Trending: Sin tax proposals on guns and ammunition

posted at 1:06 pm on March 11, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The idea behind sin taxes is nothing new; they have long been a favored method for lawmakers looking to raise revenue on the backs of behaviors that they oh-so-munificently deem to be vices — alcohol, tobacco, and gambling have been longtime targets and proposals for taxing junk food are the newest hotness — and subsequently trying to direct that revenue toward their preferred programs. In this fiscally wanton age of red ink, moving to deter people from specific behaviors or at least forcing them to pay a higher price only seems to be gaining in legislative popularity — despite their reliably ineffective, regressive, and special-interests-fueled results.

Responding to the latest round of public budget “crises,” policymakers around the country have begun reviving an old, but not necessarily good idea with added enthusiasm—taxing “sin.” What better way to raise revenue than to find something that your neighbor buys or an activity he engages in that you don’t like and tax it? …

In addition to being robust revenue-raisers, the orthodox justification for sin taxes was that they would reduce the costs smokers, drinkers, and gamblers impose on others—drunk driving, exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, and losing the family paycheck at the craps table. …

Nowadays, however, sin tax proponents have shifted gears by arguing that taxation is mainly aimed at compensating society for the drains sinners impose on the public healthcare budget and reducing the harm consumers do to themselves. With this new push, the limits of what defines a sin steadily are being expanded.

And so, of course, you knew this was coming: The latest item/behavior that progressives perceive as a societal vice? Firearms, obviously. Fox News reports that, as a part of the recent wave of gun-control proposals, legislators at both the federal and state level have been floating ideas for sin taxes on guns and ammunition, claiming that the added revenue will be directed toward mental health services, police training, and/or victims’ treatment.

At the federal level, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., proposed a bill that would impose a 10 percent tax on “any concealable” firearm. The revenue would be used to help fund a national gun buyback program. The bill is still in committee.

At the state level in California, Democratic state Rep. Roger Dickinson last month introduced a bill to impose a 5-cent tax on every bullet. …

Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky is pushing a 25 percent sales tax on ammunition and firearms. Maryland state Rep. Jon Cardin has introduced a bill imposing a 50 percent tax on ammo, and an annual $25 gun registration fee.

And according to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Assembly Majority Leader William Horne is pushing a draft bill that would include a $25 per gun sales tax, in addition to a 2-cent tax for every round of ammunition.

Which is all very interesting, because I’m pretty sure that the legitimate and law-abiding citizens who would largely be paying these taxes, are not the ones responsible for gun violence. Why is it, exactly, that the responsible people who take it upon themselves to bear arms — creating positive externalities in the effort — need to be deterred or punished? I’m with these guys:

But firearms groups say a “sin tax” on firearms wrongly punishes law-abiding gun owners.

“If anything, gun owners ought to be getting a tax rebate for helping reduce crime,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So, to be clear, the 2nd amendment is a sin to our government?

I know, silly question.

rihar on March 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM

F8ck off!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM

If politicians want to raise tax money, how about we raise the tax rate of elected officals to the max and take away all their deductions.
After all if it is an honor to serve, and they are there to help and not cash in…

LincolntheHun on March 11, 2013 at 1:10 PM

And there you have it – the Second Amendment is a sin, and those who believe in it are sinners.

America will collapse.

It’s just a matter of time.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 1:10 PM

What’s next? A “sin tax” when one exercises his First Amendment right to practise a faith?

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Somehow I can’t get my head around Perry signing a bill as so beyond stupid it boggles the mind?
L

letget on March 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I hate politicians and view them as my enemy…..I won’t write anything more, lest they decide to launch a drone strike on me.

Fazman on March 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

How about a condom tax? No, I know, An abortion tax? Single mother tax? Okay, maybe the last is over the top.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

There already is a “sin” tax. Jail time for criminals.

trl on March 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

legislators at both the federal and state level have been floating ideas for sin taxes on guns and ammunition, claiming that the added revenue will be directed toward mental health services, police training, and/or victims’ treatment.

The same way state lotteries were meant to go for education and thus property tax relief? Or how about all that money sued from tobacco companies that was supposed to repay government health care costs for the poor, but which was spent by the states on other things 20 years ahead of the expected payments?

I believe in separation of church and state: No taxes on anything called a ‘sin’. /

Besides, it’s no more a sin to purchase a gun and ammo than it is to peacefully speak your mind in public.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Will Democrats next ask, “Second look at ‘poll taxes’?”

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

There are only two reasons to Register guns – to Tax them or to Take them.

How would they feel about a tax on the First amendment?

What about a tax on Brainless politicians?

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

There already is a “sin” tax. Jail time for criminals.
trl on March 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

But that also targets the wrong group. Why should I be taxed for what a criminal does?

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Gun Control.

tdarrington on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Can the other Amendments also be taxed?

pat on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Liberal policy: If I don’t like it, tax it. If I like it, subsidize it. In both cases, make someone else pay.

perroviejo on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

What’s next? A “sin tax” when one exercises his First Amendment right to practise a faith?

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Nah, a sin tax on journalists. MSNBC definitely qualifies.

Fenris on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

One might think the communists are intentionally antagonizing people … trying to force a situation where they could claim government force is necessary for “the common good”.

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

The second amendment is not a States Rights issue, nor does the Federal Government have any constitutional authority to regulate firearms ownership, the constitution makes this indisputably and incontrovertibly clear.

Yet Federal administration after administration and State after State have completely and totally violated the letter of the law as spelled out in no uncertain terms in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the FBI has documented and for the most part hidden their results which prove beyond any doubt that populated centers where individual gun ownership and right to carry laws exist have the very lowest assault, murder, and robbery levels in the entire country.

Federal and State gun regulations are not and never has been about providing public safety, they are and always have been about making stripping the constitutional rights away from citizens and increasing the governments control over individuals lives.

Ponder the words of the great and famous statesman Benjamin Franklin, consider where you fall in this great divide, are you on the side of the Founding Fathers of this Great Republic, or have you sided with the Progressive Movement, (and yes that really does mean communists) who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution?

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

SWalker on March 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I can’t wait for Jesus Christ to become sin, and those who believe in Him – sinners. Unfaithful to the magnificence of the State.

Be faithful, Comrades, faithful in the State – Utopia is near.

The Twilight Zone – The Obsolete Man

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Nah, a sin tax on journalists. MSNBC definitely qualifies.

Fenris on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

A “sin tax” on gay rights’ parades? Freedoms of speech and assembly and all that!

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Along the same lines: Schakowsky: Assault Weapons Ban ‘Just the Beginning’

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Nah, a sin tax on journalists. MSNBC definitely qualifies.

Fenris on March 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

MSNBC doesn’t qualify, I beg to differ. It doesn’t use or have journalists.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Gd the laftards, every time.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM

The idea of a sin tax is to curtail something, which is by definition infringement. There should be no taxes on ammo at all, but certainly no sin tax.

FloatingRock on March 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Hypocrites unite

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM

sin tax proponents have shifted gears by arguing that taxation is mainly aimed at compensating society for the drains sinners impose on the public healthcare budget

The biggest reason for ObamaCare … to claim the authority to control everything you do and jail you if you don’t conform.

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Ooooh I know: a sin tax on voting Dhimmicrat.

Fenris on March 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM

In addition to being robust revenue-raisers, the orthodox justification for sin taxes was that they would reduce the costs smokers, drinkers, and gamblers impose on others—drunk driving, exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, and losing the family paycheck at the craps table. …

Actually, don’t the statistic show that more guns equal less crime?

Put this another way: Which scenario would public and private criminals prefer most – more guns in the hands of the citizens or fewer guns?

Clearly public and private criminals would prefer unarmed victims, so shouldn’t taxes go towards more people having guns to reduce the cost of public and private crime?

Maybe a tax on criminals to help supply citizens with guns?

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM

At the federal level, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., proposed a bill that would impose a 10 percent tax on “any concealable” firearm. The revenue would be used to help fund a national gun buyback program. The bill is still in committee.

How can the feds buy “back” something it did not sell in the first place? It’s an important point. Liberal parasites like Sanchez are staking out the position that one only has privately owned firearms because of federal governemnt generosity. The fact of the matter is that the right to bear arms comes from the Constitution and not some stupid Californian or the party she represents.

In the meantime, 12 people got shot in DC last night in a drive-by at two in the morning. None of these sin taxes would have prevented it from happening but the talk today has been all about banning guns and not the more obvious though racially uncomforatable cultural problems like what possible reason are a group of people gathered outside at 2am on a Monday morning….. Hint, they were not there to be first in line for a job interview nor were they holding a Bible study.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM

They keep pushing and pushing and pushing…repeat pushing don’t stop…

STOP WITH THE FRACKING NONSENSE ALREADY!!

Quit trying to RULE my life!

Stop it…

You making me crazy!!!

Scrumpy on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Actually, it would be a right tax, i.e., a tax on a right bestowed by God and ostensibly protected by just governments.

Will the govt tax itself when it buys 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?

Forbes takes it seriously, HA puts up the screaming girl picture.

Akzed on March 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Well hey, great concept, let’s just run with it:
$5 / gallon gas tax to fund alcohol and drug abuse programs.
50% tax on all birth control to fund school vouchers.
What else?

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

The biggest reason for ObamaCare … to claim the authority to control everything you do and jail you if you don’t conform.

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Power is either in the People, or in the State. To the extent that the People cede power to the State, they are that much less powerful. The future of the People is bleak – the majority of them are far too willing to hand their power to the State – and they are far too stupendously ignorant/illiterate to understand that the State won’t give that power back.

The majority of the People have become Holsteins.

They want to obey.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

I wish conservative politicians were as determined in the cause of liberty as democrats are in the cause of tyranny.

They will never stop and they will use whatever method it takes to achieve their end result.

Fazman on March 11, 2013 at 1:27 PM

How about a 50% tax on all movies, video games, newspapers, and TV shows to fund school vouchers?
That makes just as much sense.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM

All these silly little ideas from the gun-grabbers reek of desperation, to me. It seems they’re scrambling to find something — anything – to use as a cudgel to score a win for a losing proposition.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Guess what? We can make our own ammo and sell it to each other tax free.

Next idea?

hawkdriver on March 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM

The fact of the matter is that the right to bear arms comes from the Constitution and not some stupid Californian or the party she represents.

The right to keep and bear arms, in other words the right of self defense, doesn’t come from the our constitution any more than our right to speak or worship or assemble freely. We ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS according to natural law, according to our status as image bearers of God.

The US Constitution merely informs our government that we have those rights and that our government may not infringe on them.

CurtZHP on March 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
Need a little BIT more of my TWELVE ounce nutrition
One more helpin’ of what I’ve been havin’
I’m takin’ my turn on the sin wagon

Ironically (in an Alanis Morissette kind of way), brought to you by the Dixie Chicks. Meh, I’m “ashamed the president of the United States is from Chicago.”

Fallon on March 11, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I want to see a $1 million tax on EACH political TV or radio ad to fund a truth in advertising education campaign.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Somehow I can’t get my head around Perry signing a bill as so beyond stupid it boggles the mind?
L

letget on March 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I think we are safe. I can envision his contempt for a legislature foolish enough to present such a bill for his signature and I expect that he would make a public statement to convey that sentiment. Any such ‘infringement’ bill presented in Tx deserves only mockery.

jffree1 on March 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

OT – RWM, for you

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 1:34 PM

The US Constitution merely informs our government that we have those rights and that our government may not infringe on them.

CurtZHP on March 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Exactly. “Shall not be infringed”

darwin on March 11, 2013 at 1:34 PM

This ‘sin tax’ nonsense will end when pot is taxed out the wazoo in the states that legalize it. For now it’s trendy, and the politicians are riding the wave of popularity for now. But when they see the cash cow it’s going to be, they’ll hit it hard as they do cigarettes.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Guess what? We can make our own ammo and sell it to each other tax free.

Next idea?

hawkdriver on March 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Can I put in an order? Dead serious.

Washington Nearsider on March 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

This is a sin tax with a difference. Unlike tobacco or alcohol, which are not now specified in the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is so important that it has its own Amendment to the Consitution.

Taxing arms (including bullets) is the equivalent, under the Constitution, of requiring a literacy test or a poll tax in order to vote. It erects a barrier to the exercise of the given right which is judically unsustainable.

unclesmrgol on March 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

It erects a barrier to the exercise of the given right which is judically unsustainable.

unclesmrgol on March 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

In other words, silly posturing politicians are wasting everyone’s time and tax money.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Maybe newspapers and magazines need a hefty sin-tax as well.

FloatingRock on March 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Trending also

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM

All these silly little ideas from the gun-grabbers reek of desperation, to me. It seems they’re scrambling to find something — anything – to use as a cudgel to score a win for a losing proposition.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I thought the same thing, Liam. They’ve had a great run of victories since the mid-terms in 2010 and this would piss them off to not gain some ground. I’m sure if they thought they were making any firearms/ammo purchase a greater finacial burden, they’d be pleased for the moment with themselves.

I wish we could do something in return, but anything they can’t afford, they get the Federal Government to pay for them.

hawkdriver on March 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

The fact of the matter is that the right to bear arms comes from the Constitution

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM

No, unequivocally not. The 2nd Amendment does not grant anyone the right to own a firearm. This is a profoundly important distinction and cannot be over stressed.

America’s Founding Fathers considered the owning of a firearm to be an unalienable right preexisting the creation of the United States of America.

The 2nd amendment makes no attempt to grant anyone a right to anything. It explicitly and specifically forbids the Federal and State Governments of the United States of America from passing any law that would restrict, impinge, make difficult, obstruct, deny or in any other manner infringe upon the ability or right of any free United States Citizen from owning or bearing a firearm.

It is failure to understand this that has led to various state and federal laws which indisputably violate the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

SWalker on March 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

wWith High Praise to:
http://www.thelookingspoon.com/83-2013/february-2013/4476-another-debate-ending-argument-in-favor-of-the-second-amendment.html
via IMAO, we might as well tax fire extinguishers……

tomg51 on March 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Weird. Guns & ammo are already taxed at 10% & 11%…

Rusty Shackleford on March 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the government can prohibit or require anything as long as its framed as a tax. And if it isn’t framed as a tax, he’ll just pretend it is.

Isn’t it reassuring to know that when the chips are down, we can count on being stabbed in the back by a supposedly conservative Chief Justice?

Cicero43 on March 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Actually, don’t the statistic show that more guns equal less crime?

Put this another way: Which scenario would public and private criminals prefer most – more guns in the hands of the citizens or fewer guns?

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Yes.

Chart of the Day: United States Homicide Rate 1885-2012

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence: Violence Is Lower In Right-To-Carry States

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Quit trying to RULE my life!

Impossible for the Left to quit. That is an important goal in their quest for absolute power. They know better than you what it takes to run your life.

hawkeye54 on March 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM

The majority of the People have become Holsteins.

They want to obey.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Personally, I aim to misbehave

SWalker on March 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Taxing arms (including bullets) is the equivalent, under the Constitution, of requiring a literacy test or a poll tax in order to vote. It erects a barrier to the exercise of the given right which is judically unsustainable. unclesmrgol on March 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I dunno, there are good reasons for requiring voters to be literate.

Akzed on March 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM

hawkdriver on March 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Can I put in an order? Dead serious.

Washington Nearsider on March 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If it gets that far, I always share.

hawkdriver on March 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

50% tax on all birth control to fund school vouchers.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Wait, isn’t 50% of “free” … 0?
/s

GWB on March 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Can I put in an order? Dead serious.

Washington Nearsider on March 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

No inference toward hawkdriver on this, but, I’d love to see a black market spring up – as long as people settle back to reasonable prices and stop the price-gouging.
My wife bought a new Colt AR-15 Saturday for $1179 at Sportsman’s Warehouse, and I went to gun show on Sunday and saw people trying to sell the exact same AR for over $2000. I also got a few boxes of 7.62X39 ammo at SW for $5.99 a box (20 rounds), and the same stuff was priced at the gun show for $10 to $15 a box. $30 and up for a pmag that Magpul is selling to all Colorado residents for $14 to $18.
Free market is one thing, but a lot of people have gone into full blown gouging mode.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

American Revolution II is coming and it won’t be pretty.

Bevan on March 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Which is all very interesting, because I’m pretty sure that the legitimate and law-abiding citizens who would largely be paying these taxes, are not the ones responsible for gun violence. Why is it, exactly, that the responsible people who take it upon themselves to bear arms — creating positive externalities in the effort — need to be deterred or punished?

Maybe, maybe not. I believe the statistics for firearms out there will quickly drop from 300 million to something much smaller as people will not be self-reporting.

The govt wants to turn us all into criminals.

freedomfirst on March 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

What is it about these D’s that they can’t understand the phrase “… shall not be infringed”?

sadatoni on March 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I wish we could do something in return, but anything they can’t afford, they get the Federal Government to pay for them.

hawkdriver on March 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

We can return, quietly. First, of course, is defeat the idiocy; ‘Avoid the Noid’, as the old TV commercial went. Next, if we miss the mark there, the courts. If we miss again…Well, I was once considered for a jury in a gun case. I’ll spare the details, but I was dismissed because I told the judge I’m a firm believer in our Second, and I subscribe to the theory of jury nullification. I said that in front of thirty other possible jurors. *LOL*

The judge couldn’t get me out of there fast enough!

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

All these silly little ideas from the gun-grabbers reek of desperation, to me. It seems they’re scrambling to find something — anything – to use as a cudgel to score a win for a losing proposition.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

They’ve lost the momentum they thought they had in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. And the thing that really irks me about gimmicks like taxing ammo is that it does nothing more than punish law-abiding gun owners and does nothing about gun-related crime.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I’d love to see a black market spring up
dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

It’s already there. People who illegally buy guns don’t go to legitimate gun shops for their ammo.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Wow. these idiots are trying to come up with anything and everything to disarm America. Ain’t gonna happen, unless you’re in NYC and won’t defend your freemarket soda rights.

TerryW on March 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM

What is it about these D’s that they can’t understand the phrase “… shall not be infringed”?

sadatoni on March 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Honestly, it really is this simple. The Democrats at the party level are Marxists, and their only moral or ethical ideology is this.

Once you have distilled Marxism down to it’s purest spirit, that spirit is this. The end justifies the means. For those of you who still don’t get it, that means that the only thing that counts, is winning, and how you win is of no importance or consequence, only that you do win.

SWalker on March 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM

RWM, please sort this out. Your mind is needed.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM

What’s next? A “sin tax” when one exercises his First Amendment right to practise a faith?

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Why not? The Left can even call it what their Islamist allies do – the jizya.

Steve Eggleston on March 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM

They’ve lost the momentum they thought they had in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. And the thing that really irks me about gimmicks like taxing ammo is that it does nothing more than punish law-abiding gun owners and does nothing about gun-related crime.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Your key word is ‘gimmick’–the finest point to be put on this matter.

A liberal gun-grabber said her idea doesn’t include if crime will go down or up. She also chided an amendment to her proposal that would track the results if her bill became law. That says it all.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Can someone impose a “sin tax” on any elected official serving in D.C.?

Think of the tax rates we could charge!!! How about we have an especially high rate for them…..maybe 90% and then ban them from lobbying after they leave their one 2 year term in Congress?

PappyD61 on March 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM

It’s already there. People who illegally buy guns don’t go to legitimate gun shops for their ammo.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I get that – I mean a serious black market of “law-abiding” citizens just avoiding the commercial market along with it’s taxes and government oversight – and eventual tracking and registration.

National registration is obviously the ultimate goal for these Dem Nazis. Look at the new bills in Colorado – universal background checks even for in family transfers, anyone accused of domestic violence (not even convicted) must turn in all weapons to the police, any magazines larger than 15 rounds are “grandfathered” but cannot be transferred to anyone (even your own family).
How can ANY of these laws be enforced without the government first knowing what everyone already owns?

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Can someone impose a “sin tax” on any elected official serving in D.C.?

Think of the tax rates we could charge!!! How about we have an especially high rate for them…..maybe 90% and then ban them from lobbying after they leave their one 2 year term in Congress?

PappyD61 on March 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM

The Constitution says that serving members of the three Branches received compensation for their time in office. But it sets no actual number.

How about we cut their salaries to $10 a week? Hell, I’ll even let them have an 800 calorie lunch like Michelle imposes on schoolkids on my dime, too.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If poll taxes infringe upon the right to vote, why then would not a “sin tax” on guns or ammunition infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms?

“Oh,” the libs will say, “that’s different. Why? Because shut up, that’s why.”

hillbillyjim on March 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I agree with your sentiment in full, but I won’t advocate breaking the law.

However…The free market will always find a way. ;-)

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I’ve heard Dave Ramsey talk about a Stupid Tax. Can we tax “stupid?”

Washington DC would be a treasure trove.

iurockhead on March 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM

It’s already there. People who illegally buy guns don’t go to legitimate gun shops for their ammo.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Wait!… What? Are you telling me those 12 people who were injured at 2am in a DC drive-by shooting might have been shot with an unregistered weapon and black market ammo? And here I thought the problem with gun control were all those 86-year-olds who have been hunting since they were 12. To think that there is no integrity among street thugs and drug dealers is really disillusioning. /

Seriously, somebody needs to ask these liberals just how making law-abiding gun owners into criminals would have saved just one of the Sandy Hook victims. And the hypocrisy is astounding when Mark Kelly goes through all the steps to legally buy a AR15 and then complains that he was able to legally buy an AR15. You just can’t make this stuff up.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I agree with your sentiment in full, but I won’t advocate breaking the law.
Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I’m normally very law-abiding myself, but if you “won’t advocate breaking the law”, does that mean you will register or turn in all weapons you may own if the Dems pass such a law?

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

They’ve lost the momentum they thought they had in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. And the thing that really irks me about gimmicks like taxing ammo is that it does nothing more than punish law-abiding gun owners and does nothing about gun-related crime.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I’d say we should do whatever we can to convince them that they still have that momentum. Pushing gun control has been a consistent loser for the left in the past, even in many (not all) blue states. Let ‘em run with it until November 2014.

iurockhead on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM

All that’s just a straw man. Your man Nixon wanted all handguns banned. You lose; neener-neener!

Love,
The Left

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM

All these silly little ideas from the gun-grabbers reek of desperation, to me. It seems they’re scrambling to find something — anything – to use as a cudgel to score a win for a losing proposition.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

They’ve lost the momentum they thought they had in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. And the thing that really irks me about gimmicks like taxing ammo is that it does nothing more than punish law-abiding gun owners and does nothing about gun-related crime.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Just keep in the back of your mind that unlike those around here who value liberty, the gun grabbing ghouls are eagerly anticipating the next mass shooting.

Recall that Rush once made the quip about the Clinton era investigation into Whitewater was like an IV in a patient’s arm for the introduction drugs etc. With that being active they could easily get into any other malfeasance of the Clinton regime without too much effort – and the reason the Dems wanted it stopped.

All these Ideas like the Scam on ‘Assault weapons’ and High capacity taxes on clip magazines are now out in the ether, ready to go the minute the news breaks of a Loon going Lefty in ‘Gun-free’ zone.

All these new laws like the precursor to Universal Gun Confiscation and rest won’t have to be written up and introduced and discussed – they will all be sitting in the tyranny bull pen waiting for a vote.

All they gun-grabbers need is that next serious crisis…..

Galt2009 on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Personally, I aim to misbehave…

SWalker on March 11, 2013 at 1:42 PM

I think that the following types of crimes are coming [and I'm being very serious]:

Article 58

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I’m normally very law-abiding myself, but if you “won’t advocate breaking the law”, does that mean you will register or turn in all weapons you may own if the Dems pass such a law?

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

There is a difference between what I can say in public (to protect others here, myself, and HA) and what I’m willing to do quietly in my own life. :-)

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I agree with your sentiment in full, but I won

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I agree with your sentiment in full, but I won’t advocate breaking the law.
Liam on March 11, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I’m normally very law-abiding myself, but if you “won’t advocate breaking the law”, does that mean you will register or turn in all weapons you may own if the Dems pass such a law?

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I’m just saying, at some point we reach the stage where politicians have implemented illegal laws – as in violations of our civil rights – and at that point we have the right and obligation to disobey those illegal laws.
Same logic as in the military, where you are required to obey “all legal orders”. As was decided in cases like the My Lai incident, there is a moral obligation to NOT obey illegal orders.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I’m normally very law-abiding myself, but if you “won’t advocate breaking the law”, does that mean you will register or turn in all weapons you may own if the Dems pass such a law?

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

At that point in time, the true meaning of, and reason for, the Second Amendment will come into play. We are Conservatives, we are their political enemies, and we are in their way.

They will try to disarm us.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Touche! *LOL*

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I don’t know what happened with my 2:06 post – but most of it got cut off – and in a bad way.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I know I know, let’s tax frivolously awarded military medals!

I mean, isn’t it a sin to award a Bronze Star to a man for producing a PowerPoint about how to appease Muslims?

Akzed on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

There is a difference between what I can say in public (to protect others here, myself, and HA) and what I’m willing to do quietly in my own life. :-)

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Ya – I gotcha.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Sin tax on ammo-no problem, just tack on condoms,and YK jelly and they’ll fight like Hades against its passsage themselves.

Don L on March 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Touche! *LOL*

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Glad you didn’t take it badly – but that was a faulty post.
See my posts since then. The 2:08 post is what I intended.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I’m just saying, at some point we reach the stage where politicians have implemented illegal laws – as in violations of our civil rights – and at that point we have the right and obligation to disobey those illegal laws.
Same logic as in the military, where you are required to obey “all legal orders”. As was decided in cases like the My Lai incident, there is a moral obligation to NOT obey illegal orders.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

You won’t get any debate from me there. There are just certain places I won’t go, in public, for sake of prudence.

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Alternative Headline:

“Purported Champions Of The 99% Argue That Only The 1% Should Be Able To Defend Themselves”

Resist We Much on March 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Glad you didn’t take it badly – but that was a faulty post.
See my posts since then. The 2:08 post is what I intended.

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

No problem at all, I assure!

Liam on March 11, 2013 at 2:13 PM

claiming that the added revenue will be directed toward mental health services, police training, and/or victims’ treatment.

Whenever, someone finishes an argument on taxes with the phrase “an it will all go to the education budget or for police training or for infra-structure repair” review the meaning of the word “fungible” because those worthy program will end up not receiving an extra dime once the creative accountants get through with the budget process.

You see all those “sin” taxes” that are ear-marked for do-good projects usually do get there, but when the public is not watching equal amounts of tax revenue from other sources are simply diverted to more favored programs. All the public sees is hundreds of million of dollars going into, say, education, and nothing much changing. What they don’t see is the hundreds of millions of dollars from other souces that use to go into education being diverted into fanciful green energy projects being lead by Democratic donors or Into bridges to nowhere or into whatever Democratic constituent group needs massaging this year.

Taxes are taxes and their effects filter through all of society, no matter where they were originally aimed.

Fred 2 on March 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM

If there is anyone here who already does their own reloading and is looking for a new customer, let me know. I’m definitely interested.

Hawk: if you ever get up and running (hell, or need a partner) I’d be interested in that too.

Washington Nearsider on March 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2