Cops find themselves in arms race with criminals
- Thread starter Frontier509
- Start date
FirstFreedom
Moderator
That is the most disgusting, unprincipled, clearly biased, misleading hit piece to come down the pike in quite a few years. We cannot let this one go - give those authors and CNN hell, boys and girls! 
CrazyIvan007
New member
In the 1930's, Gangsters began using "Tommy" guns with full auto. Most policemen had only revolvers. This is when the police becan to carry shotguns and higher powered as well as faster firing weapons. Many cops also carried a "Tommy" Gun in their car as well.
Of course, a good percentage of officers were on the Mafia's payroll as well...
But, the state did not legislate outlawing firearms. They, rather, trained thier officers better and upgraded their firepower to meet that of the criminals.
Why don't they just upgrade rather than persecute law-abiding citizens by banning certain firearms in today's world?
Of course, a good percentage of officers were on the Mafia's payroll as well...
But, the state did not legislate outlawing firearms. They, rather, trained thier officers better and upgraded their firepower to meet that of the criminals.
Why don't they just upgrade rather than persecute law-abiding citizens by banning certain firearms in today's world?
rellascout
Moderator
You might want to brush up on your history there Ivan.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm
National Firearms act of 1934
The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 through 26 U.S.C. § 5872, is a United States federal law passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of all Title II weapons and mandates the registration of those weapons.
The Act was passed after the repeal of Prohibition, and it mandates that transfers of the covered firearms across state lines be reported to the United States Department of the Treasury (this function has since been transferred to the Justice Department). The transfer tax of $200 placed on the transfer of firearms controlled by the Act was roughly equivalent to five months' salary in 1934.[1]
The numbers I posted above were obtained (and updated) from
http://www.odmp.org/year.php?year=2007&Submit=Go
for the post that I wrote here:
http://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2007/09/agenda.html
http://www.odmp.org/year.php?year=2007&Submit=Go
for the post that I wrote here:
http://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2007/09/agenda.html
CrazyIvan007
New member
Imposing a tax is a bit different than an outright ban. It really sucks and makes owning such a weapon a bit difficult, but it is not a ban.
Neal in GA
New member
Is there a link where we can email CNN and tell them politely what shoddy, blatantly false, and politically biased reporting this "story" truly is?
Tax/ban?
When you put a $200 tax on a $5 dollar gun, what do you think the net effect will be? When you put the same $200 tax on a $12 piece of tubing, what do you think will happen? When you put a $200 tax on a $125 gun, it also has a very chilling effect, especially when you combine the tax with fingerprints, photographs, background checks, approval in writing from your local head of law enforcement, AND months of delay to process that paperwork, what do you think the overall effect will be? Not quite the same as an outright ban, but as close as they could legally come to it.
The only "good" thing about the NFA 34 has been that the dollar amount of the tax has not changed. So today, it is a much smaller value than it was in 1934. Of course, in 1986 they closed the registry (for all practical purposes), and until we can get enough someones with our point of view into positions of authority, we are stuck with it.
Also, go ahead and tell CNN what a crappy biased job they did. They won't listen, but tell them anyway, it can't hurt.
Heard a plan once, that if we could pull it off might actually have some chance. Goes like this. Each one of us should buy stock (one share, more if you can) in the media. CBS, CNN, whoever, they are public companies. Then, we could organise as a group, and vote our proxy to a spokesperson, and they will have a say at stockholder meetings. They don't have to do what we want (until we have a controlling interest) but they DO have to listen to us. Otherwise they violate their charter, and we can sue them. If they keep hearing the message over and over, from people who own part of their company, eventually they should take the hint! An added plus is, that as a stockholder, they will pay us dividends!
When you put a $200 tax on a $5 dollar gun, what do you think the net effect will be? When you put the same $200 tax on a $12 piece of tubing, what do you think will happen? When you put a $200 tax on a $125 gun, it also has a very chilling effect, especially when you combine the tax with fingerprints, photographs, background checks, approval in writing from your local head of law enforcement, AND months of delay to process that paperwork, what do you think the overall effect will be? Not quite the same as an outright ban, but as close as they could legally come to it.
The only "good" thing about the NFA 34 has been that the dollar amount of the tax has not changed. So today, it is a much smaller value than it was in 1934. Of course, in 1986 they closed the registry (for all practical purposes), and until we can get enough someones with our point of view into positions of authority, we are stuck with it.
Also, go ahead and tell CNN what a crappy biased job they did. They won't listen, but tell them anyway, it can't hurt.
Heard a plan once, that if we could pull it off might actually have some chance. Goes like this. Each one of us should buy stock (one share, more if you can) in the media. CBS, CNN, whoever, they are public companies. Then, we could organise as a group, and vote our proxy to a spokesperson, and they will have a say at stockholder meetings. They don't have to do what we want (until we have a controlling interest) but they DO have to listen to us. Otherwise they violate their charter, and we can sue them. If they keep hearing the message over and over, from people who own part of their company, eventually they should take the hint! An added plus is, that as a stockholder, they will pay us dividends!
Sigma 40 Blaster
New member
Sorry guys, I think imposing an additional tax is the first step in either control or punishment.
I'm spending 1.00 more for a pack of cigarettes for some tax that may or may not benefit me. I feel like the lawmakers are imposing some morality, judging, and targeting a particular group of consumers.
With fully auto weapons...honestly I am not that concerned because I would fear a handful of people on this site with easy access to FA and would prefer not to know if they did have that access.
Now it's time to see if they start imposing a tax on "assault weapons", "sporting weapons", or "collectibles". That would be a very large range of weapons. Even if the stamp is not that expensive think of the revenue we'd provide to further someone else's cause...
I'm spending 1.00 more for a pack of cigarettes for some tax that may or may not benefit me. I feel like the lawmakers are imposing some morality, judging, and targeting a particular group of consumers.
With fully auto weapons...honestly I am not that concerned because I would fear a handful of people on this site with easy access to FA and would prefer not to know if they did have that access.
Now it's time to see if they start imposing a tax on "assault weapons", "sporting weapons", or "collectibles". That would be a very large range of weapons. Even if the stamp is not that expensive think of the revenue we'd provide to further someone else's cause...
Bottom line: No Gun control laws will work! They just busted a Meth house in ABQ NM an found a M-4 and A Browning .30 Machine guns. The dude was a felon, He wanted one and he got one! How is taking away my toys going to stop that?
Cant find a link: KOB TV CHANNEL 4 ABQ, N.M. Yesterday!
Cant find a link: KOB TV CHANNEL 4 ABQ, N.M. Yesterday!
Neal in GA
New member
Thanks, Hiram. It's sad how blatantly ignorant and biased our media truly is.
