Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Letter: Weapons tax

December 20, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

What is the solution to the problems caused by weapons? If regulations do not work, try taxation.

If taxation is the solution to the drug problem, why not tax weapons? If a school district needs resource officers, pay for them with local property tax on the weapons in the district. If we need more policemen, tax weapons. If we need a new revenue source to keep from going over the fiscal cliff, tax weapons.

Tobacco kills people and it is taxed, weapons kill people and they should also be taxed. Tax weapons going into weapon shows, tax weapons coming out of gun shows, tax weapon sales, tax the manufacture of weapons. Tax gunpowder, tax bullets, tax magazines, tax 100 capacity clips at a 100 times tax.

For those who want to level the playing field, make the gun manufacturers give guns to schools for every one sold outside of the school. Does mental-health care need funding? Tax weapons. For those who say weapons don’t kill, people do, tax people with weapons.

Taxing is the way to take away the profit from weapons and pay for things to reverse the harm they cause. For those who believe that taxes would kill the economy, maybe taxing weapons is the only thing that will kill weapons.

What is the problem and what is the solution? I challenge you to put your ideas out and send them to the people who can solve them.

Comments

Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

Tax Corp USA $75,000 for every USA job sent abroad. Tax every leveraged buyout scheme another $75,000 per job sent abroad. INSTEAD of providing the tax code that protects the profits as a result of those USA industries and jobs sent abroad.

No one can prepare for terrorism because no on knows if or when terrorism will strike. Look at all the tax dollars spent on crime fighting yet crime is still on the rise.

Of course if 20 million unemployed had good paying jobs there would likely be less crime and violence.

Republicans create crime and violence by putting millions out work and homes = depression and more crime.

Real good jobs = less crime and violence.

20 million jobs to replace the 20 million lost by way of leveraged buyout artists should fix the economy.

2

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

The Internet is used to commit crimes, plan terrorist attackers and promote hate. Along with taxing weapons lets also tax Internet use. Tax Internet access, tax access to social media and websites like this one.

Now we are working together to find solutions.

1

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

$1/Meg. Your solution will also help fight the war on piracy and protect intellectual property. Maybe a better way is to just put a card reader on every computer so if you want to turn it on, you swipe your card and $10 comes out of your bank. Your internet provider can monitor and collect the $1/Meg bandwidth

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

Maybe we could charge a fee to vote too? Oh wait that is unconstitutional - can't tax people to exercise their Constitutional rights. Darn and I thought we had a solution.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

That doesn't mean we can't charge a tax to get into the building! If you can't afford the "building-ingress" tax, you can go scratch your vote in the dirt and they will be counted at the end of the day.

I think we can work out a solution. Don't give up so easily.

Also, we can make voting free, and if you want that vote counted you pony up the $500 "counting tax".

You gotta think outside the box!

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

As far as I know, we are paying taxes on our internet service.

2

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

We also pay taxes on rifles and clips already too. We are talking about punitive taxation here. If you don't like something, just tax everyone that does into poverty.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

We tax alcohol and cigarettes at a very high rate because of the damage those products do. Gasoline is also taxed at a very high rate. If that's punitive, so be it. Tax guns and ammo at a high rate as well, in my opinion. And if that's punitive, so be it.

2

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

Right jafs, but this would be an additional tax to help curb violence. You're good with that aren't you or do you hate children?

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

If there's a clear link between taxing the Internet more and preventing violence towards children, I'd be fine with it.

How about you?

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

Depends on how much of a tax and how it would be used. Just remember to apply same criteria to taxes and regulations on gun ownership and rights.

0

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

Given the diseases spread by sexual congress, I suggest we tax lovemaking. I think $1000 per person per incident is adequate initially, then as people get used to paying the government so they can have sex, we can really jack up the price. If you have to mortgage your house to get jiggy, as they say, you won't be spreading all those nasty diseases.

Let me remind you, there is no second amendment protection of the sex act.

Books too. Some are socially subversive, some are pornographic and some have instructions for growing rose bushes, which have thorns and hurt if you walk into one. I say $50 per word read, with a 10% discount for parents of school age kids, if those parents make more than $800,000,000/year.

Gun-grabbing. There should be a $100,000 tax levied against every person in the state if the state in question enacts any additional restrictions on gun ownership. Those that cannot pay the tax go to prison for tax evasion.

0

Franklin 1 year, 9 months ago

This is not a new idea. Implementing these taxes would make it even more difficult for people under the poverty line to afford to exercise their God given right of self protection. From the 2010 census, nearly 70% under the poverty line are Black and Hispanic. Knowing this, your post seems a little racist.

1

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Please indicate in which religious text God states that She has given all the right to self protection. Thank you.

Nice reach on the race card. Will you apply that to all things favoring the wealthy over the poor? I mean, Mitt Romney's policies were intended to favor the wealthy over the "victimhood 47%," so I guess we could surmise that if Romney's policies favored the wealthy, then a vote for Romney ...

I wouldn't say that, but wondering if you would.

3

Franklin 1 year, 9 months ago

Luke 22:36 "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Esther 8:11 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives- to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them

There are plenty more if you need them.

1

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Matthew 26:52": "But Jesus said to him, 'Put up your sword. All who take the sword die by the sword.'"

1

Angela Heili 1 year, 9 months ago

Let me set the context for you on this verse. If you go after someone with a sword, gun, what have you, you are likely to die by that very weapon. The context has nothing to do with self protection. Read the verse prior to this and you will see it. The man attacked another with his sword and Christ told him to put it away because He had to fulfill prophecy by being arrested.

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

"Turn the other cheek." Is that sufficient to prove to you Christ's stand against violence?

0

Angela Heili 1 year, 9 months ago

Again, let me set the context for you on that verse which is Matthew 5:39. Included are surrounding verses for context:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

He isn't telling you to let someone kill you as you can't very easily turn the other cheek if you're dead. What these verses are talking about is His releasing us from Old Testament Law. The law that said whatever someone does to you, you do to them. The [f] references these laws as such: Matthew 5:38; Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21

Matthew 5:38 is included above.

Exodus 21:24, plus surrounding verses for context, is: 22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Leviticus 24:20, plus surrounding verses for context, is: 19 ‘If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him— 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. 21 And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death."

Finally, Deuteronomy 19:21 with surrounding verses for context: " 20 And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

The reason we aren't supposed to do these things is in Romans Chapter 12: 17 "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”says the Lord. 20 Therefore

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Verse 19. Vengeance is Mine. I will repay, says the Lord. That's the reason we are to turn the other cheek. Again, none of these verses say anything about not being able to defend yourself. Take revenge because someone committed a wrong? No. Turn the other cheek. Defend yourself? Yes. You can.

0

Centerville 1 year, 9 months ago

We could start with a surcharge on music that glorifies school shootings: like Foster the People's 'Pumped Up Kicks', you know, the one whose leader is in a twitter frenzy of 'It's all the NRA's fault!"

1

Rich Noever 1 year, 9 months ago

Why make this so difficult? Make it a felony to possess an assault weapon and extended clips unless you are in the military or law enforcement.

1

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

What exactly is an assault weapon? I can assault you with my hands, my car, a baseball bat. Assault weapon is science fiction. You want to ban a tool based on its color? You do realize that your half-brain proposal "only the police and military" is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States, don't you? Traitor.

And I'm sick of you gun haters screwing up the nomenclature. It's called a MAGAZINE, not a 'clip'. Yes, there is a difference. How about you get a clue about these things before you spout off from the pie hole. You could be taken seriously then. Geesh!

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Are you so sure, CrazyLarry, that you possess accurate knowledge about what the Second Amendment means? It seems that your view is just one of many.

"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.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

Anyone who gets so exercised over a letter to the editor probably is too unstable to be entrusted with a firearm.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

That's really not true.

In Heller, the SC upheld the right to bear arms as an individual right, separate from any militias.

I believe the reasoning is that the right exists for other reasons, like the right to defend oneself.

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Do read the complete text, jafs. The Heller case and its implications is discussed quite extensively. It points out that Heller is hardly a definitive ruling.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Looks pretty definitive to me.

What's your idea of how it's not?

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

jafs, here is what the Cornell University Law School site says about the limitations of the Heller case. Note in particular the last sentence of the excerpt I cite below:

"However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. The Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which future gun regulations would be evaluated.7 And, more importantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states."

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, I read it.

But, it's clear that the Heller decision makes the right an individual one, separate from militias, as I said.

And, the idea that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to states is odd, to say the least. That whole question of whether or not the bill of rights applied to the states was decided a long time ago, as far as I know.

0

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

Considering the context of when it was written, and the precise wording, it is abundantly clear the Second Amendment is protecting the right of the citizen--not the state--to keep and bear arms. We can always count on the lawyers to cloud the issue.

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Here the Second Amendment:

"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."

There is plenty of ambiguity in it, Crazy_Larry. Start with the grammatical ambiguity of the two phrases not being properly linked. Note that possession of firearms is linked to two specific circumstances: "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State." So there is ample room to restrict possession of firearms to those specific circumstances. Note in particular, Crazy_Larry, that according to the Second Amendment,citizens may possess firearms in order to protect "the security of a free State."

It was indeed lawyers clouding the issue--specifically NRA lawyers in the Heller case-- who brought us to the current impasse, in which people who cannot possess firearms without endangering the people around them still have the right to have them.

0

Rich Noever 1 year, 9 months ago

First of all. when you come on this forum, please try to control yourself. I guess you would okay people owning nuclear weapons with your stupid reasoning. As to the definition of an assault weapon, I am not talking about baseball bats or a car or your hands. I am talking about an object that's purpose is the kill a human being and can be an automatic or semi automatic firearm. As far as your rant about clip versus magazine, the Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines a clip as "a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm". Seems like you need to bone up on nomenclature before get on here and make an ass of yourself. By the way, I am not a gun hater, I just hate ignorant people and you are an example.

0

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

I'm in complete control of myself, hater. Nuclear weapons? Way to throw a straw-man into the discussion. And clips are rarely used in modern day firearms. The clip has been replaced by a box magazine. However, I can load my 30-round box magazines very quickly using stripper clips. You are confusing who is the ignorant one in this conversation. Clue: it ain't me.

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Anyone who replies to a posting, calling his interlocutor "hater" is obviously not in proper control of himself. For your own well-being and for the safety of everyone around your, Crazy_Larry, please place your weapons into the safe-keeping of a trusted friend or family member, and get yourself some professional help to deal with your anger issues.

0

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

OMFG! LOL! ROFLMFAO! LOL! Whatever, dude. YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!

0

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

But, Krich said he hated ignorant people. Open mouth, insert foot!

0

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

"I am talking about an object that's purpose is the kill a human being and can be an automatic or semi automatic firearm."

Show us any sort of proof that an AR15's purpose is killing people. Maybe you have some Bushmaster literature we haven't seen.

1

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

Do you even know what an assault weapon is?

1

Rich Noever 1 year, 9 months ago

Liberty275, Yes I know the definition. Your point?

0

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

Owning an assault weapon without a proper license is already illegal. And you want to make them illegal.

0

Pal 1 year, 9 months ago

Anything for the government elites to take your money. They will say and do anything to take it.

I think underlings should give everything they make to the government elites and let them dole it out as they see fit.

The government official on the frontlines of the scandal involving a wasteful government conference, U.S. General Services Administration regional commissioner Jeffrey Neely, will invoke his 5th amendment

http://www2.ljworld.com/users/photos/2012/dec/20/246572/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/cheers-photos-show-embattled-gsa-official-enjoying-wine-and-soak-in-spa-tub-at-m-hotel-during-pre-conference-meeting/

0

gl0ck0wn3r 1 year, 9 months ago

Perhaps new taxes on everything proportionate to the number of deaths both intentional and unintentional that result from the use of the taxed item.

1

beezee 1 year, 9 months ago

Just as "entitlements" (like the Soc Security that seniors PAID for) is the misinformation specialty of the Right, "gun control" is the misinformation specialty of the Left. Guns properly referred to as assault weapons are not in wide civilian hands and those that are (termed Class-3 firearms by the federal ATF) come with the intensive regulation appropriate to ownership. Along with considerable expense, one reason I never signed up though 100% eligible.

The rifle used in CT is one of many available "SEMI-auto looks likes." Sort of like putting racing stripes on a Toyota Camry and calling it a NASCAR vehicle. Can such be used for mass murders? Sure. But as to sheer firepower, they pale when compared to a SEMI-auto 12-gauge shotgun lawfully used for goose hunting. Yeah, a typical magazine of a looks-like holds 20-30 rounds, each requiring a separate trigger press to expel from the muzzle ONE bullet. In a 3.5-inch 12-gauge loaded with 00-buck loads, each trigger press expels from the muzzle TWELVE projectiles, each about 9mm in diameter. And the gun holds five rounds. Do the math.

I have relatives there in CT-- they're as heartbroken as am I. But the shooter, like just about ALL such going back years, had a history of medications (similar to Ritalin, etc) and that has LONG been linked to teen/20s explosions of rage. Additionally, this guy basically LIVED immersed in the world of violent online games. Players don't really PLAY the game; they are WITHIN the game. Leading to exacerbation of whatever psychoses they have.

As my brother there remarked, the true and ongoing tragedy of all these cases is the inadequacy of mental health treatment, coupled with the state of denial of people who before-hand know the shooter. In this case the guy's mother, who died in denial. In the conversation with my brother I added "...and the fact that juvie records (crime and meds) are generally sealed from background checks."

The gun shrieking is a diversion; letters I have seen here, like Jerry Wells', reflect the politics of the authors and nothing more meaningful. Go research the term "school shooting" and then do "school bombing." It's an eye opener going back many years. Add in the term prozac and see more. And try to wake up. Congress, dysfunctional in fiscal matters, is likewise in social ones. How could you expect it to be otherwise?! All that's really going on presently is a continued peeing [to be uncharacteristically polite] contest. Meanwhile, Kansas and other states continue to cut mental health funding, and the feds may well follow suit in the VA, which will be even more tragic given the number of PTSD cases coming home from service.

1

Angela Heili 1 year, 9 months ago

Beezee I agree with you on all points but one. The mother wasn't in denial, according to an article I read. It was reported that the mother had planned to file for conservatorship and have him committed. He knew about this and it was possibly what set him off. All he wanted to do was play video games and she was encouraging him to get out and he was angry about that as well. Some think he felt she was rejecting him by encouraging him to do something besides play video games. Obviously, we'll never truly know.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Why on earth would she leave weapons around that he could get at easily if that's the case?

0

Centerville 1 year, 9 months ago

Juvenile records are sealed from gun purchase background checks? Yowsa.

We could revisit the whole 'deinstitutionalization' fiasco and the role our own local Social Work industry played in forcing it, but that would be politically incorrect.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Umm.... the First Amendment perhaps? Little thing called Freedom of Speech -- perhaps you've heard of it? There are more Amendments than just the Second.

1

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

Using the Logic Pro-control people use, let's just ban the video games that have no redeeming value, are based on killing people using war-like weapons. Video games that are educational or sports related are okay but if people die by the use of any weapon they are to be included in the ban.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

"Pro-control people"? So I guess this makes you an "anything goes" person -- all drugs legalized, no speed limits, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater okay, restaurants allowed to sell rancid meat, teaching religion in schools although kids aren't required to go to school since anything goes ... Like that, right? Yep, didn't think so.

Banning video games is not the same as banning the actual items with which people kill. People can play all the first-shooter video games they want, but if they don't have access to real guns they aren't actually going to be able to go on a shooting spree. The difference is obvious.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

Bea don't be blinded by your hate. It was a friggin typo. Posting on a smart phone isn't always easy. I meant gun control people. Considering the conversation I would have thought you could have figured that out.

Not the same as a gun but they promote and glorify killing. Flight simulators aren't the same as flying a plane but they help you get good at it. Video games teach the tactics of killing and should be banned.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Fred, I don't hate. Really. I read "pro-control people" as a rather awkward and ugly blanket statement against those calling for some greater limits on firearms (whatever those limits might be). Glad it was a typo. My apologies. Moving on ...

So you feel the games should be banned, despite the fact that video games don't actually kill people and don't even make it easier, but at the same time you believe the weapons by which the actual killings are carried out shouldn't have greater limits of accessability placed on them. Ban the game, keep the gun. Somehow, that seems a bit out of whack to me -- directly opposite of what would save lives even.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

bea, no I don't think video games should be banned but the same arguments being applied to guns can be applied to video games.

I think we should protect all our rights. Once you start violating one right it is easy to start violating other rights. Want to amend the 2 nd amendment then go ahead, but don't pass laws that are not based in fact, are not reasonable and infringe upon my rights.

Why are you protective of the 1 st amendment ? What would it hurt to ban video games that are based on killing? It might help so why not? See my point, it is easy to apply the same arguments be used in the gun control debate.

If someone can find a way to stop killing even if it restricts my rights I will support it but I won't support feel good do nothing laws that restricts my freedoms and leaves me less able to protect myself and my family.

Banning assault guns didnt make a difference when the Feds did it and it dint stop the CT murders so why do it? Why not focus on mental health treatment, keeping mentally ill people from getting guns, enforcing current gun laws and other societal problems that cause people to murder?

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Fred, some rights need limitations for the safety of all, and yes, it is unfortunate for all those who can act properly without those limitations. You, for instance, believe it is okay to insist voters show IDs to do something as basic as voting. That is a limitation on a right, and nobody dies if someone tries to vote illegally. Use a gun illegally, and someone can die -- maybe many. Again, I'm not talking about taking away completely the right to own, but limiting the number of bullets in a magazine. 9 and 15 -- handguns and rifles. That is it. Make it necessary to reload, that is all. It seems reasonable to me. That is what stopped the killer in Tucson, and I think it would help in other situations. Those limits do not prevent you from protecting your family.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Come on G, we already agreed on a deal. : )

0

gl0ck0wn3r 1 year, 9 months ago

So, you are cool with the 1A but not the 2A? Anything else you'd like to change to fit your agenda?

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

I agree that we have a mental illness problem, meaning we don't care for our mentally ill well enough and much of the "care" is through our police departments and jail system.

However, with what exactly are these individuals killing innocent people? With guns that are capable of firing dozens and dozens of rounds without reloading. That is a problem.

Limit the number of rounds and we are likely to save lives. In Tucson, for example, the killer there was tackled only after he ran through 33 bullets and was attempting to reload. If his gun only held 9 rounds, he very possibly would have been stopped sooner than he was. Yes, people would have been tragically killed, but likely not as many. That is what we are talking about.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Sadly, we can't stop all sick people from killing, and I feel we should do much more preventative work with the mentally ill, stopping them before they even try. However, if someone were to run into a crowd in which you are standing would you want that person to have 6 or 9 rounds ready to fire, or 33 or 100? The limitation that seems reasonable to me is in the number of rounds that can be available to fire between reloading. It is about limiting the capability of mass murders while still protecting people's right to own. Again, I look at the Tucson shooting, and he was only stopped once he ran out of bullets (33) and tried to reload. I acknowledge it is not a perfect solution nor a complete solution, but I believe it is something that would stop some of the deaths from happening. It also does not take away the right to own.

0

beezee 1 year, 9 months ago

Ummmm... Dear beatrice, a reload (stuffing in another magazine) takes me ca 1.5 seconds. Factor out me being an instructor and it'd take the avg student 3 seconds.

0

voevoda 1 year, 9 months ago

Actually, we should be talking about how to keep weapons out of the hands of people who use them irresponsibly. Irresponsible people include those who suffer from mental illness, but there are other sorts of irresponsible people, too. Such as sane people who store weapons unsafely, allowing irresponsible people to get hold of them. Sane people who sell weapons to people who will use them irresponsibly. Sane people who imagine that they should engage in vigilante activity, claiming that they are "preventing crime." Sane people who use weapons to advance their own political causes in violation of the law. Sane people who use weapons to terrorize other people into submission, as in cases of domestic violence. And sane people who coldbloodly kill others. We don't have to wait until we can develop a 100% successful plan to undertake serious efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

How is taxation the solution to the drug problem?

No, this is not the correct way to look at this issue, in my opinion.

1

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

If a fat woman falls on you in walmart and you die, should we start taxing people for being fat?

You can not legislate morality. Anytime you pass a law for someone or something, it takes something away from someone else.

1

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

No, if a fat woman falls on you, tax gravity.

0

Linda Endicott 1 year, 9 months ago

If we cannot legislate morality, then why does society bother to have any laws at all?

0

gr 1 year, 9 months ago

I think Jimmy either already knew his solution is not a solution or he is just saying to ignore the problem and profit from it.

"Tobacco kills people and it is taxed, weapons kill people and they should also be taxed. "

"maybe taxing weapons is the only thing that will kill weapons."

And how did that work out? Rather than killing tobacco, no one really wants to get rid of tobacco as "we will lose so much tax money". So punitive taxation of something becomes propping it up. Making it permanent with no intent to do away with it.

"If we need a new revenue source to keep from going over the fiscal cliff, tax weapons." And another one who thinks taxing one thing and using the revenue for a completely different thing is proper...

0

oldbaldguy 1 year, 9 months ago

surcharges on ammunition and firearms fund most of the conservation programs in this country now.

1

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

The Internet was already created by taxes.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

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

Y'all might want to look up the definition of that word, "infringed"

2

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

Isn't that form Oklahoma. Something like "a surry infringed on top".

1

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

So RoeD, what militia do you belong to? Is it well regulated -- meaning, are the members in top physical condition and do you train as a group?

Also, better not infringe on my right to a bazooka.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

I don't think any of them are up to my standards bea.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Or, as Groucho Marx used to say, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have someone like me as a member." Something like that? : )

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

I predict there will be no muskets and no claims of "From my cold dead hands" this time around. The subject is far too sensitive to trivialize this time around, which is likely why the NRA has taken a week to craft their response. They need to protect their brand is important to them, but they can't appear callous -- or in any way responsible. (However, if they weren't in any way guilty or didn't feel any indirect responsibility, why exactly did they take down their facebook page? Other lobbying firms didn't take their facebook page down, so why the NRA? Look to hear about "personal responsibility" and how we can't allow tragedies (involving guns) to dictate our freedoms and how guns don't kill people ... but don't look to hear anything of any substance.

If they come forward and indicate that they will be supporting the proposed limitations on magazines, then I will be shocked. If they did that, it would change the way people perceive the NRA. I hope they suprise me.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

The only thing I heard from the NRA was "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

Very simplistic, and not at all satisfying, to me.

0

Pal 1 year, 9 months ago

Exit taxes should be a money maker for the government people. If you live in California and want to move to lower taxing state like Idaho, whatever California debt is, divide it by the number of residents an bill it to exiting residents.

Remember, Obama said you didn't build that. So you owe for what the government has done for you.

Government debts are accrued on your behalf by elected officials for whom you had a chance to vote, all supposedly representing your interests. In a democracy, all citizens are obliged to pay the government's bills as determined by the duly empowered taxing authorities - regardless of whether they voted for a particular officeholder or not. What's to stop legislators from passing laws that make debt obligations due and payable by any citizen who decides to leave for another jurisdiction? After all, they don't hesitate to take your money when you die...

And can't you just see the progressive commentariat lining up behind a movement designed to deter well-heeled blue state residents from seeking refuge in those despicable red hinterlands?

...

Exit taxes imposed on emigrants have a long history, including their use in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They were imposed under the theory that, since citizens were educated by the government and were either provided benefits or allowed to profit from jobs and business held while living under the government's protection, they were obligated to pay back some of that money on their way out.

http://babalublog.com/2012/12/19/coming-soon-exit-taxes-for-those-leaving-insolvent-states/

0

Liberty275 1 year, 9 months ago

i'm shocked. I agree with you on 2 and disagree on 1. That's backwards from how it should be, given your leftist persona. No worries though, .500 keeps you in the majors.

1

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

The rub is trying to define "reasonable." That seems to be the argument now at hand.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 9 months ago

Reasonable for me is if our civilian needs it to protect themselves and citizens from armed criminals then we should have it too. No military weapons for civilians, but the same type and caliber that the police have.

We may not encounter criminals in all the same situations that the police do, but the potential is there. So if it is good enough for the police then it should be good enough for us and unlike the police we are often alone without backup.

1

beezee 1 year, 9 months ago

And now, Larry, substitute the word First for Second, and the words Free Expression for Arms and you have the future most of us will rather STRONGLY reject. Can't happen here?? Stop smoking whatever you're on-- your stash has gone bad.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

The second amendment is unusual compared to the other sections of the Constitution because it is the only one that mentions a specific technology, firearms.

The most conservative reading of the second amendment, then, is that it refers to the specific firearms technology of the day, just as the language of the day is taken into account in interpreting it (e.g. "well-regulated").

The technology of "arms" to the writers of the Constitution meant front load-muskets, swords, and front-load cannons.

To extrapolate from the second amendment that the writers could have possibly meant to include automatic weapons and other modern weapons of war is extreme liberal overinterpretation.

0

Peacemaker452 1 year, 9 months ago

The 2nd amendment covers "arms", not just firearms.

So when the 1st amendment mentions freedom of the press, do we limit that to the technology of the day?

If not, why?

2

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

The "press" referred to in the Constitution is not as a technology, but as an organization, an entity (e.g. the Third Estate)

0

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

From Darrell Scott Father of Rachel Scott.- murdered Columbine student

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !! Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript: "Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.

The article goes on quite a bit longer - thought it was a good insight

1

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, we must only respect those opinions that agree with our own. sigh

0

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

And you know about the testimony as fact how ?

0

bridgerangers 1 year, 9 months ago

The idea of taxing weapons makes tremendous sense, however, you didn't take the concept far enough.

If you tax weapons, then everyone will need to declare what weapons they own. The tax does not need to be onerous or punitive, but law abiding citizens will generally be the ones that follow the rules. The system becomes one that's closer to a vehicle registration process. Once a year you pay the associated tax and then periodically, you pass some type of operations test. This test can also include subsequent backgrounds check and so that if your mental state has lagged since your last registration, this could be noted by the registration authorities.

In addition, when you register your weapons, you have to report how the weapons are being secured so that others cannot gain access. Failure to properly secure weapons and ammunition in a safe, gun safe, or other locked solution means the loss of the permit to maintain this weapon. If a person is killed or wounded with one of your weapons (whether you were the shooter or not), you would lose your gun permit rights for the next ten years and be subject to civil penalties.

There can be an amnesty period when all currently unregistered weapons can be registered. If you are caught with an unregistered weapon, this should result in a “failure to pay tax” penalty – or tax evasion and the forfeiture of the weapon and all other weapons permitted to you. Furthermore, jail time should be an option (much like the penalties associated with driver licenses). Reckless gun use is as dangerous as drinking and driving and needs to be treated harshly.

Will this stop every madman in a theater, school, or college campus? Absolutely not. But these murders are only a small fraction of the gun deaths in this country. We lose about 34 people a day or more than 10,000 gun related deaths a year. Japan has fewer than 100 deaths a year. But, we're not Japan or Australia and I don't think we need to go the extreme gun reduction programs followed by either country. My bet is that a more resonsible gun management system would work in this country and reduce the number of deaths considerably.

This approach should allow law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves, to hunt, and target shoot as they deem appropriate. However, any person that is incapable of following this system does not have the right to own or operate a weapon.

I've served in the Army and currently own several weapons and do not believe that these weapons (in my control) would ever pose a risk to anyone. I am a responsible, sane and law abiding adult and I think this type of taxation process would be a much more rational solution than trying to put an armed cop everywhere.

1

beezee 1 year, 9 months ago

So many of these comments use the term "pass a law" or some similar verbage. So I'm curious: just what is it about the term "homicidal psychotic" that so many people cannot comprehend?

Homicide (at least on this planet and in this country) already is illegal. Statutes are written; the justice system prosecutes; the criminally insane (or just plain criminally inclined) still kill innocent people, especially in environments (like schools) where the people have (by law, which THEY obey) aren't allowed to possess ANY effective means of self defense.

So the cry to PASS A LAW, or REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION, etc. really are utterly ridiculous! These are things that sane people abide by. TRY really, really hard to figure it out folks. The criminally inclined regard such laws as a guarantee that they will have in select environments a target-rich free-fire zone with guns, bombs, ball bats, .... A nut case with an aluminum ball bat and a machete in a classroom of children could kill as many as with a gun! And damned near as fast.

Enough-- outta here....

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.