Isnt’ there an SMBC cartoon that explains that? I can’t seem to find it.
The rise of the idea that the 2nd amendment guarentees the right to own any type of firearm is pretty new, it has coincided with the slow decline of white males’ stranglehold on power in the US. I’m sick to death of these scared little men from our backwaters dragging our culture down. Everyone has to wait until they can wrap their brains around integration, then we tread water waiting for them to accept women’s rights, then we have to impatiently wait while they figure out that gays are people too, now it’s global warming, evolution and guns.
Here’s the Daily Show’s piece on Australian gun control:
Are you, like the idiot in this clip, arguing that Australia is not on our planet?
Have you seen some of the animals they have there!?
I think there is something to this. I was watching Maddow’s show the other day, and she was playing clips from a protest of mother’s in favor of gun control in Indiana. Their protest spawned a counter-protest of people standing around prominently displaying their weapons.
Maddow’s point was that intimidation a la Second Amendment remedies is not only wrong, but tends to be rejected by the majority of the American people.
What I actually found interesting was that these guys were all white and almost exclusively paunchy, doughy middle aged guys.
I’ve noticed this in other photos of gun shows. Lots of soft, doughy, middle aged white guys - so much so, it sometimes looks like a bunch of clones.
I also note that public polling shows that majorities of gun owners now own guns primarily for self-defense rather than hunting.
So, we all have to cope with the problems caused by this group of soft, doughy middle aged white guys as they try to deal with their existential anxieties and the challenges of a changing modern world.
Once again I suggest that, like water fluoridation to improve public dental health, we implement water Xanaxification to improve public mental health.
I need some clarification on this request. What constitutes “confiscation” from your point of view?
For example, if a proposed bill required that every firearm owner either give up his firearm or pay a tax of $3000 per firearm – is that confiscation?
That’s the one. Thanks!
You got to slack off for 10 years? Nice! 
Was there a bill that proposed that?
Confiscation: Legal seizure without compensation by a government or other public authority. (wikipedia)
$3000 tax = Confiscation = NO. My property taxes go up every year. I can sell the property if I don’t want to pay the taxes. That is NOT confiscation. But I would like to see this proposed federal regulation that would impose a $3000 tax on each gun. (and please at least highlight the language if the bill is like 30 pages long)
The OP made me laugh, and I’m anti-gun.
Given the context, I assume this is supposed to be untrue. So, where are these programs? 
ETA: I see this is already being addressed.
I’m not sure. I searched online and I found people saying there is a proposed bill like this but I couldn’t find a cite to the actual bill.
I don’t doubt that someone, somewhere proposed one in the pre-Heller years. I’d still like to see a cite though.
To answer this question: in my personal opinion, if there were such a tax, I’d consider it unconstitutional.
Well, there is, in the law, a concept called “constructive taking.” When government regulation removes substantially all economically viable use of private property – as a $3,000 tax on a single firearm might be said to do – that is considered confiscation as well. In other words, your comparison to your property tax isn’t quite on point. If your property tax went from zero to $3000 per square foot, for example, you might see things differently. You couldn’t simply sell the property – the new owner would then be on the hook for the $3,000 per square foot tax. The imposition of that tax would mean, from a practical standpoint, that your property couldn’t be owned by anyone – the tax would be many times the value of the property itself.
Does that argument change your mind?
Is there any level of taxation that would amount to confiscation? How about $100,000 per firearm? A cool million?
It seems like a waste of time to follow this hypothetical until there’s some evidence that it exists.
A fine post and excellent cite. Too bad Roberts isn’t half the Justice that Burger was.
I used to be more tolerant of guns. I still don’t begrudge hunters their rifles and shotguns. I used to think if you were stupid enough to think that you need a handgun at home for self defense, go ahead and knock yourself out. Now I’m against any private ownership of handguns and any non-hunting weapons at all. It’s because gun owners have proven themselves time and time again to be mad as hatters. Somehow limiting someone to 10 shots without reloading is akin to castration. So I say fuck 'em, you want to be unreasonable, so will I.
I hate to break it to you gun lovers, but the NRA does not represent you. They represent weapons manufacturers. The same ones who make money ass over applecart everytime you fools go on buying binges, which you do every time Diane Feinstein farts. So they scare the piss out of you by making you think your pwecious little guns are going to be taken from you, you go ahead and spend all your spare cash on guns and ammos, the manufacturers clean up and kick back your money to the NRA. 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.
So here we have random accusations of racism and advocacy of total confiscation. Does anyone want to complete the checklist of Shit Gun Confiscators Say that I originally posted so as to prove my point?
Nothing we could ever say would be as remotely moronic as “the Second protects the First” or “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.