Proposals to tax guns and ammunition
- Thread starter Midwest
- Start date
- Status
RetiredUSNChief
Member
You can tax all these other things all you want...cars, gas, cigarettes, sodas, blah, blah, blah...none of these are rights guaranteed in writing anywhere, especially in the U.S. Constitution.
Taxing firearms and ammunition in this fashion IS infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, because it's deliberately intended to make ownership and use by citizens cost prohibitive.
And pardon me, heidisoon, but Cris Rock is a comedian and what he says in his routine is deliberately geared get a comedic reaction from his target audience. It has nothing to do with reality beyond that.
If ammunition were to be made so expensive that very few people could afford to shoot, then the people MOST affected by this will be those who own and use firearms for hobbies, sports, hunting, and personal defense. Why? Because these people are the ones who buy ammunition in large quantities to support these uses. Criminals, on the other hand, care only about the rounds they have in their guns. Buying a few rounds to meet that demand is a hugely disproportionate fraction of the whole and therefore insignificantly affected, if at all, by such exorbitantly priced ammunition.
And a "bullet tax" to "defray the cost of crime" is a load of cow pucky. Where does private ownership of firearms and ammunition contribute significantly to crime? Nowhere. Where does private ownership of firearms and ammunition contribute significantly towards DETERING crime? Everywhere there aren't restrictive gun laws.
So a "bullet tax" to "defray the cost of crime" is counter-intuitive. Actually, it's a blatant lie.
And taxing guns so that the government can support "buybacks" is, to say the least, a conflict of interest. That's taxing people to support government disarming of the citizens. That's so wrong on so many levels.
There are two reasons, and two reasons ONLY for these kinds of proposed taxes on firearms and ammunition:
1. Infringe on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
2. Move money out of the pockets of law-abiding gun owners and into the government.
How 'bout we just abide by that wonderful 200+ year old document, called the U.S. Constitution, and all it's Amendments and move on with our lives.
Taxing firearms and ammunition in this fashion IS infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, because it's deliberately intended to make ownership and use by citizens cost prohibitive.
And pardon me, heidisoon, but Cris Rock is a comedian and what he says in his routine is deliberately geared get a comedic reaction from his target audience. It has nothing to do with reality beyond that.
If ammunition were to be made so expensive that very few people could afford to shoot, then the people MOST affected by this will be those who own and use firearms for hobbies, sports, hunting, and personal defense. Why? Because these people are the ones who buy ammunition in large quantities to support these uses. Criminals, on the other hand, care only about the rounds they have in their guns. Buying a few rounds to meet that demand is a hugely disproportionate fraction of the whole and therefore insignificantly affected, if at all, by such exorbitantly priced ammunition.
And a "bullet tax" to "defray the cost of crime" is a load of cow pucky. Where does private ownership of firearms and ammunition contribute significantly to crime? Nowhere. Where does private ownership of firearms and ammunition contribute significantly towards DETERING crime? Everywhere there aren't restrictive gun laws.
So a "bullet tax" to "defray the cost of crime" is counter-intuitive. Actually, it's a blatant lie.
And taxing guns so that the government can support "buybacks" is, to say the least, a conflict of interest. That's taxing people to support government disarming of the citizens. That's so wrong on so many levels.
There are two reasons, and two reasons ONLY for these kinds of proposed taxes on firearms and ammunition:
1. Infringe on the Constitutional right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
2. Move money out of the pockets of law-abiding gun owners and into the government.
How 'bout we just abide by that wonderful 200+ year old document, called the U.S. Constitution, and all it's Amendments and move on with our lives.
splattergun
Member
I propose a 1st amendment tax. 5 cents per word on every proposal to restrict any other Constitutional Right. Each paper copy, electronic copy or verbal repetition shall be taxed at the same rate as the original.
BTW, don't firearms and ammunition already get taxed under the Federal sporting goods excise tax scheme?
BTW, don't firearms and ammunition already get taxed under the Federal sporting goods excise tax scheme?
JRH6856
Member
OK, cigarettes are not a constitutionally protected right.
JRH6856
Member
To an extent. All rights are subject to regulation and restriction by law at the federal, state or local level. Even those rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights for protection from the federal government, and those rights whose protections have been incorporated against the states. may be restricted to meet a compelling government interest if there is no other way to meet that interest and the restriction does not go beyond that interest.
No right is completely protected from regulation or restriction.
No right is completely protected from regulation or restriction.
TCB in TN
Member
How about we raise money to give to the victims of violence by putting violent felons into camps and making them work to pay for the Dr bills damages and to replace property?
Speedo66
Member
Right now the most stolen items in cities, i.e., taken from the person, are cell phones. In San Francisco, nearly1/2 of all robberies from the person involve cell phones.
Perhaps they should be heavily taxed to cover crime victims expenses and to cover the police work the crimes require? I'm sure no one would complain about that. Yeah, right!
Perhaps they should be heavily taxed to cover crime victims expenses and to cover the police work the crimes require? I'm sure no one would complain about that. Yeah, right!
Byrd666
Member
Ridiculous
You are correct, no right is 100% safe from Federal regulation. That was not my point however.
My point to Ash is just because a right in not listed in the text of the Constitution does not mean it is not a right.
Smoke em if ya got em.
Ash
Member
But, cigarettes may be banned without risk of constitutional issues. You may smoke as long as you wish, as often as you wish, unless it is declared illegal, which it can be. Ergo, it is not an established right. While the constitution points out it is not the case that the only rights you have are in the Bill of Rights, that you may do many things legally not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it does not specifically protect those rights. You do not have the right to drive on public roads, hunt, create or posses child porn, etc. The former activities are permitted, which is to say you have permission provided to purchase a license, while the latter is banned outright unless it happens to be a Led Zeppelin record cover. Smoking is not an established right. You have a right to smoke, but only because the government has not specifically acted to ban it - and even then, it has specifically acted to ban the practice in many places.
TCB in TN
Member
JRH6856
Member
Yeah...and there are a lot of others that seem to think that firearms possession infringes upon their right not to be afraid.
But the comparisons are not equivalent. It is not the possession of tobacco that is harmful to others, it is the use. And it is the use of firearms that can be harmful to others, not possession.
Use of firearms is already very tightly regulated and restricted by law
Actually, the poll tax (and the ammo/gun tax) main purpose is to "filter" out the lower segments of society from exercising those particular rights..... which has both a socio-economic component and racial motive.
Wealthy people are not affected by such taxes, since they have plenty of disposable income.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Same as Poll Tax. Show ID, proof of residency? Yes. Tax? No.
What's next? A literacy test? ("Read this headline off the Mandarin edition of Hong Kong Times, boy.")
What's next? A literacy test? ("Read this headline off the Mandarin edition of Hong Kong Times, boy.")
highlander 5
Member
The proposed tax if passed, will never go to offset the cost of crime victims. It will end up in general revenue to be spent on what ever new goofy project that the legislator's retarded minds come up with. Example here in Ma the tax on gas is supposed to go into a separate fund to repair roads,bridges and the like. But it ends up in general revenues and is spent on everything but. This was taken to our Supreme Judicial Court and the opinion given was even though the funds from the gas tax was supposed to be for road repair it can be spent on what ever the legislators feel like spending it on.
If that money went to good causes like helping underprivileged youth from economically- challenged areas become successful members of society I would have no problem with pay out extra cash.
JRH6856
Member
If such a contribution were voluntary, I would have no problem with it either. But has nothing to do with firearms and ammunition.
Zeke/PA
Member
By today's standards that would be considered Cruel and Unusual.How about we raise money to give to the victims of violence by putting violent felons into camps and making them work to pay for the Dr bills damages and to replace property?
JRH6856
Member
By today's standards, just about any actual punishment is unusual.
- Status
