Poll-Help me change the NFA

[Birddog1911]

Moderator: If you feel there is a more appropriate section, please feel free to move this there.

This poll is to conduct research on changing the NFA rules. While I would support a complete removal of the law, I don't believe that it will happen anytime soon.

So what I'm trying to do is appeal to a politicians base emotion; greed. I plan to write to a willing congressional delegate to change the law, and greatly lower the cost of an NFA tax stamp. I hope this will also help repeal the 1986 full auto law, as well.

Please, answer the poll and tell me what you think. I will be cross posting this at every gun forum for which I am a member, and ask that you do NOT hit the poll at the other sites, in order to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the poll.

The choices are:

I would not own a registered firearm or device, regardless of cost

I would own a registered firearm or device, regardless of cost

I would own a registered firearm or device if the cost were greatly reduced

I would own multiple registered firearms or devices if the costs were greatly reduced

I do ask that we try to keep this poll at the top for at least a week, so that I may collect as much data as possible. Once I have collected as much as I can, I will be writing Doug Lamborn to propose the bill, or whatever measure may be used.

[joshrunkle35]

Moderator: If you feel there is a more appropriate section, please feel free to move this there.

This poll is to conduct research on changing the NFA rules. While I would support a complete removal of the law, I don't believe that it will happen anytime soon.

So what I'm trying to do is appeal to a politicians base emotion; greed. I plan to write to a willing congressional delegate to change the law, and greatly lower the cost of an NFA tax stamp. I hope this will also help repeal the 1986 full auto law, as well.

Please, answer the poll and tell me what you think. I will be cross posting this at every gun forum for which I am a member, and ask that you do NOT hit the poll at the other sites, in order to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the poll.

The choices are:

I would not own a registered firearm or device, regardless of cost

I would own a registered firearm or device, regardless of cost

I would own a registered firearm or device if the cost were greatly reduced

I would own multiple registered firearms or devices if the costs were greatly reduced

I do ask that we try to keep this poll at the top for at least a week, so that I may collect as much data as possible. Once I have collected as much as I can, I will be writing Doug Lamborn to propose the bill, or whatever measure may be used.

Any chance some of the choices could say "do" instead of "would"?

[2Munkeez]

your logic seems sound. i know there are people who would not spend $200 for ONE tax stamp, but would probably have spent $500 if it got them three of them. lower price, higher volume could result in more revenue being generated.

however, i'm reminded of an old Arab proverb about asking a camel to stick his nose in you tent. it warns that the camel might move the rest of the way in and push you out the back. be very careful when suggesting, to politicians, they could get more money out of NFA items. this could backfire, horribly.

[Fireman1291]

Agreed, either remove the stupid unconstitutional law in the 1st place or dont do anything. I can see those assholes raising the tax to 1000 to meet inflation....you might be stirring the wrong pot my friend.

[dtom29]

The $200 isn't my biggest problem with the NFA....it's not even in the top 5.

[LawBob]

Before you stir the pot, realize a 1935 $200 tax stamp with inflation would be cost prohibitive if you "change" it--that is, there is no way anyone approves a lower tax revenue stamp. they will more likely adjust it upwards, not down.

[ick]

$200 IN 1935 IS $3,200 IN 2011.

Other than a complete repeal or other positive scenarios that have ZERO chance of ever happening.....

I would be for a significant increase the tax and eliminate all the wait and background checks.

Add a poll option: Increase the tax to a larger number and take away the background checks, etc... make it a 3 day wait if you want.

Also, all polls should allow you to change your vote.

[2Munkeez]

$200 IN 1935 IS $3,200 IN 2011.

Other than a complete repeal or other positive scenarios that have ZERO chance of ever happening.....

I would be for a significant increase the tax and eliminate all the wait and background checks.

Add a poll option: Increase the tax to a larger number and take away the background checks, etc... make it a 3 day wait if you want.

Also, all polls should allow you to change your vote.

i remember reading, somewhere, that was actually the PURPOSE of the tax - to be SO high it made ownership unlikely.

OP- i'm all for pushin the envelope and all, but how bout we let sleepin dog lie until AFTER i get both my can AND my M11/9, ok? then stir it up as much as you want LOL

[Fireman1291]

$200 IN 1935 IS $3,200 IN 2011.

Other than a complete repeal or other positive scenarios that have ZERO chance of ever happening.....

I would be for a significant increase the tax and eliminate all the wait and background checks.

Add a poll option: Increase the tax to a larger number and take away the background checks, etc... make it a 3 day wait if you want.

Also, all polls should allow you to change your vote.

I think I've seen u say this before......why the F--k would you want to pay more? Don't give them any ideas.

[Libertarian_Geek]

$200 IN 1935 IS $3,200 IN 2011.

Other than a complete repeal or other positive scenarios that have ZERO chance of ever happening.....

I would be for a significant increase the tax and eliminate all the wait and background checks.

Add a poll option: Increase the tax to a larger number and take away the background checks, etc... make it a 3 day wait if you want.

Also, all polls should allow you to change your vote.

Ick.. you shouldn't post drunk.

[J Krammes]

We should not need a permission slip from our govt. to exercise a RIGHT. We most certainly should not be "taxed" for a RIGHT.

Jk

[Illuminated_one]

I would be much more interested in re-opening the machine gun registry than removing or lowering the $200 tax.

[sputzie]

To be honest I'd rather see the tax stamp increase in price as I dont want more dumb asses owning silencers and automatic weapons. Its a matter of time before several idots use an NFA toy to commit a national tragedy. Sorry, freedom isnt free

[Nighthawk]

To be honest I'd rather see the tax stamp increase in price as I dont want more dumb asses owning silencers and automatic weapons. Its a matter of time before several idots use an NFA toy to commit a national tragedy. Sorry, freedom isnt free

Good call. Better yet maybe it would be better if the government just confiscated all those dangerous suppressors, automatic weapons and pretty much all guns then we'll all be safe from dumb asses.

[doubloon]

To be honest I'd rather see the tax stamp increase in price as I dont want more dumb asses owning silencers and automatic weapons. Its a matter of time before several idots use an NFA toy to commit a national tragedy. Sorry, freedom isnt free

Good call. Better yet maybe it would be better if the government just confiscated all those dangerous suppressors, automatic weapons and pretty much all guns then we'll all be safe from dumb asses.

+1 Nh ...

The original sentiment makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Sounds more like an anti in marksman's clothing.

[Nighthawk]

To be honest I'd rather see the tax stamp increase in price as I dont want more dumb asses owning silencers and automatic weapons. Its a matter of time before several idots use an NFA toy to commit a national tragedy. Sorry, freedom isnt free

Good call. Better yet maybe it would be better if the government just confiscated all those dangerous suppressors, automatic weapons and pretty much all guns then we'll all be safe from dumb asses.

+1 Nh ...

The original sentiment makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Sounds more like an anti in marksman's clothing.

I agree.

[joshrunkle35]

The $200 isn't my biggest problem with the NFA....it's not even in the top 5.

+1

[sputzie]

nighthawk, ya gotta draw the line somewhere. Certainly you dont feel every household should possess a box of C-4, a few automatic weapons and an artilley piece. If you do then I dont care to live in your ideal country, nor will 95% of America. Personally I think silencers shouldnt be regulated any more than a handgun purchase, but typically anything the miltary uses should be allowed very carefully to common urbanite citizens these days. The reality of today doesnt coincide with the days of when the Constitution was written. Lets get real. The common idiot 20 year old playing Nintendo all day long while masterbating to internet porn shouldnt typically be allowed to own a HK MP5 very easily .

[joshrunkle35]

nighthawk, ya gotta draw the line somewhere. Certainly you dont feel every household should possess a box of C-4, a few automatic weapons and an artilley piece. If you do then I dont care to live in your ideal country, nor will 95% of America. Personally I think silencers shouldnt be regulated any more than a handgun purchase, but typically anything the miltary uses should be allowed very carefully to common urbanite citizens these days. The reality of today doesnt coincide with the days of when the Constitution was written. Lets get real. The common idiot 20 year old playing Nintendo all day long while masterbating to internet porn shouldnt typically be allowed to own a HK MP5 very easily .

If he spends the day musturbating, then he isn't much of a problem to me.

Back when the constitution was written, do you think private citizens should have been allowed to own cannons/field artillery?

[Nighthawk]

nighthawk, ya gotta draw the line somewhere. Certainly you dont feel every household should possess a box of C-4, a few automatic weapons and an artilley piece. If you do then I dont care to live in your ideal country, nor will 95% of America. Personally I think silencers shouldnt be regulated any more than a handgun purchase, but typically anything the miltary uses should be allowed very carefully to common urbanite citizens these days. The reality of today doesnt coincide with the days of when the Constitution was written. Lets get real. The common idiot 20 year old playing Nintendo all day long while masterbating to internet porn shouldnt typically be allowed to own a HK MP5 very easily .

Yeah your right, that silly ole constitution has out lived its usefulness. Who needs freedom anyhow? It's way over rated and we'd all be much better off letting the government control every aspect of our lives. If anything lets do it for the children.

Then again I can't help but wonder, what makes you more responsible than anyone else? I don't know you, you could be a nut for all I know so why should you be allowed to own a full auto or a suppressor or any gun for that matter? Why don't you stand behind your beliefs of not everyone should own them and go to your local police department and turn in all your guns, ammo and suppressors because I honestly don't feel safe knowing someone such as you who feels the constitution is out dated and useless needs to own any guns.

I believe you should lead by example and maybe others will follow.

[sputzie]

nighthawk, for the most part I agree with ya. I think we should just put a few more obstacles in front of folks to prove they are responsible enough to own such an item that can do massive damage in this newly over crowded world we live in. I sincerely see very little good in allowing the average innercity citizen easy access to a weapon that typically only the military uses. With today's population densities and 90% of America living in metropolitan areas its just not a good recipe for Tyrone, Jose and Britany in Houston Texas to be able to easily buy a M-16, some C-4 and a M-109 Howitzer over the counter.

[Selectedmarksman]

nighthawk, ya gotta draw the line somewhere. Certainly you dont feel every household should possess a box of C-4, a few automatic weapons and an artilley piece. If you do then I dont care to live in your ideal country, nor will 95% of America. Personally I think silencers shouldnt be regulated any more than a handgun purchase, but typically anything the miltary uses should be allowed very carefully to common urbanite citizens these days. The reality of today doesnt coincide with the days of when the Constitution was written. Lets get real. The common idiot 20 year old playing Nintendo all day long while masterbating to internet porn shouldnt typically be allowed to own a HK MP5 very easily .

This line of thinking is dangerous, it could lead to wholesale erosion of rights.

In fact, it's so dangerous, you clearly shouldn't have access to the internet or any computing hardware. I mean, you don't want the common idiot 20 year old playing Nintendo all day long while masterbating to internet porn expressing their emotional, knee-jerk views on the web in an effort to impact voters' views, do you?

[Nighthawk]

nighthawk, for the most part I agree with ya. I think we should just put a few more obstacles in front of folks to prove they are responsible enough to own such an item that can do massive damage in this newly over crowded world we live in. I sincerely see very little good in allowing the average innercity citizen easy access to a weapon that typically only the military uses. With today's population densities and 90% of America living in metropolitan areas its just not a good recipe for Tyrone, Jose and Britany in Houston Texas to be able to easily buy a M-16, some C-4 and a M-109 Howitzer over the counter.

So what obstacles do you suggest? Apparently you feel the tax stamp should be higher because that would deter bad people from getting a legal machine gun. That's a great idea because as of right now most criminals I know generally spend $10,000 for a legal machine gun, $200.00 for a tax stamp, pass an FBI background check and get approval from the ATF just so they can knock over a liquor store.

How many examples can you give me of legally acquired machine guns and suppressors that have been used in a crime? Surely you can account for quite a few since you feel the need to make it harder for them to be purchased legally.

How many C-4 bombings have been used while breaking into a home? How many howitzers have been used to rob a gas station?

You're free to give up all your rights as an individual but me personally, I'll gladly take the life of any man that comes to my home to take away my freedoms and not think twice about it. Some things are worth fighting for, some things are worth dying for. I have no problem doing either for my freedoms. YMMV

[doubloon]

C4 makes an excellent coffee warmer http://pomakis.tripod.com/clips/clip23.html

[sputzie]

selectednonmarksman, Bring it all down, man? Anarchy? No restraint? If it feels good do it? Sorry I used the internet porn analogy as I suspect it hit home to many Seriously though, you think unrestricted ownership of weapons of potential mass casualty is acceptable in this day and age to all Sounds good in a political speech, but really? This is why Libertarians will never get traction in America. Ideology and reality often have a canyon separating them