Posts: 42,600
Threads: 545
Joined: Nov 2023
Reputation:
0
Ombligo wrote:
Don't tax the gun, don't tax the ammo - tax the fuel, aka gunpowder. That gets around the 2nd amendment, it gets around self-loaders too as no one makes their own gunpowder.
no one? really? I know how to make black powder, and "gun cotton" that's a fun one to make. don't try it at home though.
no one? really? not one of the 7+ billion humans?
If you want to save lives, abolish alcohol and tobacco. And stop installing revolving doors on prisons.
https://news.yahoo.com/weekend-gun-viole...12506.html
"Police Superintendent David Brown on Monday was back to lamenting, as he has in the past, that at least some of the shootings involved people he contends should not have been on the streets.
He pointed to a suspect in the shooting of six people, two of whom died. He said the person had seven felony arrests and at the time of the shooting and had been released from jail and placed on electronic monitoring after being charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
“It’s beyond frustrating,” he said."
bet the perp would pay a tax on his firearm purchases.....  miley-laughing001:
Posts: 16,797
Threads: 723
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Racer, I don’t think you’re responding to what’s being said here; perhaps intentionally.
The tax/fee is intended to be paid by ALL (to mitigate the costs of gun violence), but acknowledging that some will not pay.
Perhaps a clarifying analogy would be the carrying of uninsured motorist coverage; to ease the suffering and lessen the financial costs of other’s offenses.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.
Posts: 16,797
Threads: 723
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
kj wrote:
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.
Then they (and you?) would be wrong.
"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".
Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=kj]
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.
Then they (and you?) would be wrong.
"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".
Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.
Car insurance has nothing to do with it. In fact, this isn't even insurance. And what if the reasoning behind that insurance is wrong-headed?
Posts: 16,797
Threads: 723
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
kj wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=kj]
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.
Then they (and you?) would be wrong.
"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".
Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.
Car insurance has nothing to do with it. In fact, this isn't even insurance. And what if the reasoning behind that insurance is wrong-headed?
:facepalm:
Car insurance is an analogy
a·nal·o·gy - noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
Posts: 42,600
Threads: 545
Joined: Nov 2023
Reputation:
0
"Officials have not decided how much gun owners will be required to pay in fees, which would be used to defray the direct costs of gun violence to city taxpayers for services that include police response, ambulance transport and gunshot-related medical treatment for victims. "
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.
Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
I think that falls under “…and the pursuit of happiness”.
:wink:
Posts: 16,797
Threads: 723
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Racer X wrote:
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.
Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.
Lemme see. So yer sayin’ abuse of “copulation” leads to babies, and abuse of guns leads to dead people. And they’s the same, right?
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Racer X]
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.
Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.
Lemme see. So yer sayin’ abuse of “copulation” leads to babies, and abuse of guns leads to dead people. And they’s the same, right?
There are a HELL of a lot more people who have unplanned children than there are who shoot people.
Nearly all people with functional genitalia have sex - almost no one who owns a gun shoots people. As a benefit to society, the fee proposed by X makes a helluva lot more sense than the proposed gun fee.
But that fee would never fly, either.
|
