The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed a tax of $200 on certain types of firearms (equivalent to about $3500 nowadays). Considering that handguns are used much more often in crime than the kinds of firearms regulated by the NFA and that $200 in 1934 is equivalent to about $3500 nowadays, I think a tax of $1000 would be very reasonable.
You are obviously unaware of the fact this inane idea has already been struck as unconstitutional. http://thepoliticalinsider.com/federal-judge-makes-massive-gun-control-ruling-whoa/
Why not $1,000,000 each? The phrase 'from my cold dead hands' comes to mind I think it was Charlton Heston who said it first.
Is such a tax supposed to prevent a crime? The poor who need a handgun for self defense can't afford the tax so they would be left defenseless against an aggressor who, because they are criminals to begin with, wouldn't pay the tax just as they wouldn't obey a gun control law of any kind.
I'm not into abortions so much because men can't get pregnant. I'm with Trump leave that kind of stuff for the women to decide.
A tax that ultimately serves no meaningful, legitimate purpose in existing. Is there a legal basis for charging a tax amount that exceeds the market price of the given item? Can one legally charge a one thousand dollar tax for a firearm that costs slightly more than one hundred dollars? Ultimately what reasonable, legitimate purpose would such a tax serve? Is it to offset the societal cost of prohibited individuals using firearms in the commission of various crimes, when they illegally procured those firearms to begin with? Statistically the majority of all firearm-related incidents, eighty percent if not more, are committed by those who cannot, under any circumstances, legally possess a firearm. Since they cannot possess firearms, they cannot be made to pay such a tax. Thus whatever purpose such a tax would serve, would be shouldered by those who are not causing the problem. It is akin to putting innocent bystanders in prison for the actions of known criminals.
A tax of $1000 would be idiotic and so restrictive that eventually only criminals who manage to steal guns from the rich would own them. BTW the Governator of Connecticut has proposed a "fee" structure gunlicences in CT thatvwouod add up to at least $875 firva new license holder and amount to $375 or do each year to maintain. Is that where you hit your less than Einsteinian idea?
and let's institute a $1,000 tax on voting too. Heck, more harm was done to this nation by Democrat politicians.
It could be argued unarmed individuals require the protective services of publicly funded law enforcement more than armed individuals. Hence forth I decree there will be a yearly tax of $10.000 on every individual that does not have a licensed handgun and carry permit to pay for said services. See how easy stupidity is?
How about $1000 tax on abortions and blog posts. This idea has been brought to you by the same people that think a free photo ID is "disenfranchisement".
Its not my favorite way to enact gun control but i have learned that you have to push for everything to get anything.
As we all know, There are a number of people who do not read the Constitution with any degree of honesty, especially with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. Most of them have a (D) next to their name, vote for the guy with the (D) next to his name, and/or were appointed by the guy with the (D) next to his name.
This logic makes no sense. The people using handguns in crime are not the ones that will pay the tax. In fact statistically, These criminals are disqualified from owning firearms, so you will get no tax money from them. Why should the law abiding be taxed for the illegal actions of criminals? How does me legally owning a firearm contribute gun crime?
Of course it makes no sense. The point isn't to stop gun crime or gun accidents, the point is to make it so much of a PITA to own a gun that you won't want to do it. It's part of the essential dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd. They pretend the intent is one thing--preventing gun accidents, but then one of them (Vegas Giants, for example) admits that they are just doing whatever they can to enact gun control, the ends justifies the means to them.
How many crimes would it prevent? Something empirical would help prove its necessity. Or is the strategy to tax until people cannot afford to buy what they have a constitutional right to buy?
It is very similiar to anti abortion legislation. When a politician writes a law that REQUIRES a woman seeking an abortion to get an ultra sound that has no medical necessity and then REQUIRES the doctor to show it to her (she may look away) when there is no medical reason for doing so we know what the true agenda is. This is politics in the USA
