I don’t know how many people have a $50K gun arsenal, but I imagine in the situation you describe, you can surrender enough of your arsenal year after year to effectively zero out your income tax liability, for a while. Seems if you’ve got an emotional attachment to your guns, giving up one or two at a time over an extended period of time would be more palatable to most.
I read this as parody. Is the first paragraph supposed to be an example of the second?
The people dont want it repealed. Oh sure, after a mass shooting there is a call for more regs, and a slim majority of Americans are in favor of some sort of Gun Control legislation. But banning guns altogether? That gets a small minority.
Aren’t voters being told that having guns is what’s good for them? How is that different/better?
I haven’t taken inventory recently, but… 
And it’s a collection, not an arsenal.
In that situation, you’ll be sitting on illegal property until you get through however many years it takes to turn them in. Given how long it would take to put the laws in place, and the size of my collection, I won’t live long enough to receive the compensation at $1,600/year (which is about how much I end up paying to the IRS). It would have to be a lump sum compensation payment, or a lump sum tax refund.
I do have an ‘emotional attachment’ to a few pieces, and there are a few automatic pistols and revolvers that were made during WWI. It would be a shame for them to be destroyed, rather than be put on display somewhere. But were I offered fair market value for my entire collection today, I would make the exchange. There are more important things in my life that I could use the money for.
Tomato/Potato. 
Well, once people “register” the guns they do have, the gov’t doesn’t have to make you criminal for choosing to dispose of them in a more timely manner. Say you get to choose whether to surrender them all at once or over a 10 year period of time, depending on the size of your collection. The historic pieces can be donated to a museum, also for a tax credit/refund.
We’re saying “this cannot legally be sold to anyone, so its fair market value is just its scrap value now”. It doesn’t matter what its worth to the gun owner. That’s never been anyone’s definition of fair market value. Nor has “the previous fair market value before things changed and they were more optimal for the seller” ever been anyone’s definition of “fair market value”.
How much money did we pay breweries and distilleries after we banned their products during prohibition?
By that logic, if the government bought your house so they could put in a road, they’d only have to pay you for the value of the land itself, not the probably much more valuable house, since they’re just going to tear it down anyway. Try again.
Because the people who want gun bans in the US are in the vast minority, and it’s been easier for them to use backdoor methods to achieve the same thing, rather than the bother and hassle of trying to make the changes through the actual system we have in place to make them. Or, to put it another way, they know they would lose trying to use the mechanisms in place to do it, so they have resorted to doing things in other ways, with some success.
The proper way to do what they want to do, which is to ban most or all guns from the hands of private citizens would be to repeal or amend the Amendment and vacate the right, then to work from there. Instead, they use a host of convoluted arguments centering around interpretation of what they THINK it means (without using the context of what the authors of the Amendment actually wrote about what they REALLY meant), and using that have attempted to circumvent the 2nd by use of that interpretation. And they have, as noted, had quite a bit of success with this tactic, slimy as I think it is…so, why do something the right way when you are sure to lose when you can take the backdoor path and get at least some victories? And who knows…slippery slopes do happen, and maybe they can interpret the amendment out of existence. Do it long enough and it becomes the reality, and then you can build your banning framework however you want without having to worry about those pesky right thingies.
So, tell me…how many law abiding citizens sell guns with their serial numbers filed off? All that would end up doing is to increase the size and scope of the black market. Didn’t people learn anything from Prohibition?
I guess not…we still have the War on Drugs.
Nonsense. The land and the house on it still have a perfectly non-zero market value. Instead of selling it to the government, I could have sold it to my neighbor or to a real estate investor. That’s not true of illegal firearms. The only value that can be assigned to them (beside scrap) would be an illegal sale. Clearly that basis for valuation would be against public policy.
So you are proposing confiscation without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
If that which is illegal is seized, then there is no compensation. For instance, if I travel overseas and spend a couple of hundred thou on drugs that are legal where I purchase them, then bring them here where they are not legal and the nice doggy at the terminal gets a little too friendly with my luggage, would you call what happens afterward a “violation of the Fifth Amendment”?
Completely different. In your scenario you know that the drugs are illegal in the U.S. and are trying to import them. In the case of a gun ban, the government is declaring legal objects to be illegal. Therefore they need to provide compensation.
Any gun ban isn’t going to be a complete overnight surprise-you’ll have time to sell off your collection.
To whom and for what?
The trope that Johnny Ace recites is just idiotic. The principal logical flaw is not that “bad guys” get their guns from “good guys”. It’s the fact that potential bad guys are largely indistinguishable from good guys before the fact, and inevitably have just the same legal rights to buy and own weapons. The NRA defines a “bad guy” ex post facto as “anybody who has used a gun illegally”. Prior to committing the gun crime, the “bad guy with a gun” obviously WAS “a good guy with a gun”.
Until Minority Report becomes reality, any who thinks that we can reliably distinguish good guys from potential bad guys is kidding themselves. Do we really think that better psychiatric care will have any significant effect on gun crime?
The solution, in every other civilized country in the world, is too keep guns out of the hands of everyone who does not have a compelling reason to have one. And the vast majority of citizens In those countries do not see this as infringing their freedom any more than a restriction on the production of weapons-grade Plutonium. It’s a minor restriction with the major benefit that everyone is much safer.
With the hunting tradition in the U.S., and the historic freedom to carry arms, it’s evidently the preference of the majority to maintain the status quo. But, really, let’s give all this prayer and hand-wringing at every major gun homicide a rest. The alternative is obvious, and is exemplified in every other civilized nation in the world. If you don’t want the alternative that’s fine - but you should own the consequences.
As a footnote on Islamist terrorism in particular:
In most of Western Europe, it is extremely difficult for anyone to obtain a gun illegally. The weapons for the Paris attacks were smuggled in with great difficulty across several borders. There are vastly greater numbers of radical Islamists in Europe than there are in the U.S, and it is almost certainly true that the biggest constraint on terrorism in Europe is the fact that potential terrorists cannot get hold of weapons. In the US, on the other hand, the primary constraint is the relatively small numbers of extremists who are motivated to commit such acts. They can all get weapons trivially easily. If Europe had US-style gun laws, I think we would have almost daily atrocities and be in a state of permanent martial law at this point.
To idiots that believe they have the wherewithal to organize a successful revolt against a better trained army many times their size, for what the market will bear.
That’s what I’m talkin’ about! ka-CHING!
What does “own the consequences” really mean, though? Prayer is free and requires no sacrifice. Something tragic happens, simply pay it lip service, then rush out and stock up.