Here we go again

E

exguide67

Guest
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

- Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

- Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

- All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

- All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

- Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

- Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

- 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
 
This is why you don't believe a liberal or a democrat. Sooner or later their true colors will come out.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
Heard on the news that the dems in California want to institute a surcharge on SUV/large vehicle users. They sure aren't wasting time making themselves hated are they? LOL.
 
Anyone who ever has purchased an SUV or pickup in the past 8 years or so has paid a federal surcharge for pollution. . . it's the way the auto companies offest their fule standards, they pay for it, or well, you pay for it . . .
 
TF, you are talking a Federal surcharge, this is apparantly a surcharge imposed by California. Here is the link:

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=24851

Glad I don't live there. But as most of us knows, as Calif. goes, most eventually follow. I can see a host of other "blue" states jumping on this band wagon.

How does this tie with the subject of this thread? Look how tobacco was taxed into our way of life. I can easily see this happening to firearms, but most probably ammunition. What would you think is next? Right now, since obesity is considered a disease, I see McD's, Wendy's and other fast food places being targeted to pay extra as well. Just because there are people out there that can't control their eating habits.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-07 AT 08:45AM (MST)[p]it does not tie into the thread at all. i was addressing the post prior to mine. In any event, people who buy gas guzzlers still pay the tax, only now it looks like california may bump it up with their own, good on them, make the polluters pay I always say. . . I should not have to pay for all those gas hogs nor should you. . .

So, youre right but I'm refering too, is the gas guzzler tax and it IS FEDERAL, the auto manufactures pass in on to the consumer, it's one of the hidden taxes although they use (dont know if they still do - they did in 2003) to put it on the sticker. Next time youre in the lot go check out a Hum-V and see if its listed on the sticker . . .

Gas Guzzler tax ---

The Gas Guzzler Tax is a Federal excise tax applied to the domestic sale of new vehicles that don't meet certain fuel economy standards. It was enacted as part of the Energy Tax Act of 1978, reaching current levels by 1988. On its surface, the Tax is simple. Behind that simplicity, though, lies a maze of formulas and numbers, some of which are of particular interest to SUV buyers.

Combined Fuel Economy

The Gas Guzzler Tax is based on combined fuel economy, which is based on a 55%/45% highway/city fuel economy estimate from the Environmental Protection Agency test.

How Much is the Gas Guzzler Tax?

Vehicles that get at least 22.5 mpg (combined) don't have to pay the Gas Guzzler Tax. The Tax rate goes from $1,000 for vehicles that get at least 21.5 mpg (combined), but less than 22.5 mpg (combined) all the way up to $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg (combined).
 
One guy you have to watch out for when presidential elections roll around is that Guilianni from New York. Hes a Republican but they were talking about stuff hes for and against and he said hes for gun control. Not sure how much control but hes for it.
 
So I'm not arguing with you on what is taxed and what isn't inre "gas guzzlers." I'm saying that Calif. wants to impose an additional surcharge to the one already imposed by the Feds.

"In any event, people who buy gas guzzlers still pay the tax, only now it looks like california may bump it up with their own, good on them, make the polluters pay I always say. . . I should not have to pay for all those gas hogs nor should you. . ."

This is where you and I are going to disagree. I see this as setting precedents i.e., the door is opening to tax other disagreeable things. Think of stuff that you enjoy that could be taxed. Lets say that the photography/digital processing industry is targeted because the chemicals used in production of pictures is a major pollutant.

I can see the "tax it to fix it" mentality going toward everything that others may find disagreeable, and therefore want to control.

Taxes per bullet to control what firearms enthusiasts to control. Don't laugh. Its been bandied about for a few years now by the anti's. How about 1/4 pounders w/cheese to fund obesity because people are too weak to control their urges. I'm a fairly trim and healthy outdoorsman, why should I be charged because some people can't seem to take the time exercise and eat right?

Think that the guy that drives his F150 Ford 4X4 to work and back everyday, because its the only thing he has, should be punished? I'd say that the bulk of the driving public that drives gas guzzlers, especially in metropolitan areas like CA, probably don't need them, but you are endorsing taxing that "you" don't like. I love your pictures, but I don't like the idea of toners, ink cartridges, batteries, photo-paper, old CD's being put in my landfills. Should you be taxed because of something I don't like?

Look how anti-smoking legislation is supported. Most people I know can't stand second hand smoke. I agree. But some of the laws have gotten so stupid, that the law is being slowly worked to be able to control your tobacco use in your own home.

All I am saying, be careful what you wish for. You may get it and whole lot more.
 
Yes, we disagree. I'm a fiscal conservative that believes in some taxes -- we must pay our way -- but in my view, I want to know what my taxes are for and I want to "pay them at the pump" so to speak.

You can let the IRS take you money and then just turn it over to big government if you want, but at the end of the day, we will be taxed, I'd just rather pay my share and I believe in some cases, "user-pay" is the way to go, it's sends the right message to the user and to the economy.

Like I said tax at the pump. . . You smoke, you pay . . . you could always just grow your own tobacco; this is a free country. . .
 
I almost forgot:

"I don't like the idea of toners, ink cartridges, batteries, photo-paper, old CD's being put in my landfills. Should you be taxed because of something I don't like?"


A resounding 100% YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

I dont use much of any of that, but i would be willing to pay for it so long as I dont have to also pay for your medicade or support your air pollution habits too, or your atv abuse or your whatever . . . (by you I mean others, not you personally).
 
Fiscal conservatism is a term used to refer to economic and political policy that advocates restraint of government taxation, government expenditures and deficits, and government debt.

So, if you adhere to taxation of those things you dislike, then the term Fiscal Conservative doesn't adhere to you. Probably more centrist if anything, with democrat-like leanings.

Again, my arguement inre this thread is, we must be careful on whose bandwagon we jump on. If you endorse levying a surcharge on SUV's/4WD's or whatever, then don't be surprised or put-off when those same Democrats come after your favorite hunting weapons via "sin taxes" or "use taxes."
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom