Guns

Trade in Your Old 'Assault Weapon' For a New One, Says Rep. Rosa DeLauro

Thank the nice congresswoman for the new guns!

|

YouTube screen capture

When the politicos flapped their lips about passing more pointless and intrusive gun laws, did you stretch your available budget to buy an SKS that you now wish was an AR-series rifle? Do you own an AR-15, but what you really want is an FN/FAL? You don't actually have a piece-of-crap TEC-9, do you? I mean, really…? Well, fear not, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct.) wants to give you up to $2,000 on a trade-in of your old "assault weapon" that you can put toward a brand new boomstick!

According to Rep. DeLauro's Website, "The SAFER Streets Act creates a $2,000 refundable tax credit ($1,000 for two consecutive years) for an assault weapon owner who gives their firearm to law enforcement." And you can put that $2,000 tax credit toward a brand new assault weapon of your choice!

Well, OK. Rep. DeLauro doesn't actually intend for you to trade in and trade up on your firearms collection. She's one of those anti-gunners who pees herself at the the thought that the public on which she foists intrusive and authoritarian laws has the means to do something about it should people get sufficiently bent out of shape.

Armies of Darkness

"Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense," she insists. "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.  These weapons were used in Newtown, Aurora and countless other mass shootings across America.  And they have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty.  They have no place on the streets or in our homes."

The SAFER Streets Act (and why not the Kittens, Puppies, and Burbling Babies Act? Let's try harder, Rosa.) is supposed "to reduce the number of privately owned weapons" becase they give politicians a sad. In her attempt to disarm us, Rosa and her pals are perfectly willing to spew bullshit about the imaginary dangers of detachable magazines and threaded barrels.

Never mind that the vast majority of "assault weapons" are put to safe, legal, and fun use; that homicides are down again as part of a decades-long decline in such crimes; that mass killings are very much not a growing problem; and that actual criminals don't get their weapons from legal sources anyway. Those inconvenient facts would throw off Rep. DeLauro, and she's on a roll here.

But let's take the opportunity for what it is. If Rep. DeLauro wants to hand out tax credits to people willing trade in a qualifying hunk of junk so they can score sweet new guns, it would be churlish to say "no."

For the record, this law has about zero chance of getting through the current Congress.

Advertisement

NEXT: Nick Gillespie Talking Rand Paul on The Blaze with Dana Loesch at 10 AM ET

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, OK. Rep. DeLauro doesn’t actually intend for you to trade in and trade up on your firearms collection.

    YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT’S IN HER HEAD. She might have stock in various “assault” rifle manufacturers.

  2. I don’t do trade-ins, I collect.

    1. Also, most ‘assault weapons’ don’t cost $2000. Won’t this cause arbitrage where people buy a weapon for the sole purpose of trading in and getting $1500 or so back?

      1. Of course. I mean, it’d be stupid not to do such a thing, wouldn’t it?

      2. Exactly what I’m thinking. This sounds like an awesome deal. Buy a handful of cheap guns, turn them in, and then buy something really expensive.

        Also sounds like a hell of a deal for S&W, Colt, etc…

        1. Cash For Clunkers v2.0

      3. I sure as hell would. I sold off three ‘assault rifles’ over the past year, all for well under $2000. That would have been a nice little payday.

      4. I had a friend who used to make a lot of money going to pawn shops and by crappy revolvers, most of which didn’t even work, and then selling them to Philadelphia gun buybacks for way more than he paid for them.

      5. I really wish I’d won one of those NAGR giveaways. I’d be in the black by 2G’s!

  3. “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.”

    Sounds like a legitimate self-defense use to me. Why would I want to take a long time killing people if I needed to do so to defend myself?

    1. You don’t need a legitimate self-defense claim to justify owning a gun. Just wanting to is sufficient.

    2. AR-15’s are semi-automatic, therefore, not designed for the battlefield.

      1. Tell that to the M1 Garand.

        1. I’ve got an M1A that I would not hesitate to take into any, err, frank exchange of views hosted in the outdoors.

          I’d wouldn’t trade it for the $2K – even without the optics, its had enough work done that its probably worth nearly that much.

          I like the arbitrage idea – buy some cheap crap and swap it to tax credits, and use the cash to gun up. This is like cash for clunkers in reverse.

        2. Heck why stop there, muskets were designed for battlefield use in their day too.

        3. I once saw a picture someone posted on Facebook that showed an M1 Garand on the top and some black plastic rifle on the bottom and the picture said something like ‘Why would anyone need the gun on the bottom for self defense?’

          The obvious implication was that we should have safe wood guns like the Garand instead of scary plastic guns. This is despite the fact that the Garand was an actual battlefield rifle that continued to be used by the US Military into the 60’s.

          They used the Garand during the fucking Korean War and these idiots who are always whining about ‘battle field rifles’ apparently think we should trade in our AR-15s for an actual wartime rifle.

          1. Just for a little extra amusement, consider that the technical terminology for an M1 is “battle rifle”, on account of it has a real man’s caliber, rather than being a jumped-up .22.

    3. So you and they can engage in a dialogue about relative privileges and the role of ethnic animus guiding your decision to end their home invasion.

      1. That’s just cruel. Shoot the poor guy instead.

    4. That’s exactly what I want when defending my property during a riot.

  4. There is no reason on Earth that anyone needs chocolate.

    1. *** rising intonation ***

      What about on a battlefield?

      1. Chocolate was in K-rats or C-rats or whatever. I know; I’ve opened them and eaten some of the contents.

        1. That was “tropical chocolate.” It wouldn’t melt. Resemblance to Real Chocolate was tenuous.

    2. Try telling that to a woman with PMS. Just make sure you can outrun her.

      1. “You know, you’re *cute* when you’re angry!”

  5. Instapundit has a great idea of how to troll these assholes. The Republicans should offer up a bill to pay people on welfare to get sterilized. Don’t coerce them. Just offer them a significant sum of money to be sterilized.

    1. That would be interesting. Both for the hilarity of calling the progs out on their bullshit, and for how the media would react. I can see the Amanduh articles and the Jezebel headlines now.

    2. If be great, you mean stupid and self-destructive, then yeah, I guess.

      1. That is the point. It is rationally no different than this. People have a legal and constitutionally protected right to own these guns just like they have to procreate if they choose. Therefore, paying these people to voluntarily surrender their weapons as a way to get around the Constitutional prohibition of just taking them is no different than paying poor people to be sterilized because we can’t legal force them to be.

        Paying people to be sterilized only seems more shocking than paying people for their lawfully owned weapons because we often don’t treat the 2nd Amendment as a real right. And we should. Introducing such a bill would illustrate that.

        1. Everything you said is correct up to this point:

          Introducing such a bill would illustrate that

          That most certainly is not the lesson most people would learn. They would stop pretty much here:

          Paying people to be sterilized only seems more shocking

          and then whoever proposed such an idea would get called a eugenicist and probably worse, and the whole incident would further entrench people who already think that those gun nuts are just a bunch of evil racist fascists, and push away people that might be sympathetic.

          It’s one thing to troll people on the internet. It’s quite another for highly visible people in positions of power and influence to do it. It’s horrible politics and horrible strategy.

          1. Okay. Then take eugenics out of it. How about a bill to pay people in return for their consent to let the police tap their phone?

        2. How about “A certificate for free sterilization in return for voting”?

        3. Don’t limit it to “people on welfare”. Problem solved.

    3. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

    4. Make it an amendment on every gun buyback bill.

    5. A private citizen tried this a few years back. She offered cash (and medical expenses) to any drug-addicted woman who agreed to be sterilized. No surprise, she was thoroughly vilified by the SJWs.

      1. No surprise, she was thoroughly vilified by the SJWs.

        The same people would unironically erect a statue to Margaret Sanger.

    6. Just offer them a significant sum of money to be sterilized.

      No woman should ever need more than two eggs.

    7. Not a separate bill. Add it as a rider to this one.

    8. “offer up a bill to pay people on welfare to get sterilized”

      As long it’s their “choice”, I can’t see why anyone would object.

  6. FTFWS: SAFER (Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education for our) Streets Act

    SAFEE Streets Act? SAFEE(S) Act? SAFEaEfoS Act?

    Indeed, let’s try harder, Rosa.

    1. SOIAF Act?

    2. Duh… the R is for Education. What part of that don’t you understand?

      Always remember that science is on the side of progressives.

      1. Readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic.

      2. reminds me of the Lucky Aide slogan: The “L” stands for value.

  7. they have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty.

    Emphasis added. Probably true.

    1. I thought the biggest killer of Cops was their own guns. Shouldn’t we be disarming the cops for their own safety?

      1. Wasn’t it something like heart attacks?

        1. Shh… we don’t need fitter cops, just less shooty ones.

      2. Heart attacks followed by traffic accidents.

        1. Hrmm… take away their guns and their cruisers. The added walking will fix the heart issues.

          1. BRILLIANT!!!

          2. Also donuts. Donuts are the real cop killers.

    2. I don’t know if there has ever been a cop that was killed by an “assault rifle.”

      1. Not even at the Bank of America in North Hollywood did any cops die by assault rifle (or any causes)

      2. Maybe… during prohibition?

        Wait, what about Nakatomi Plaza?

        1. Those were submachineguns, not assault rifles.

          1. Bollocks. They look scary and they fired bullets. That’s assault rifle all over.

          2. Actually, both the HK94 and Steyr AUG from Die Hard are considered Assault Rifles under the proposed bill.

            Then again, so are things likes a Mini-14, a Dragunov Sniper Rifle, and a pump shotgun.

            1. I don’t recall if either actually killed any cops though.

              Most of the cop fatalities in that film were from the rocket launcher and other explosives, weren’t they?

              1. No, I’m pretty sure that John McClaine was the only one who had to worry about those guns.

                “We’re gonna need some more FBI guys, I guess.”

        2. Wait, what about Nakatomi Plaza?

          In the hands of John McClain, a Beretta 92 is an assault weapon.

      3. I remember one cop killed with an M14 (technically a battle rifle) back in the 70’s in MA during a bank robbery. That’s all I got.

    3. Proportionality has a concrete mathematical definition. Disproportionality has no such discrete definition. The statement merely relates the fact that sometimes police officers are killed in the line of duty, that private citizens owns the types of guns that she doesn’t like, and how sad the Congresswoman would be should these two facts ever intersect.

    4. What’s out of proportion, exactly?

      What ratio are we looking at here?

      Percentage of guns that kill cops that are “assault” rifles that kill cops : Percentage of guns owned by the public that are “assault” rifles?

      There’s a crapload of assault rifles in circulation, and they are practically never used to kill a cop, so I’m struggling with this one.

      1. Well, yeah. You’d figure a lot more cops would end up killed by them. It’s totally disproportional.

  8. Idiot politicians. How do they get elected when they can’t think more than 1 move ahead?

    1. By working for the good of the people, DUH!

    2. Because signaling their constituents is more about smoke than fire.

  9. I have a Hi-Point carbine I bought for less than $200. If I could get $2k for it, I would upgrade to something like an FN F2000.

      1. Those are sweet. So are the AUG clones.

        1. MTAR. I like bullpups too.

          1. I want a P-90 someday.

            1. We could start our own little gun club: Shooters Amalgamated from the Reason Commentariat (SARC).

      2. Tavor’s are da bomb, expensive but very sweet. What’s not to like getting an 18 inch barrel in a 27 inch package?

  10. Cash for clickers.

    1. Cash for Carbines.

      1. Cash for Carbines

        Alms for arms.

    2. Payday for plinkers.

    3. And just like Cash for Clunkers, it’ll have the effect of mostly disproportionately making it harder for poor people to afford the subject deodand.

      So, not only is Rep. Rosa an anti-gun looney, she’s classist, too.

  11. “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.”

    I agree, there’s no reason for police officers to have weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

    Ooopsie, that’s not what you meant, is it honey?

    1. Except that, in the minds of our occupying army, it is indeed a battlefield out there.

      Not too long ago some smartass (not me) wrote a sarcastic letter to the local paper asking that the city police parade around in their military vehicles, like the communist dictators of old, allowing children to give them flowers and stuff like that.

      In response the mayor wrote a scathing letter telling about how it’s a war out there with a subclass of people (druggies) willing to use fully automatic weapons on the police, and how they need more, not less, military gear. He was serious. So I looked up the stats on fallen officers for that department. The last one was shot in the 90s, and that was the first in seventy years.

      Never let the facts get in the way of the narrative.

  12. did you stretch your available budget to buy an SKS that you now wish was an AR-series rifle?

    Don’t dismiss the former so easily–nice, simple, reliable truck gun that’s a piece of cake to clean and a lot of fun to shoot.

    1. And if you drop it, it will go full auto.

      1. I’m thinking, that’s a feature?

  13. If Rep. DeLauro wants to hand out tax credits to people willing trade in a qualifying hunk of junk so they can score sweet new guns, it would be churlish to say “no.”

    If Rep. DeLauro truly believes in her cause, she should jolly well better hand out *her own money* to people willing trade in a qualifying hunk of junk.

  14. And they have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2013/…..ce-deaths/

    During the assault weapons ban it was 1 in 5 officers killed by assault weapons. After the ban it fell to 1 in 6. The number of officers killed in a year between 2001 and 2011 was between 35 and 63. So between 7 and 13 officers where killed per year by assault weapons. Sorry, that is not disproportionate. Officers are 5 times or more likely to be killed in auto crashes than shot by assault weapons so maybe they should ban officers driving cars. Officers are just as likely to die in a car accident as being shot by weapon of any kind. And if you include officers hit by cars when they weren’t driving, a car is the leading factor in killing officers.

    http://www.nleomf.org/facts/of…..auses.html

    1. Since that’s sourced from the Violence Policy Center, I’m going to need some independent verification.

    2. The biggest danger to a police officer is someone with a concealed weapon in close contact with them. An assault weapon is not concealable. And no armored vest protects your head or keeps you from bleeding out from a wound to the artery in your leg.

      Moreover, even if it were true, it still wouldn’t make any difference. Even if no assault rifles were available to the public, the people who shot those police officers would have just used a different weapon. For the fact that it is an assault weapon to be significant, it not only has to be the murder weapon, it has to have been the only weapon that could have been used. To put it in Archie Bunker terms, “would this idiot feel better if those cops had been pushed out of windows?”

      1. Even if no assault rifles were available to the public, the people who shot those police officers would have just used a different weapon.

        Neither the ‘assault’ nor the ‘rifle’ make it particularly lethal to the officer. There are ammunition bans that, at the technical level, make sense, but that’s not the point.

      2. Even if no assault rifles were available to the public, the people who shot those police officers would have just used a different weapon.

        Why would they have to use a different weapon? Making “assault rifles” unavailable to the public won’t keep people who shoot police officers from getting them.

  15. Rosa DeLauro isn’t human. She’s a Romulan with bobbed ears (Google her) who came here to destroy the US from the inside. It’s the only explanation…

  16. I put a couple hundred rounds through my Mini-14 this weekend. Modified stock, holo red dot + 3x mag, 20 round clips, etc…but not an AR…wonder if that counts?

  17. I’m a strong supporter for Gun Controls in areas where it is needed.
    In NYC, Stop and Frisk and draconian sentences for Gun possession while committing felonies significantly and positively effected our Gun violence problem.

    I agree with many of you that “Stop and Frisk” was draconian and respect that you guys don’t like it.

    That said, I can’t think of anything sillier than giving gun owners money for their old guns…just so that they can go out and buy a newer gun.

    I think this Bill was probably authored by the Gun manufacturers and their stooges.

    1. Stop and Frisk and draconian sentences for Gun possession while committing felonies significantly and positively effected our Gun violence problem.

      No it didn’t. New York City had draconian punishments for guns clear through the worst years of its murder rate. And stop and frisk came around after the NYC murder rate dropped.

    2. In NYC, Stop and Frisk and draconian sentences for Gun possession while committing felonies significantly and positively effected our Gun violence problem.

      Crime went down nationwide during the time it dropped in NYC. Even in places that didn’t implement gun control.

      Correlation is not causation.

    3. In NYC, Stop and Frisk and draconian sentences for Gun possession while committing felonies significantly and positively effected our Gun violence problem.

      Citation needed.

      1. In NYC, Stop and Frisk and draconian sentences for Gun possession while committing felonies significantly and positively effected our Gun violence problem.

        That’s not unbelievable.

      2. The only citation I can give you is the drug dealers in Washington Heights and Bronx.

        Before Guiliani time, cousins and friends of mine in the FIELD would walk with guns as a matter of fashion. Many times, not really for protection. After Stop-And-Frisk and the tougher Gun laws were implemented, these people were afraid to cross the street with a gun.

        In addition, getting caught with a Kilo of Cocaine in NYC can get you 3 years in Rikers Island.
        If the same guy is caught with 1/4 of a Kilo and a gun, it’s 15 years. As a result, the drug dealers themselves stop walking with guns and drugs and stopped storing drugs where there were guns.

        A fact about STOP and FRISK that no one knows or talks about.
        The tough Gun laws came BEFORE STOP and FRISK.

        Once the drug dealers became un-armed to harder time for having a gun. Other criminals in these neighborhoods (known as Joloperos in spanish) would ROB DRUG DEALERS.
        This is what motivated Commissioner Kelly at the time to start a STOP and FRISK in the neighborhood that was being watched for drugs. This was rather successful and Kelly decided to apply the policy throughout the city.

        I know that this is much of an AUTHORITATIVE citation. But this is what went down here.

        1. You just described the introduction of a new type of crime to the area, followed by a crackdown on everybody’s 4th amendment rights.

          That’s not a positive.

    4. What if they pinky swear not to buy a newer gun?

    5. You’re in favor of strictly restricting or taking away peoples rights – Check

      Obviously you didn’t RTFA. The bill was authored by a rights restricting regressive of the Democrat party. They don’t need a tax credit to boost sales. The gun manufacturers and their stooges get plenty of free advertising and boosts to their bottom line whenever the rights restricting crowd proposes rules changes (.223 ammo) and bans. There is a run on the product and prices go up. Since costs are static it just means more profit for the manufacturers and their stooges. While the consumer gets screwed.

      1. *watches the joke train blow through Private FUQ station without even slowing down*

        1. What joke?

          1. Stormy Dragon is the joke. And not a funny one either.

            1. So you think Private FUQ is right and Tuccille seriously supports this law?

              1. I think Private FUQ is responding to Alice Bowie’s comment, not Tucille’s words.

  18. “Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” she insists.

    *sigh*

    Has this talking point not been sufficiently refuted by now?

    And they have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty

    I can’t believe this was said with a straight face.

    1. She might get all her news from the CSGV or MDA.

  19. My classmate’s step-aunt makes $61 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay check was $12801 just working on the internet for a few hours. try this out.
    GO TO THE SITE TEC NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP
    ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.