If you wanted to tax honest gun owners so much, how much would you tax criminals who are convicted of using stolen and illegally purchased handguns in a crime?
How easy it must be to consider something that doesn't affect you "reasonable"! Poor people should never be allowed to defend themselves, even though the neighborhoods they live in make it much more likely they will need to. You can bring in even more money by selling maps to unprotected homes to rapists. Screw poor people! We should be more concerned with feeding the money hungry government run by politicians with armed security. Brilliant!
Reasonable is always in the eye of the beholder, and when those who feel personal liberty must yield to the desire to impose order on society they always couch the restriction as reasonable. It is in fact the catch phrase of the gun control movement: We support reasonable gun control laws. It would be a frightening world indeed if the only standard for judging a law is its patrons belief in its reasonableness. Fortunately, the paramount question for any law is its constitutionality. The all-too-human desire to purchase perceived security for ourselves at the price of the freedom of others is exactly why we have a constitution. I do not believe this proposal would survive a constitutional challenge.
Well, Trump could use it to pay for the wall - - - Updated - - - Me too - I believe in re-carnation as opposed to those living in the South of the US who believe in re-intarnation
How about we first impose a $10,000 tax on all cars...After all Global Warming is the number one priority and a danger to all mankind. So let's tax all those polluting cars first. By the way, I commute on my bicycle everyday, so I'll take a tax credit for being more environmentally conscious than most of you. You see how ridiculous your proposal is.
His posts indicate his real goal is to punish gun owners for not supporting POS candidates like Clinton, Schumer, Feinswine and other lefties. Public safety has nothing to do with the real motivation for those schemes
I know, but play to one of their favorite religions, causes and maybe they'll start too think for themselves instead of being sheep. How many times have we heard global warming, renewable energy, rising oceans, etc. Hey it's time for them to put their money where their mouths are. So make the tax voluntary on cars and then see how many will actually pay, my guess is not many. But it would be another talking point that we could point too, and tell them too shut up. It's like Ted Kennedys support for alternative energy until they wanted to put some wind turbines off Martha's Vineyard...Not in my backyard.
What you are admitting is that you will do anything in order to impose your will on people who reject your will. The vast majority of the nation has rejected your gun control/ban attitude. But you just won't leave people alone.
Then you will oppose gun control? The data is unequivocal - more guns means less crime. Do you reject your past politics and support the data?
And that has been explained many, many times to you. The fundamental problem is not guns, its the poor conditions in the inner cities. Violence (all violent crimes, not just gun related) is very highly correlated with city size, the largest cities have huge crime rates, and that's what drives the national statistics. People in the inner cities have failed schools, few job opportunities, poor housing options, a broken social and family structure, and a corrupt and deceitful political establishment. These people are trapped with no hope, its a breeding ground for drugs and crime and gangs. If you truly, honestly wanted to save lives both literally and figuratively, then you would work for reform of the large cities. But you will not, just like the "progressives" will not, because to reform the large cities means admitting that "progressivism" has failed. It means abandoning all the core policies of the progs, and freeing all those captive votes, and likely the politicians getting tossed out on their butts. For "progressives", its better to rule a swamp in which people suffer than to allow people to live peacefully and safely without the "progressive" religion. And so you and the "progressives" will push your gun distraction rather than address the real problem.
I agree that conditions in inner cities are bad. However, easy access to guns makes such conditions even worse. It is like pouring gasoline on a fire. An already existing problem becomes much worse.
Newsflash. All first world nations have inner cities and poverty. They just don't have our gun violence
Pray tell how so? The criminal element already has easy access to firearms through illegal sources. How is the already existing problem made any worse by honest, law abiding individuals being able to legally acquire firearms for the purpose of their own protection? Are we to believe that the situation is better when only the criminal element possesses firearms?
Already do, it's called income tax...If you worked you would already know about paying taxes to support the defense of this country. By the way, I'm retired military, so I also gave in blood and sweat.
Ah... bumper sticker logic. You must have seen something like "If you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" on a bumper sticker. In the real world, when guns are outlawed a lot fewer outlaws end up possessing and misusing guns. Look at England's very low gun crime rate, for example.
