Is a tax stamp on all semi autos a good idea?

[Piratesailor]

Ok, the last poll may have been to controversial. So now, would you agree with implementing a tax stamp on all semi autos, not just AW?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[TX expat]

I'm not even sure how to respond...

[buckeye .45]

Ok, the last poll may have been to controversial. So now, would you agree with implementing a tax stamp on all semi autos, not just AW?

Define AW

[tdw63]

Nope, because you are at the mercy of the taxman and who knows what that tax might be.

[tony1990]

No. No. No. No. No.

[Piratesailor]

Define AW

Most recent definition of an "assault weapon".

[GetSmith]

Unless I used it for CCW it would be a the bottom of a lake. In general i belive it will cost us more to exercise our 2A rights. Taxes can come in many forms. The one tax most won't be able to avoid is an ammo tax. I can see a 100% tax comming to support a BATF on steroids. Get your reloading supplies while you can.

[Piratesailor]

Nope, because you are at the mercy of the taxman and who knows what that tax might be.

You do realize that the tax stamp is not about the money per se but the registration. Just like for full auto.

[OldVet]

Why would anyone other than a revenue office think that is a good idea?

[buckeye .45]

Most recent definition of an "assault weapon".

Except anything is an "assault weapon" if you can use it with a weapon to assault someone, its an "assault weapon."

It doesn't even cover assault rifles, because they are by definition select fire. In order to be an assault rifle, it must be select fire, fed by a detachable box magazine, and fire an intermediate cartridge.

So, really, your poll makes no sense.

[suntzu]

Is this a trick question?

Is there any other answer than no? I don't understand why anyone would say "yes"

[gasmitty]

No.

First off, applying a tax to one firearm today opens the door to taxing more tomorrow and allows bureaucrats to increase the tax rate by whim. Have you ever voted on a federal tax rate? You can argue "that didn't happen with NFA weapons," which is true, but machine guns, SBRs and other affected weapons are relatively few in number (best estimates, well under a million) compared to plain-Jane ARs and Ruger 10/22s.

Next, exactly how would the imposition of a tax have prevented the Newtown murders? If Lanza's mother had a tax stamp on her semi-autos, would she be any less dead?

[GetSmith]

Is this a trick question?

Is there any other answer than no? I don't understand why anyone would say "yes"

I don't think people are fully thinking through the question. The poll said ALL semiauto, that includes pistols what most people use for CCW. How are you not going to register a CCW gun? As I said in my prior post we WILL pay more to exercise our 2A rights. That's what the Biden comension is working on now. It's not about making us "safe" is about controll and revenue.

[RT]

Considering the tax stamp for just purchasing a suppressor runs $200, I would venture a guess that the government would set the price of a tax stamp for the purchase of an actual firearm considerably higher. No thanks. I'd rather not have to pay close to HK prices (or more) for a Glock.

Also, I'd rather not have every firearm I purchase entered into a government registry.

[Piratesailor]

Except anything is an "assault weapon" if you can use it with a weapon to assault someone, its an "assault weapon."

It doesn't even cover assault rifles, because they are by definition select fire. In order to be an assault rifle, it must be select fire, fed by a detachable box magazine, and fire an intermediate cartridge.

So, really, your poll makes no sense.

Then let me rephrase this for you:

Do you think it's a good idea and would you support a tax stamp, similar to the tax stamp for fully auto guns, on EVERY gun, regardless of caliber, make, model or size, that operates in a semi automatic fashion and mechanism?

Clear it up I hope?