Pricing the 2nd Amendment out of reach of minorities and the lower class

[ksnecktieman]

Tourist? do you think it would be acceptable for the federal government to tax a printing press more than a sewing machine? I think that would be an infringement on free speech rights under the first amendment.
Do you think the federal government taxing a pistol more than a drill press would be acceptable? I think that would be an infringement on second amendment rights.

Prohibitive? Maybe, maybe not, but they will increase until they are.

 

[jrfoxx]

However, I'll ask again, what's your plan?

Repeal all taxes at the state, county and federal level for all firearm, ammunition and reloading supplies as being a Constituional infringement?

Be my guest, and good luck. This would probably take a Supreme Court decision after years of working the case through the courts.

Only tax the rich? Well, okay, but then you have to wear a T-shirt that says, "My butt was parked on a couch when The Tourist paid for my guns."

Subsidize the purchase with a rebate or a coupon?

I'm not seeing where anyone has suggested there should be NO tax on guns or ammo, or that there should be free ones for the poor, or coupons/rebates for the poor. The impression I'm geting, and I'd agree, is that guns and ammo are taxed at a much higher rate than say an apple, rice, shoes, a shirt, etc. The point is, EXCESSIVE tax being used to control/descriminate, not the fact ANY tax exists. why is it "communist", or "welfare", or "entitlement" to simply say that guns and ammo taxes should be a REASONABLE rate/percent, like with other products, as opposed to the EXCESSIVE rate/percent they are now? No freebies, no coupons, no giveaways, no handouts, no stealing from the rich to give to the poor, just a reasonable, fair, equal tax. if food,clothes, etc are taxed at say 5% (just a nubmber as an example), then guns should be taxed at 5%, not 20%, and then $200 in NFA tax, $200 in licenses fees (effectively a tax), etc. Thats all thats being said. I think you are taking it to an extreme WAY beyond what anyone has suggested.

Nobody wants to add a 10% federal tax to your check to buy guns for "poor" people.Nobody want to make you pay full price, but people under $10,000 a year get guns at 1/2 price, and no one wants to take guns from you "rich" folk to redistribute them to the poor. Dont worry. We are not trying to take your guns or your money to give it to "dirty poor people" (<--joking).
We just think YOU, as well as poor people, shouldnt be forced by the govt to be paying EXCESSIVE, unfair, taxes on guns, aammo, permits, etc.It benefits YOU, as well as the poor. See? win-win for everybody but racistes, elitists, and the govt, and I say screw them, they have MORE than enough tax money if they quit wasting it on all the useless crap like fancy cars, desks, perks, etc for themselves.

 

[VARifleman]

No, I'm just disappointed.

We seem to revere our heroes in history, but when it comes to our turn for care taking of the 2A, there's a real lack of anything substantive.

If we are in fact being taxed or manipulated by a strong central government, it doesn't appear that anyone even knows or proffers a solution, much less cares about implementing one.

And I get into trouble for asking a question.

No, look back again at the point of this question. We CANNOT offer a SOLUTION if the problem is NOT KNOWN. What we CAN DO, is find out WHAT the problem is. Only AFTER the problem is KNOWN can a solution be offered. You're putting the cart before the horse, and backtracking previous statements that you made which basically state that there is no problem without showing evidence that my analysis is wrong.

 

[The Tourist]

no problem without showing evidence that my analysis is wrong

Well, perhaps it is my fault in the perception of the issue.

The OP states/implies that there might be tax issues curtailing the free exercise of 2A. To that, we have discussed tax issues on voting, food and other needs of the populace.

My position of this debate is to state flatly that there is no issue. None. If there was a uniform, country-wide policy of setting up tax barriers for the purpose to disenfranchise any group or section of the financial strata, then smarter minds than ours would be screaming. Leading the pack would be the NRA, and fighting the issue would be some leftist organization implying that guns wwere now kept from "the leading factors of crime."

For the record, I don't believe in The Skull and Bones, The Trilateral Commision, black helicopters, tin foil hats, Men in Black, or alien implants. For all of the screaming about The Patriot Act, the biggest infringement I have ever heard documented was studying the receipts of individuals shopping at Borders Book Store.

What I do believe in is the constant complaining about the government as a "catch all" for our woes. If we can't afford that new car it's because George won't get us out of Iraq thereby driving up pricing.

If you are right and there is a "cart before the horse" issue, then you're going to have to show me that there is an issue, at all.

Right now, all I see is a debate in a hobbyist forum. And to that debate, I simply disagree.

 

[VARifleman]

Imposing a law that makes the price of certain firearms jump by 15X is not a regulatory barrier to keep the lower and middle classes from being able to afford those firearms?

Imposing a law that makes a tax equal to 5 months average salary on an item is not an attempt to make make the item unattainable by the lower class?

Having a moral character requirement on a permit that was used and abused to deny permits to blacks is not a racist law?

Having trade regulations so that the firearms could only be sold through a store, and the license for that store cost quite a bit of money at the time, and thus increases the price of firearms significantly, is not an attempt to make them harder to obtain by the lower classes?

Am I getting that right Tourist? Also, I think it's naive to think that the "smarter" minds would be after this. The NRA has to worry about stopping the UN gun ban movement, as well as to carefully choose their words, lest they appear nuts.

 

[John828]

If there was a uniform, country-wide policy of setting up tax barriers for the purpose to disenfranchise any group or section of the financial strata, then smarter minds than ours would be screaming.

Whether or not taxes, administration fees and regulatory fees were purposefully intended to keep some people from exercising their right to bear arms, they do. Personally, I do not believe they were created intentionally for that reason, but they effectively create that situation.