# The "reasonable conversation about guns" that anti-gun Internet people want **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334 "2013-04-21T21:36:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/101 "2013-04-23T06:59:17Z")
Well, thank you Mr. Sunshine. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/102 "2013-04-23T08:01:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Because there are the men who make quite a good living from our fear. And use that money to buy political power to promote that fear, to protect that fear. Are you talking about those homophobes from Chick Fil A or those bastards from Orkin Pest Control? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/103 "2013-04-23T13:02:59Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The assertion being made is that someone has proposed a tax on firearms that would be seen as punitive/confiscatory. I’ve cited a tax on ammunition that would be seen as punitive. The parallels are such that there is little difference between the two, glaringly so when you recognize that firearms are useless without ammunition. > > I don’t see the problem. I disagree with your interpretation. 1. Confiscation is taking something from you that you already have. A tax, no matter how outrageous, on purchasing something you _don’t_ have isn’t confiscation in and of itself. 1. I agree with **Bricker** and others that a sufficiently onerous tax _on an asset you possess_ is the functional equivalent of confiscation. Being able to afford $500 for a particular gun doesn’t mean you can afford a $5000 _personal property_ tax on it, and if you’re in that position, you have no choice but to sell, give away, or turn in your gun. It may not technically be confiscation, but it sure acts like it: the government has made it _impossible for you to retain your asset_, and almost surely has ensured that _you can’t recoup its value_. (This latter part is important: the government has eminent domain authority that allows it to take stuff under certain circumstances, but it’s got to make you whole, in terms of monetary value.) 1. Circumstances that render useless an asset of yours don’t constitute confiscation. If Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP, and my old laptop that runs XP eventually gets too buggy to use as a result, Bill Gates didn’t confiscate my laptop. If gasoline goes to $15 a barrel and I can’t afford to drive my Hummer anymore, OPEC didn’t confiscate my Hummer. They have not been confiscated; I still have them. When stuff becomes useless, even prematurely so due to external forces, that’s not confiscation. Or suppose ammunition manufacturers decide that there’s too little demand for some obscure caliber of bullet that only a handful of guns were ever made that use that size of round. If you have one of those guns, did the ammo industry confiscate it? Of course not. Sucks to be you, but you still have the now-useless gun. So if the sale of ammunition for your gun gets taxed at an onerous rate, that’s not confiscation. You didn’t have the bullets, you can’t afford the bullets, bullets weren’t confiscated from you. Nor was your gun. You still have it, even though it’s useless to you because you can’t afford the bullets. Just because it’s a governmental rather than a private actor that has taken the action that has rendered your gun useless doesn’t change the nature of what’s being done to you. Now there may be a strictly _Second Amendment_ argument against such a tax on bullets, but that’s different from an argument based on confiscation of property. I only claim this latter argument fails. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/104 "2013-04-23T14:01:54Z")
Even beyond that, there’s a somewhat meaningful line between forcing people to give up their guns and coming to their houses to take them, which is the way I interpret _confiscation_ with no other context (as here). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/105 "2013-04-23T14:55:45Z")
> [@Enkel](#): > > If you want a $100k tax, then what about if it is a $1 tax. Is that still ‘constructive taking’? Maybe the poor can afford the $1 tax. Sure, $1 tax per unit would almost certainly be fine (if we’re talking about firearms). > [@](#): > > I’ve never seen the government deal with taxes by prohibiting the item they seek to tax. That would pretty much ruin their tax base. So, I’m going to guess that the government, no matter how heavily they tax an item, are not going to prohibit the ownership as a result of failure to pay taxes\*. So, unless you can show an example of something similar, this again sounds a bit like a straw man argument. It’s not a strawman argument at all. I’m not imputing to you any particular position. I’m trying to understand if you accept the general _concept_ of constructive taking by taxation. **RTFirefuly** has some good insight on the subject: > [@](#): > > I agree with Bricker and others that a sufficiently onerous tax on an asset you possess is the functional equivalent of confiscation. > > Being able to afford $500 for a particular gun doesn’t mean you can afford a $5000 personal property tax on it, and if you’re in that position, you have no choice but to sell, give away, or turn in your gun. It may not technically be confiscation, but it sure acts like it: the government has made it impossible for you to retain your asset, and almost surely has ensured that you can’t recoup its value. (This latter part is important: the government has eminent domain authority that allows it to take stuff under certain circumstances, but it’s got to make you whole, in terms of monetary value.) > [@](#): > > \*Now, when you fail to pay taxes, the government CAN take property to satisfy the tax debt. But that could be ANY property, not just weapons. So, the extreme taxation argument causes just as much risk of confiscation of jewelry, vehicles, and property as weapons. So, if you fail to pay the now $100k tax on your $200 rifle, I’m sure they will be taking your home and any weapon will be a side issue from their perspective. No, no – the extreme taxation confiscatory aspect happens because once the tax is approved, “…you have no choice but to sell, give away, or turn in your gun…” Do you now understand this concept? Again, this is not a strawman. I’m not saying this law exists, or that you favor it. I’m asking if you now agree that “confiscation” could be satisfied by imposing a large tax on the item in question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/106 "2013-04-23T14:57:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Even beyond that, there’s a somewhat meaningful line between forcing people to give up their guns and coming to their houses to take them, which is the way I interpret _confiscation_ with no other context (as here). I read that as a pretty narrow view of the word “confiscation.” Surely you’d agree that if the government passed a law criminalizing possession of liquor, they wouldn’t need to actually come door to door to have that action fairly described as “confiscating” private liquor supplies, right? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/107 "2013-04-23T15:05:33Z")
Yes and no. I wouldn’t say it would be inaccurate to use confiscation in that context, but it’s certainly not the best word. I would call it a ban. Confiscation implies a taking, rather than a prohibition. Again, if you use the word confiscation in the gun context with no other explanation, as **Condescending Robot** did, ISTM you are talking about jackbooted thugs going door to door. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/108 "2013-04-23T16:12:01Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > So, when has it worked? > > We have the National Firearms Act of 1934 And we haven’t had a lot of machine gun crimes in a while. > [@](#): > > We need tighter laws? The laws are already tight. Enforce them. You want universal background checks? Let’s do it. What else is left licensing and registration. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > A fine post and excellent cite. Too bad Roberts isn’t half the Justice that Burger was. And yet the liberals were cheering Roberts from the rooftops when he declared Obamacare constitutional. > [@](#): > > So I say fuck 'em, you want to be unreasonable, so will I. So you (like the NRA) have decided to fight stupid with even more stupid. > [@](#): > > I hate to break it to you gun lovers, but the NRA does not represent you. They represent weapons manufacturers. I hate to break it to you but you watch too much Rachel maddow. There is more evidence that the gun manufacturers are in thrall to the NRA than the other way around. > [@](#): > > Enjoy it while you can- I don’t know if we’ll get sensible gun control this year, next year, the next decade, or the next century, but we’ll get there. Its hard to get sensible gun control when you keep asking for stupid gun control (like an AWB). > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The assertion being made is that someone has proposed a tax on firearms that would be seen as punitive/confiscatory. I’ve cited a tax on ammunition that would be seen as punitive. The parallels are such that there is little difference between the two, glaringly so when you recognize that firearms are useless without ammunition. > > I don’t see the problem. I think a lot of people have recently come to realize that guns are just pretty jewelry you wear at barbecues if you don’t have any ammo. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > it is always a concern. I don’t hold that concern myself, but it’s not unreasonable for others to. Its understandable but its not reasonable. There are people out there that want sharia law impose globally, its not really reasonable to be so afraid of it that you would oppose otherwise good legislation because it would facilitate global sharia law. > [@elucidator](#): > > There is a dark undercurrent of fear in our country, and I’m sick of it. Then just stop being afraid of guns. > [@](#): > > Civilization is based on trust, we take the chance to trust, we risk to be civilized And it ain’t easy. The fear that fosters a malignant sense of need for “self-defense” is poisonous, corrupt. It erodes trust, and without trust, the center cannot hold. And why won’;t you trust your fellow citizens with a gun? ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/109 "2013-04-23T16:20:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not a strawman argument at all. I’m not imputing to you any particular position. My bad on the term. > [@](#): > > I’m trying to understand if you accept the general _concept_ of constructive taking by taxation. I accept that constructive taking is just that, constructive taking. I do not equate it to confiscation because the owner of the object is free to dispose of the object in any way they see fit and according to their own schedule. Those who oppose WEAPONS REGISTRATION have made the statement that it would create a database that the government could use to CONFISCATE their guns. Some have gone further to make statements to the effect that should a government official show up on their property to take their guns, they would shoot at them. So, I’m not doubting constructive taking exists. I’m saying that I do not accept that the fear of a tax is the basis for their opposition to weapons registry. So, can you provide me a clear example where a gun proponent was opposing weapons registration on the basis of constructive taking? Can you explain how this excessive tax (that has never even been proposed in the past 20 years?) would result in the government suddenly showing up on my doorstep to take the weapons I own? So, one more time: (a) OP wants reasonable conversion makes statement that weapons control advocates say “Because I can conceive of some situation where I would allow one person to own a starter pistol, it’s a lie to accuse me of wanting to take away guns and I will deny that I exist as a response to any argument.” (b) This makes me wonder what is the basis for this fear of the government CONFISCATING (taking already owned guns by force) weapons from law abiding citizens. As that is routinely cited as the reason that there cannot be weapons registration. (c) I asked for examples of where CONFISCATION (taking already owned weapons by force) have been proposed as Federal law. So far, only Airman has provided a mid 1990s quote of something that Boxer had said to the effect that IF there were the votes to pass a law, they could have collected all the gun. BUT, that law was not passed (I’m not sure that it was even proposed). Airman has also provided a bill from that same time frame that proposed en excessive tax on ammunition. So, without actual proposed legislation… that leaves an apparent belief that --should weapons be registered-- the US Government or local governments will just willy-nilly one day decide to go out and collect guns with no authorization. And, further, that the agents, officers and employees of this agency would actually put their life at risk attempting to conduct a completely illegal activity. AND that no higher authority or external entities would react to such an overt mass theft of property from citizens by the government. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/110 "2013-04-23T16:23:15Z")
I think we are very close now to a working definition of “confiscatory”. Much progress has been made. And we would be remiss if we failed to credit the \*\*Counselor’s \*\*remarkable gifts in the art of precise semantic distinction! **Bricker** , are you by any chance lead counsel for the Professional Organization of English Majors? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/111 "2013-04-23T16:23:58Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I hate to break it to you but you watch too much Rachel maddow. > > There is more evidence that the gun manufacturers are in thrall to the NRA than the other way around. This was nonsense when you said it in GD and it remains nonsense now. Are you still asserting that the NRA boycott of Smith & Wesson was motivated by the interests of individual NRA members? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/112 "2013-04-23T16:30:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > …I hate to break it to you but you watch too much Rachel maddow… Steady up, there, hoss. Much may be forgiven so long as you don’t cross the line. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/113 "2013-04-23T16:31:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I read that as a pretty narrow view of the word “confiscation.” Surely you’d agree that **if the government passed a law criminalizing possession of liquor** , they wouldn’t need to actually come door to door to have that action fairly described as “confiscating” private liquor supplies, right? Weapons Registration does not criminalize the possession of weapons – my basis for asking about confiscation. Please provide link to any bill that proposed to criminalize possession of “ **weapons** ” (general, not specific forms). Remember, it actually is legal to privately own fully automatic weapons and some fairly large artillery, even to this day. If the government passed a law criminalizing possession of bourbon, would that constitute confiscating all liquor? Again, can you provide me a link to a bill that proposed criminalizing the **possession** of a weapon that is already owned by a law abiding citizen? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/114 "2013-04-23T16:31:22Z")
Let’s again not forget that reality has a liberal bias, and the most recent example of the last election still fresh in our minds. Rachel Maddow is a trustworthy source. All conservative sources are not. Thus, it is true that the NRA represents only the gun manufacturers. There is no equivalency on this from “both” sides. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/115 "2013-04-23T16:34:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I think we are very close now to a working definition of “confiscatory”. Much progress has been made. And we would be remiss if we failed to credit the \*\*Counselor’s \*\*remarkable gifts in the art of precise semantic distinction! > > **Bricker** , are you by any chance lead counsel for the Professional Organization of English Majors? Well, since I don’t view “Confiscatory” as the same as “Confiscation,” I’m going to have to bow out of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/116 "2013-04-23T17:03:46Z")
I tend to agree with Bricker on this one. He’s pointing out practical realities and other people are hiding behind semantic distinctions. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. If the government proposed a law requiring any woman seeking an abortion to pay a $3000 registration fee, would people say “Well, it’s not like they’re banning abortions”? Opponents of abortions or firearms realize that if they can’t ban something outright, the next best thing is to make it too difficult for most people to be able to do. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/117 "2013-04-23T17:22:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I tend to agree with Bricker on this one. He’s pointing out practical realities and other people are hiding behind semantic distinctions. The example of taxes given (mid 1990s) was on sales volume. So, if no sale happened, then no tax would be due. So, unless there is a federal bill out there proposing a personal property tax on weapons, then the taxes are on the SALE of the weapon. If you want to purchase a weapon, by definition, you do not own it. So, if you decide it is too expensive (for what ever reason), that is not the same as the government coming into your home and taking a weapon that you already own. Confiscation is the government coming into your home and taking a weapon that you already own and (a) you have no say in the matter and (b) the government decides the disposition of the weapon. If you decide not to buy a weapon, it still exists and is available for sale to who ever is willing to pay the price. The government has not taken possession of it and it is still among the national herd of weapons. > [@](#): > > Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. If the government proposed a law requiring any woman seeking an abortion to pay a $3000 registration fee, would people say “Well, it’s not like they’re banning abortions”? (a) Please provide an example where someone has proposed this law. Again, a reasonable discussion is not possible if the discussion is over stuff that just has not even happened and is not likely to happen. There should be some ‘reality’ basis or else I can start claiming that aliens threaten my second amendment. (b) In my opinion, this is not banning abortion. There are plenty of activities that you have to be licensed for or pay a fee to engage in. That doesn’t mean they’re banned. > [@](#): > > Opponents of abortions or firearms realize that if they can’t ban something outright, the next best thing is to make it too difficult for most people to be able to do. Again, how is registration making it ‘too difficult’ to own a gun. Many gun owners have managed to obtain and maintain registration on vehicles, some even have to get emissions and safety inspections… is that effectively banning vehicles? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/118 "2013-04-23T17:29:15Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > …Rachel Maddow is a trustworthy source… Better. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/119 "2013-04-23T17:40:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I hate to break it to you gun lovers, but the NRA does not represent you. They represent weapons manufacturers. People say this, but I’ve yet to see any evidence. But rather than add one more thing to the mix here, I thought this might be worthy of [its own GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=688993). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334/120 "2013-04-23T17:42:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The change we need is too big for a program of laws, it probably can’t be done by legalistic and authority-based means. While I appreciate and support the motives, I can’t be optimistic about the tactics. What, then? It’s no easy task to change the **culture.** The culture is always changing, but that does not mean it can **be** changed without some drastic and heroic efforts, on the scale of the Civil Rights movement; and I expect no cultural anti-gun, or, anti-fear movement on that scale to emerge this decade or next. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-reasonable-conversation-about-guns-that-anti-gun-internet-people-want/656334.md?page=7)