This label of the Democrats as "elites" is the biggest crock of BS

on the planet. WE'RE not the ones with multi-billionaire donors....

Your argument is the same as what was pulled out in a discussion I had with a libertarian the other day. The fact is that the self-protection for the poor and middle class doesn't often come in the form of an AR-15, and that's what is being addressed here. Self-protection is not assault.

[Fla_Democrat]

101. Then, the ads won't work, huh?

Wanna wager they won't be run?

[Jedi Guy]

141. "WE'RE not the ones with multi-billionaire donors..."

Are you sure about that?

Approximately 100 billionaires have donated to candidates seeking the Democratic nomination alone, an analysis of the Federal Election Commission database by Forbes found. Research firm Wealth-X reported that there are 705 billionaires in the US in its 2019 Billionaire Census.

California Senator Kamala Harris seems to be billionaires' favorite liberal candidate: 46 of them have donated to her campaign in 2019 thus far, according to Forbes. The donors did not just give directly to campaigns, however. In addition to campaign donations, called hard money, many donors gave even more in the form of soft money, or donations given to groups like super PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Of those 100 billionaires who donated to Democratic politicians/PACs, the top 10 donated a total of a little less than $50 million during the 2020 cycle. The GOP probably receives more support from the ultra-wealthy than does the Democratic Party, but it's simply not true to say that "we're not the ones with multi-billionaire donors."

[Sogo]

91. And we can say "We are passing measures to keep your kids alive in school,

but the Republicans are trying to stop us."

[Abnredleg]

11. It's Unconstitutional

We keep on having this discussion about taxing guns out of existence despite the fact that there is plenty of case law stating that making something unaffordable through taxes is the equivalent of confiscation.

How do people feel about a GOP administration increasing the cost of bandwidth on the DU site to the point where the owners can't afford to operate? They're not "technically" banning free speech.

[Takket]

13. You are correct on this

You can’t legally tax something out of existence. They sort of tried this with Cigarettes already and while they have high taxes, they couldn’t just tax them out of existence.

If you could do that Gop would have with abortion already.

[Buckeyeblue]

42. I don't think it is unconstitutional

There have been many SC cases which have established that congress has the ability to tax. If specialized taxes were unconstitutional we wouldn't have the extra taxes on booze, cigarettes, the hospitality industry, etc.

I think something like this could be a good idea. Since an outright ban may not hold up with this SC.

But who knows, this SC could declare taxes unconstitutional. I wouldn't put anything past them.

[MichMan]

52. Liquor,cigarettes and hotels are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights either

[Novara]

45. The Constitution says nothing about SPECIFIC guns.

This does not prohibit owning a gun.

Now, if you were talking about a 1000% tax on ALL firearms, then your argument would have merit.

Think of this as a very specific and narrow luxury tax. It does not preclude anyone from owning a gun.

[Abnredleg]

71. And the Constitution says nothing about SPECIFIC types of speech

Making bandwidth prohibitively expensive does not prohibit speech since there are other means of communication.

I'm not arguing that guns cannot be regulated, since the SC has upheld numerous restrictions. It's just that you can't play semantic games when passing legislation because the courts are going to be looking at motive. There are plenty of options such as magazine limits, background checks and red flag legislation that state's can legally pass.

[brooklynite]

14. Meaningless symbolism....

People respond to the proposal because "1,000%" sounds dramatic. It won't pass the Democratic House (despite the headline, nothing in the story indicates widespread support in the Democratic Caucus), much less the Senate.

[48656c6c6f20]

16. Wrong way to go.

They'll argue that is restricting gunz. I'm telling you go after the magazines, ammo, black powder, shit like that. And not a tax. Make it a must purchase liability insurance just like you do for your car. 30 round mag has the potential of killing 30 people. Must be insured at $1 million per potential death. You can have all the guns you want, but you're not guaranteed magazine's and bullets in the constitution. You'll pay for those.

[PTWB]

24. Actually ...

The courts have already ruled that ammunition is protected by the constitution.

[48656c6c6f20]

26. Where is the clause against mandating

Liability insurance? Is it before or after the missing comma?

[PTWB]

29. Did I say anything about liability insurance?

I have no idea if the courts have ruled on the constitutionality of that proposal.

I was merely pointing out that your other suggestion — that ammunition isn’t protected — is false, according to the courts.

[ripcord]

31. It is a violation of the First Amendment

Putting onerous taxes on exercising a right in order to restrict it has been deemed unconstitutional.

[MichMan]

25. That type of liability insurance would be very cheap.

The number of shootings is miniscule compared to the number of weapons in the overall population. That is assuming mandatory gun insurance is even legal in the first place.

Auto Insurance is mandatory, but there are millions driving around uninsured. In SE Michigan, there are multiple insurance providers that sell short term policies. People buy a few weeks worth, get their plates, and then never renew the policy. They go and do the same thing the following year.

[dsc]

78. They don't do that in NC

because insurance companies are required to report you to the state when you let your insurance lapse and the state suspends your license if you don't provide proof of insurance. I know this for a fact because when I switched companies I was reported by company A and had to provide proof of company B. I was 6 months from renewal of license at the time.

[NickB79]

33. Liability insurance doesn't pay for criminal acts

It wouldn't pay out if said ammo was used to murder someone.

[MichMan]

41. People here will just say make the payouts part of the same law

Dozens of posts here about mandatory gun insurance like they came up with something nobody ever thought of it before.

[dsc]

80. actually it does in some cases

If my car gets stolen and then the driver gets in an accident with my car, my insurance will pay.

[paleotn]

43. ANY legislation will be argued as restricting gunz.

[Novara]

46. So what? Isn't that the fucking point?

[paleotn]

66. Yes. My point is, the gun humpers will whine, throw fits...

go all psychotic and be generally unpleasant no matter what we do on gun control. So lets ignore them and do what needs to be done to make our society safer. They're going to get all in a froth about something anyway. Might as well give them a concrete reason vs. some half assed conspiracy.

[Novara]

104. I completely agree

[gldstwmn]

115. Thank you.

[EX500rider]

49. No insurance company is going to issue policies that cover illegal acts. nt

[waterwatcher123]

98. It is about insuring individuals for damages caused by guns (including unintentional damages).

The point is to make it less attractive to own certain types of weapons (assault weapons). You are right that no insurance company would purposely make a policy that covers illegal acts. But, the insurance requirement could reduce the likelihood that such acts are committed in the first place (no insurance could be the lever to make it impossible to purchase assault weapons, high capacity magazines, certain accessories and ammo, and to insure existing owners are properly trained and store their weapons safely).

There should be a victim's compensation fund supported by gun owners and companies as well. These shooters tend not to survive and most do not have the means to pay for what ends up being incredibly expensive medical and mental care for the victims and their families. Why should the victims, the victims families and society be responsible for the costs of this gun violence? This cost should fall on the gun companies and individuals who want such weapons.

[48656c6c6f20]

118. Bingo now you get it.

[Ferrets are Cool]

69. I agree that the insurance angle is a much better way to go. Raising taxes can be used against us

at the voting booth.

[C_U_L8R]

18. Tax the guns, the ammo and the components that make them.

Like gunpowder.

[fightforfreedom]

21. I want all semi-automatic rifles banned, not just military style weapons, we don't need them.

We have pump shotguns, bolt action rifles, that's all we need. Each bullet, shell, has to to manual loaded. We don't need rifles that fire every time you pull the trigger, with magazines that can hold 100 rounds. If we did this cops would not be out gunned and the crazies wouldn't be so brave.

[MichMan]

27. What about semi automatic handguns?

They are the ones used in the vast majority of shootings

[paleotn]

65. Absolutely.

Try this on for size. Semi auto pistols and long guns are tightly restricted thru an expansion of the Firearms Act of 1934 that put stringent controls on full auto. Same deal applies. You can have bolt, pump, lever or beak action, with magazines not greater than 5 rounds under the current background check then walk out of the store same day, weapon(s) in hand rules. Revolvers are tightly controlled. You've got to have a damn good reason, takes weeks with tons of paperwork. And "I'm scared!!11!1!" isn't a damn good reason. If you're all tore up about "home defense" from orcs and assorted "brown people" buy a goddamn 12 gauge pump and stop whining.

Buy back everything in existing ownership that doesn't conform to those rules. If we can blow a trillion+ on Afghanistan, this is the least we can do to prevent future massacres.

There. You can have some gunz and school children are far less likely to be murdered wholesale. We're just not going to sacrifice elementary school kids anymore for either someone's fetishes or people who can't understand the use of a fucking COMMA in a constitutional amendment. Enough.

[NickB79]

68. If only

The current SCOTUS is poised to go the opposite way on all that, especially the part about handguns and conceal carry.

[paleotn]

72. Yep. They're poised to go all "wild west"....

without the gun bans in Dodge City, Abilene and a number of old cow and mining towns.

[NickB79]

34. Bad news

There are pump action AR's now.

[Mr. Evil]

51. As for handguns,

only revolvers allowed.

As for cops, why do we allow them to have lethal rounds? There are many types of non-lethal rounds available that will put anyone down long enough to apprehend them and bring them to justice. Why do we allow them to be executioners at their leisure?

[EX500rider]

110. So when a bank robber is firing a long gun at officers you want them to fire bean bags back?

Yeah that will be real popular.
And most non-lethal ammo only works at close range and not always even then.

[Mr. Evil]

117. So... you're pro street justice.

Yes, by all means, let's just keep things the way they are. Shoot 'em ups all around. Your bank robber scenario means the possibility of multiple innocent people getting shot in the chaos. And we just have to have that to protect all that INSURED money. That's good for a movie but, for reality, not so much. The question is why we keep making it easier for more and more bad people to acquire weapons of mass destruction? I just want a more decent and livable society not just for me but, all the younger people that have a longer future than I do. Is that so fucking much to ask!?

Sorry I ruined your day with my naive wishful thinking.

[EX500rider]

119. Haven't ruined my day

I just think you over estimate the effectiveness of non-lethal rounds at ranges over 10 yds.

"pro street justice" you mean allowing cops to defend themselves and others from criminals shooting firearms at them?

[yagotme]

138. FYI, a double action revolver fires each time the trigger is pulled. n/t

[Jedi Guy]

142. Because you don't go up against someone with a real gun with just a beanbag shotgun or 40-mike-mike.

Both require the user to be at close range and neither are particularly accurate to begin with. The standard practice when these are deployed is to have other officers provide "lethal cover" with real guns in the event that the nonlethal rounds don't work. Beanbag shotguns, pepperball guns, and 40-mike-mike rounds are not magic and there are some situations where they just don't work or just aren't appropriate.

This is akin to saying "well why didn't they just tase him?" Because Tasers aren't magic and sometimes they don't work. Both probes have to make contact with flesh for the Taser to work, so if the person is moving quickly or wearing clothing, there's a good chance one of the probes will miss or get hung up in the fabric. Some Tasers have what's called drive stun capability and can be used like those stun guns from the 90s, but again, they require flesh contact for it to work.

The reason we allow cops to have lethal rounds is because there are just too damn many guns out there. The department I used to work for concluded that 70% of the time on a traffic stop, a gun is present in the car or on one of the occupants. This isn't the UK or Germany where guns are uncommon.

[IronLionZion]

28. Chris Rock is for bullet control

[In It to Win It]

35. Classic!

[Stuart G]

37. I certainly hope this passes. 1000% tax would keep most from buying these killing machines.

[RaDaR63]

44. ssdd

[ripcord]

53. I can't believe a sitting lawmaker would suggest something already determined to the unconstitional

You can not use onerous taxes to restrict someone from exercising their rights.

[cstanleytech]

54. The Constitution prohibits laws that prevent people to have guns so this will be unlikely to

survive a court challenge.
On the other hand there is nothing about doing things like ordering the military and other federal agencies to cut business ties with companies that are owned by people that support the NRA.
Not to mention there is also nothing in the Constitution that prevents an order not to provide federal monies to select states with lax gun laws.

[LiberatedUSA]

57. Any bill that says anything can be introduced at any time.

Bills passing is what counts. Well, with this SCOTUS maybe not so much. Besides case laws says you can’t tax rights out of reach.

This will get many cheers though. Cheers don’t do much.

[Captain Zero]

94. What about a reasonable user tax for victims funds?

...also what about a reasonable tax to reimburse social security for all the survivors benefits paid out as a result of gun deaths ??

[LiberatedUSA]

97. Sure.

A small tax like a cent or two on each whole purchase; small but will add up eventually. I doubt any would pass, but I would be open for debate on a tax so small as to go almost unnoticed. I am also not against raising the age to buy and own any semi-automatic rifle to 25. 21 is just now buying beer, while 25 is when the brain (should) be fully formed.

[Snackshack]

58. Good.

All I want for Christmas this year is for the Dems to remove the gloves as soon as possible and start to act in a way that leave not doubt who the majority (even if only by a couple votes) party is.

Please Dems. You have gone way above and beyond trying to placate GOP and govern in a bi-partisan way and the GOP keep giving you and us 🖕 with the time left start a full court press against the GOP with your agenda.

[Rebl2]

59. Would this

pass in the senate though?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

60. Not a chance

And it likely wouldn't survive a court challenge either. It remains to be seen if this will even get through the House.

[Rebl2]

63. Correct

No way this would pass in the senate.

[In It to Win It]

62. I doubt this could even pass the House.

[Rebl2]

64. True

[johnp3907]

70. Arm the rich!!!

Brilliant!!!

[RicROC]

73. What about declaring some guns as being military grade....

and therefore, following the Constitution, can only be owned by members of a Federal (or National Guard) militia?

Soldiers who retire, would not longer be allowed to own these weapons.

Guns would not be banned, per se, but specifically states (in other words, the word 'militia' is defined) what constitutes a militia and what guns the members can own.

[Abnredleg]

74. The SC has held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right

so membership in a militia is irrelevant, and such legislation is unconstitutional.

That won't change until we take back control of the Court.

[Locrian]

75. Ive been wondering that

"The right to keep and bear *arms*" means ... what?

Can you by hand-grenades? Missiles? So why not certain types of guns military grade - rifles?

[EX500rider]

111. Militia has been defined in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311

In the Dick Act of 1903, it repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

[Pyryck]

77. No, don't tax firearms

Quite the opposite...GIVE (as in no charge to the citizen and NOT payed for with taxes!) every American citizen a rifle and pistol, including training on how to care for and use them properly, with legal mandates that they carry them at all times everywhere including city, county, state and federal government offices and ESPECIALLY in legislatures and courts. Oh and every single corporate boardroom, corporate office, factory and warehouse. Everywhere people are gathered, firearms will be present.

If an armed society is a polite society then the legislators, judges, ceo's and business leaders, won't mind one bit having a nice quiet environment in which to conduct business while engaging in "polite civil or political discourse".

[3825-87867]

82. The constitution says nothing about the number of guns you can own.

Limit gun ownership to one per person. No rights violated and Chuckie Heston can sill have a gun, and we have his cold dead fingers.

We've already seen the ability to limit free speech to "free speech zones." Still have that "freedom, just elsewhere. Same could go for guns.

[Zeitghost]

144. What problem does that solve?

n/t

[Turbineguy]

83. $20,000 is a bargain

when viewed against the real costs.

[FakeNoose]

87. Problem is, there are way too many already out there

Go to any swap-meet and you find gun buyers and gun sellers making private sales. Background checks, licenses, permits are all iffy at best. How many Federal agents are there to control these private sales? Even if we hired 10x more investigators, it still won't be enough.

[Fla_Democrat]

102. They should hire 10X more agents.....

and clear up the backlog of form 4's. I've had a can in prison going on 300 days. At least hire some temps from labor finders and give them some rubber stamps and an ink pad.

[krispos42]

89. Okay, so I make a new rifle, the BS-16

It's exactly the same as an AR-15, but the bolt is .010" longer and .010" larger in diameter. BS-16 bolts won't work in an AR-15, and AR-15 bolts won't work in the BS-16.

Congrats, your tax is nullified. And all the accessories that are made for the AR-15 fit quiet nicely on my BS-16

Oh, and you're STILL ignoring the fact that handguns are used to kill 19 times as many people as rifles.

Over 8,000 per year with handguns, about 450 with any kind of rifle.

Looks like gun nuts aren't the only ones obsessed with the AR-15!

God, the pandering that House Democrats do on this issue is only surpassed by the people that lap up the idiocy.

Here are your REAL options that have no loopholes or workarounds:

1. Ban all sales and transfers of semiautomatic long guns. I'd appreciate an exception for rimfire guns of .22 caliber or less. This gets everything that's not a manual-action gun.

2. Raise the age to own a semiautomatic long gun to 21.

Pick one, and run with it!

[Recursion]

93. Ah, I came here to say this (nt)

[Recursion]

90. It's clever but they'll just release the "BS-16" next week to avoid it (nt)

[packman]

92. Dance around it as much as they can

While not wanting to (forgive me) bite the bullet and come to the only real solution - stop making guns, buy-back existing ones, close all gun buys, in other words - get serious about it. Anything else will be picked to death by the gun nuts in state legislation or by the NRA.

[ripcord]

95. SCOTUS has already ruled on this

Scary that a sitting lawmaker doesn't know that, people here should know that also.

[iemanja]

107. What SCOTUS ruling is that

and where is the text disallowing taxation on ammunition?

[ripcord]

108. Punative taxes aren't allowed as a way to suppress an individuals rights.

Since Heller owning guns is an individual right no matter how wrong the decision so it is covered under the same ruling banning poll taxes. Would you want the republicans coming in and putting onerous taxes on rights they want to suppress?

[iemanja]

109. Poll taxes

What bullshit. There is no such Scotus ruling. That is obvious from your response.

Guns are not a right, despite what SCOTUS says. They are pure evil.

[EX500rider]

114. I think you mean "guns are not a right in my mind"

Unfortunately though they are a right in the Bill of Rights and the SCOTUS has more legal say then you do in the US.

[iemanja]

122. Yes, I realize this is a country built on violence

and murder, and SCOTUS is on the forefront of making that possible. It may be legal under US law, but it is also evil, as are the gun interests and their lickspittle. Legal is not morally right.

And there is no fucking decision about ammunition, so that is bullshit. It's a transparent excuse.

[EX500rider]

116. Poll taxes

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional

[iemanja]

121. Poll taxes are not ammunition

That was my point, and it should be obvious.

[EX500rider]

124. And the Court ruling should be obvious

You can't put high taxes on constitutional rights... And ammo to guns would be like ink to paper

[iemanja]

129. There are already taxes on guns

So your point is off base.

[EX500rider]

133. Sure

But you can't make the tax onerous as a back door way to ban them that will be ruled unconstitutional

[iemanja]

136. So why do you feel the need

To stomp out thoughts if you know nothing can be done about it?

[EX500rider]

146. It is a discussion board, I am pointing things that are impossible..

...so maybe people can concentrate on trying to pass the possible.

[iemanja]

152. Yet you only seem to discuss

Guns.

[EX500rider]

156. I suppose if you only look at my last 20 or so posts but I discuss all types of things.

Not sure why you care what threads I post in, I couldn't care less about your posting history.

[iemanja]

157. I see

You.

[EX500rider]

160. Oh no!!! lol whatever, you might want a hobby.

[Hav]

165. What kind of gun control legislation

do you support that is possible and that ideally addresses school children getting massacred?

[EX500rider]

169. Well

Among the realm of the possible I would think raising the age limit to buy, putting longer waiting periods on purchases, doing background checks on all weapons sales including Private sales.

[EX500rider]

171. And I think for real results

We need to concentrate more on the why instead of the how.
I would start with making it illegal to post the names of the people who do these acts.. they want to go out and be famous, take that away from them leave their name out of the news, just say unidentified male committed the crime.

[SYFROYH]

100. Coincidentally, Rep. Beyer announced he wont be running for re-election.

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2022, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

This is just the fodder Republicans need to take the house.

I would take this personally as a voter.

The subject line is satire.

[iemanja]

123. The vast majority of citizens

and even majority of gun owners support limits on assault riffles. The minority who make enabling mass murder their priority will never vote Democratic anyway. People are fed up with interests that get their rocks off on children's bodies, and votes trump the minority murder lobby.

Your excuses are predictable and tired.

[SYFROYH]

145. I'll wait for the survey data on 1000% increase in cost.

Even I support raising the age for all semi-autos 21 or better yet 25.

[Kingofalldems]

135. What gun owners ever vote for Democrats?

Certainly the Jan. 6 types don't.

[iemanja]

137. Gun owners will

But not those who make promoting all guns their priority in life.

[sarisataka]

140. Do you believe

No Democrats own guns?

[SYFROYH]

143. Ahem. Im a gun owner. AR15, AR10, and a few others on the AWB list

And I vote for Democrats but not antigun zealots.

[EX500rider]

149. "What gun owners ever vote for Democrats?"

One out of five Democratic voters.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249775/percentage-of-population-in-the-us-owning-a-gun-by-party-affiliation/

[iemanja]

153. But none of them

Make opposing gun control their priority. Not a one.

[EX500rider]

161. Pointing out what won't work or is unConstitutional is far from opposing

[iemanja]

162. Nice try.

No sale.

[Fla_Democrat]

182. Interesting, I was thinking about this today.....

Interesting, I was thinking about this today. One hears the chant over and over, "More guns than people"... but doesn't this apply to us (was thinking of DU, but this is just expanded). If one in 5 Democratic voters * In comparison, only 21 percent of Democrats owned at least one gun, and they each had at least 5...(lemme see if I can do this with out too much objection)..... Say...

1. The infamous shotgun
2. The .22 bolt action
3. The 30-30 deer rifle
4. The 1911 (2 WORLD WARS) handed down.
and let's try...
5. The Mark 2 pistol, or woodsman, or the H&R revolver.

Wouldn't that make as many guns as Democratic voters? If one person, had more, or many people had more, it would kinda put the party in line with the often cited statistic? I'm sure some have just 1 firearm in their house. A Jennings, or a Romo, or, God help us, a High Point. I'm also sure, that some Democratic party members, especially those that don't live in major metropolitan areas may have others to offset the solitary owners.


It would be interesting to see how it shakes out.


* text borrowed from your link

[gldstwmn]

112. Do it.

[Kingofalldems]

125. Secret Trump fans not liking this one.

Kick and rec.

[brooklynite]

128. Secret Trump fans not thinking for a minute about this one...

...knowing that it will never pass.

[iemanja]

131. Disagree

They are disturbed that anyone holds thoughts that suggest opposition to assault weapons. If not, they wouldn't be so determined to argue against such ideas.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

134. I think that secret Trump fans (do they exist?) would love

to see Democrats shoot ourselves in the foot with a 1000% tax proposal that has no chance of passage, while we expend political capital in the process.

Let's actually get behind proposals that have wide support.

[iemanja]

130. Yep

[Kaleva]

167. I don't think they give a shit because this has no chance of passing.

And it won't apply to the 20 million plus AR style guns already out there.

[Zeitghost]

139. So only the rich can have guns...

That's better?

[iemanja]

155. Not guns

Ar-15s designed to commit mass murder. Or do you believe every angry teenager should have cheap access to them?

[Zeitghost]

158. I believe making anything prohibitively expensive through taxation

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2022, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Puts an undue burden on the poor to exercise the same rights as the rich.


Even if you believe the right to keep and bare arms should not exist or should be highly regulated, I'm don't see how restricting access to firearms to the rich is equitable.

[WarGamer]

154. why not 10,000%

I mean if you're going to indulge in fantasy make it good.

[roamer65]

170. Smart move.

Apply it to ALL sales. Even private.

If private individuals do not collect it and sent it to the government prosecute them for tax evasion.

[CaptainTruth]

173. After reading this thread I'm going to go out on a limb & say...

...if we want effective legislation that saves lives, one way to do it could be addressing a combination of 3 variables:

A = the power of the ammunition (kinetic energy of the projectile)

B = number of rounds carried (magazine capacity)

C = rate of fire

Restrictions could involve a combination of all 3 variables. For example, guns that fire high-powered ammo could have magazine size & fire rate limited. For lower-powered (less deadly) ammo, magazine size & fire rate could be increased.

In other words, if you want more A, you get less B & C.
If you want less A, you can have more B & C.

I'm writing this & I just realized that what I'm talking about is setting a limit on how much energy (kinetic energy of bullets) a gun can deliver within a set period of time.

Set a maximum amount of E energy that can be delivered in T time. You can do that by firing a lot of low-energy bullets faster, or by firing fewer high-energy bullets slower, either way the total E energy delivered in T time is the same, make that the limit, regulate that.

To be clear, I'm just trying to save thousands of lives & make mass shootings less deadly. I believe new regulations on guns & ammo can achieve that, so I'm looking for new, better, smarter ways that laws can be crafted, laws that stand a decent chance of withstanding court challenges.

The existing machine gun ban can be cited as precedent for the kind of regulations I'm talking about here. "How many bullets fired how fast" is already successfully regulated in the US, & my idea is an application of that same principle.

[moonshinegnomie]

176. i like the idea

for example a 9mm has roughly 330 ft lbs of energy per round an ar-15 closer to 1300-1500 per round. a 9mm clip is usually 10 rounds

so a fully loaded 9mm has roughly 3500 ft/lbs of energy in the entire clip. as opposed to a 15 round ar-15 clip with a total of 22000 lbs of potential energy per magazine at a mimimum (15 round mag and i know there are much larger ones.
limit the magazine for ANY semi auto rifle to no more than 5 rounds per magazine. and instead of grandfathering ones out there
already have a mandatory buy back. make possession of a magazine with more the 5 rounds a felony that comes with a lifetime ban on firearm possession

[Zeitghost]

177. Rate of Fire

Existing regulations on machine guns (burst/full auto) are not based on rate of fire. They are based on mechanical function, if more than one bullet is fired by a single manipulation of the trigger, it's a machine gun.

Rate of fire is tricky and is dependent on all sorts of factors many of which are not related to the design of the firearm. Things like the skill of the shooter, cleanliness of the gun, how much and what type of lubricant is being used, what ammo you're using, how the gun is tuned with spring rates and gas block port sizing and a host of other factors all play a part. To put it mildly, it's complicated and would be very difficult to build into legislation.

[Kaleva]

178. An auto has a higher rate then a semi-auto which has a higher rate then a bolt action....

which has a higher rater then a single shot.

An M1 Garand or SKS semi-auto with their internal magazines have a slower effective rate of fire then a semi-auto with a detachable 20-30 round magazine.

[Zeitghost]

180. All else being equal, that mostly holds true

But it still heavily relies on the specific gun and the specific shooter. Look up Jerry Miculek and his revolver...

Internal vs. external magazines have no effect on the rate an action can cycle.

[Kaleva]

181. They do have an effect on the effective rate of fire over a period of time

The actions cycle at the same rate but one needs to stop to reload more with a semi-auto with an internal mag then with a semi-auto with a detachable mage that holds 20 rounds or more.

But I do agree with everything you said in the post I had responded to but I think one ought to take into consideration effective rate of fire, which isn't the same as rate of fire, into account.

[CaptainTruth]

183. What if the legislation said "X gun cannot fire more than 1 round per second under any conditions"

What's so complicated about that? What I'm talking about is a physical (mechanical) limitation on the rate of fire of the weapon. I don't care about the shooter, they can pull the trigger as fast as they want, the whole point is that the weapon is mechanically limited to a maximum rate of fire.

[Zeitghost]

184. IMO

The squeeze wouldn't be worth the juice. It would take an incredible amount of political effort for little real world benefit or real reduction in the potential to create a mass casualty event. When you consider the time frame of these events and the number of rounds fired it doesn't appear that rate of fire is a critical component. Las Vegas might be the possible exception to that.

[Kaleva]

179. I think your idea has merit and is well worth discussing.

A common semi-auto hunting rifle chambered to fire the .308 cartridge but fed by after-market 30 round mags would be more restricted then an AR-15 chambered to fire the weaker .223 Remington round fed by a 30 round magazine.

But like I said, I think your idea has merit and I thought it quite interesting.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

185. Good idea.