DownTrend – by Brian AndersonDespite their best efforts to undermine the Constitution, democrats at the federal level have been unsuccessful at disarming the American public. Switching tactics, a liberal legislator from Connecticut (where else?) thinks she can pay gun owners to voluntarily disarm. And by pay I mean with taxpayer money, not with her own funds.
US Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) plans to introduce a bill that would give gun owners tax credits for surrendering their “deadly assault rifles.”
The Hill reports:
The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.
Think of it like a national gun buy back: just as useless, but much costlier because it won’t have corporate sponsors footing the bill. This piece of crap bill even has a hokey misleading name: The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act.
DeLauro couldn’t explain how bribing law abiding citizens to part with their legally owned firearms would make the streets safer, but she did say this load of garbage:
“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield,” said DeLauro.
Wow, there’s an awful lot of wrong in those two sentences. Let’s see how many we can find:
#1 – The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about hunting or self-defense and as such is not a condition of gun ownership rights.
#2 – You sure as sh*t can hunt with a semi-automatic rifle.
#3 – A semi-automatic rifle makes a great self-defense tool, especially if there are multiple attackers.
#4 – There are many reasons on Earth why someone would need a semi-automatic rifle: hunting, self-defense, target shooting, collecting, because the Constitution says so, etc…
#5 – A semi-automatic rifle isn’t designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. A full-auto rifle would be faster and deadlier. Actually, a bomb would be even better if speed and body count were a consideration.
#6 – Modern sporting rifles were not designed for the battlefield. No soldier in his right mind would bring a semi-automatic rifle he bought at WalMart into a combat situation.
Now here’s a surprise: I actually want this bill to pass, and the reason is because it is so exploitable that it will go down as the biggest legislative failure ever. You could trade in your old worn out semi-auto and take the two grand tax credit to get something really nice. Hell, a brand new Busmaster AR-15 goes for under $800. Even better, a Chinese SKS (considered an assault rifle in many states) is around $179. Trade in a case of those suckers and you could be looking at a new car come tax refund check day.
I think once the government looses a billion dollars or so to help gun owners upgrade their arsenals and buy nice things, this would get repealed and we’d be done with anti-gun legislation for good. Liberals love welfare, but not for gun owners.
Alas, this thing has no chance of passing. DeLauro tried introducing this bill in 2013 and it fell flat. Now that Republicans have a much larger majority in the House and control the Senate it’s dead on arrival. DeLauro is reintroducing the bill in a much more hostile environment because she’s clearly an idiot.
Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter
http://downtrend.com/71superb/liberal-bill-would-pay-gun-owners-to-surrender-their-assault-rifles
#6 – Modern sporting rifles were not designed for the battlefield. No soldier in his right mind would bring a semi-automatic rifle he bought at WalMart into a combat situation.
this is the scariest part of it all, because its true, and if we ever do go face to face in war here.. the arms we DO have are inadequate, our 2nd amendment right says we need to step up our game .. those full auto weapons should be right along side of our mamby pamby “sporting rifles” or were not living up to our role as An American
and any more infringement from anyone should be met with full force opposition
no more regulations ,, no more infringements .. or no more government
I’ll own what i F-ing want to own , and ignore what you say I dont NEED
I had to look, because they don’t have enough money to buy up 1% of the guns they’re calling “assault rifles”, so instead they’re offering tax credits for your gun.
You can get a much bigger tax credit by not paying your taxes, and these days you have to ask whether funding these crooks isn’t an act of treason in itself.
“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield,” said DeLauro.
Don’t even enter this argument. De-rail it completely, because it’s only an attempt to redefine the Second Article by framing any debate around an erroneous assumption. (that erroneous assumption being that you’re only allowed to own guns for sporting purposes or self-defense)
“No. My guns aren’t designed for hunting, or self defense, and that’s not why I bought them. I own guns because it’s my civic duty as an American to retain the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, and for that purpose, they’ll need to be comparable to what’s used in any modern army.”
none of my guns are “assault” weapons
all of mine are “defensive” weapons
words have meanings , i will not cower to a line of BS using terms unjustified
besides if for some crazy reason the dictionary had a word assault in it and it even defined semi auto VS full auto as the difference I would still argue the point that no weapon is capable of assault if its not the PERSONS intent
so are YOU an assault weapon or are YOU on the defensive ?
Ahh…..once again, the Commies are resorting to bribery for their desperate plea to disarm us. Let’s see…if buyback programs for gift cards didn’t work, then why the HELL would they think that tax credits from an unconstitutional entity like the IRS would get us to give up our guns? Especially since most gun owners know the IRS is illegal and a bunch of criminals.
The only way I see this is that they think this will encourage the people with no health insurance to give up their guns in order to pay for the unconstitutional tax/insurance that they can’t afford to pay.
These Commie bastards are pathetic. They’ll never learn until they are buried six feet under.