I don't know why everyone is looking for a new law to solve this when the truth is that our society is ill due to theft of our future, our hope, our jobs, our health care.

Those in power are taking more and more away from most of us to enrich the very few at the top.

Reverse this trend, improve schools and healthcare and the economy and provide treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and the violence will ebb.

JMHO.

in this country.

we should use resources from the things that directly or indirectly cause problems to solve those problems --short of that, if you don't want to charge for something used to cause problems in the country, you have to ban it.

so take your pick, ban the things, or charge a modest fee or tax and direct resources towards preventing the bad things while keeping the guns and ammo mostly legal.

What is this obsession people have with other peoples firearms and ammunition? Why is it ok to reach into the pockets of gun owners?

Mind you, I'd be happier if you got to a point where taxing the very, very rich at an effective tax rate of about 60%...and making sure that the rest of the country had a minimum wage you could live on would assist.

more, but it is a fairer approach than singling out one group of people based on some arbitrary criteria.

But I do agree with increasing taxes on accumulated and amassed wealth. Reduced taxes on investment dividends is an absurd example of providing tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

If you can afford to amass wealth, then you need to be taxed on that wealth. The American dream cannot come true if all the wealth is clustered at the top.

Of course, I would be the last person to know if there was....

I believe it is a 6% tax and it goes to wildlife conservation

to PRESERVE people?

Blocked

HTH

No comment.

Forgive the injection of humor. He's brilliant, and does have a point here.

If one cannot afford to fire a bullet, a gun still looks like fun to won.

rounds for assault rifles, .223, 7.62 x 19, etc. No civilian needs such an assault rifle in the first place, but if they're going to own them, let them pay an appropriate tax to help pay for their carnage their deadly little hobby wreaks on the rest of us.

more powerful non-military calibres end up being used and the situation becomes more deadly. .223 is a relatively weak calibre when compared to many other hunting rounds

also all they would do is start manufacturing "military style" firearms in non-military calibres- which they already do.

You assume there the correlation equals a causation.

as unconstitutional as the the intention (and effect) of the tax would be to limit the exercise of a constitutional right by making it cost prohibitive.

to see the very real possibility that a 600% tax would be seen as an infringement by the courts

and why does it have to be only the two types you mention? Why can't it the poster be someone who supports some gun control but feels this goes too far?

as fact. So what the poster did was claim as fact the NRA absolutist opinion as to what the 2nd Amendment means. There is no wiggle room in the post.

.

I have read it from the courts. Just because I am not a abolitionist doesn't make me a gun nut.

Life isn't black and white... it is full of nuances.

You must be part of the 1% as the policy you advocate for would mean that they would be the only ones who could afford to use firearms....

There is a tax on newspapers, magazines, and cable TV. Does that limit your right to free speech? What an ridiculously uninformed comment.

Provided we have a constitutional right to firearms (and, quite honestly, that 'right' hinges on which ever direction the Supreme Court leans), there is no such provision for ammunition. And for the strict constructionists among us, I'm quite comfortable with everyone having the right to own a single shot musket.

... ground that has been covered here continuously.

We were speaking strictly in reference to NiceGuy1's obvious vast and unequaled constitutional knowledge from post 13. If HE can play the "I'm a scholar" game, anyone can. But in reference to my post, when ammo was rationed during the Revolutionary war, was George Washington in violation of the future 2nd Amendment?

And being that writing utensils and paper have never been questioned as to their constitutionality, your point is moot.

because Washington was trying to win a war, rationing ammo - a direct (according to you) violation of the spirit of the 2nd amendment, was ok. But trying to save thousands of innocent lives of year ISN'T an good reason to ration ammo ('rationing' having the same affect as taxing.)

Regarding writing utensils and paper, we were comparing items and their constitutional (or lack of protection.)

requires having mass stockpiles of ammo is absurd. The gun activists exaltation of the Second Amendment to biblical proportions is strange. Rights must be balanced against one another. They see the Second Amendment as absolute, trumping the right to life, free speech, and everything else. Their supposed devotion to the constitution is no where to be found when the gun lobby restricts First Amendment rights of doctors and legislators to talk about guns.

and not intended to limit a right. The taxes proposed here are far greater than the cost of the item and the intention of this tax is to make it it unaffordable for the average person to exercise their rights.

if the tax were so high as make it prohibitive for the average person to buy a newspaper or have access to TV, etc.

would sign off on it - the right of Congress's power to tax is virtually unlimited.

You have a "right" to own a firearm, per the 5-4 right-wing Scalia court, but that right comes with any number of acceptable and allowable regulations. Ammunition, on the other hand, you have no "right" to own, per any clause of the Constitution or any court at any time.

$5 for every single shot is ridiculous.

Put a crazy tax on every thing that might be dangerous, yeah, that's a happy world.

The permanent solution is social justice, a dismantling of the barriers between black and white and asian and mexican. The permanent solution is a world where we are in it together, a world without the worst of religious attitudes, and a world that understands there is only room for so many of us.

Usually, though, they get added to something else.

Introducing the 7.62x19, an all new pistol round designed to be silent but not deadly! Its capable of pushing a 125gr .308 caliber bullet at 100fps matching the ballistics of the original Daisy Red Ryder. Due to the small case and extremely HUGE projectile there is no room for powder so magnum primers are recommended for best results!

Did a search on 7.62X19 the above is what I lifted from a gun board. I didn't want to pollute the place with a link.

Did you mean 7.62X39 (SKS stuff)??

Just wanted to give you a bad time.

you are basically putting a tax on every rifle cartridge ever made.

insurance company to handle all the damage from all of these - accidental shootings. We all end paying for dead breadwinners, emergency room visits, disability and other things that happen from guns. Responsible gun owners should have no more problem paying for insurance for gun accidents than for trees falling down or car wrecks. And those who don't have coverage can be sued. People need to think about these things - they are not toys. Why not insure the owners like the owners of cars?

A person possesses something, they are responsible for it. Your car is insured for theft - likewise, if a person's gun is insured for theft and it's stolen to commit a crime, the owner's insurance takes care of that.

An owner can miminize their premium by documenting the status and safety of their storage, proving that their operation of the gun will be done legally, etc.

The same applies to a car which I'm using as an example, since if a car is improperly maintained, recklessly handled, or used in a malicious manner in order to hurt someone, that's a crime. It's called in some places vehicular homocide and a person can go to prison for it. Vehicles have a destructive ability if not used in the correct way.

Back to the house, if a tree on your property falls onto another person's car or house, you are liable. If your gun accidentally shoots someone in the same fashion, or a family member, the medical and other costs are borne by the insured.

I'm sure it sounds strange, but why not take the same level of care in licensing, registration,. proof of ownership, training as a car when one is using something that is so dangerous?

Take the drama out of this, just like with pollution - stop it at the source. Be responsible for what one does in every way possible. As far as the argument criminals don't carry insurance for their acts, well, just tack that onto the rest of what they did.

A gun is a thing that people buy. It's a financial cost to them and society at large. That includes whoever gets shot. I am guessing some people have homeowner's policies that cover possessions, both at home and on the road, like laptops and other goods.

So of course it's the owner - why shouldn't the owner of the gun be responsible for all that might occur, such as with vehicles, or construction, or the operation of a business?

Doctors carry malpractice that goes up with complaints from their own mistakes. I'm just suggesting this to be less punitive in controlling gun use and bet that people will think about the entirety of gun ownership - not just the way it makes them feel, whatever the gun dealer told them, but the relationships between the gun owner and the society at large.

This is what gun control is about. Not ending an industry, but narrowing down possession and operation of firearms. Less spur of the moment purchasing and actions with a gun. We see these stories of people shooting in public or at home, of children getting killed.

In each of those situations, there should have been a mandatory legal provision for insurance at the point of sale. Just like a car. You go to buy a car, you have to show insurance before they let you take it away. I understand the cash value is not the same, but guns don't have another purpose but killing. So they should be put in the hands of trustworty people.

I am thinking that the guys who spout off about good guys with guns should put their money where their mouth is - be in charge of what happens from start to finish, don't just cry and say 'I didn't mean to shoot him!'

If such a level of responsibility was required, a constant amount of money put out monthly, they would take their ownership more seriously. If they can't pay for the damage they might do, they should not own a gun.

JMHO.

I carry a $1million cover policy on my home and land, $1 million on my business, have all my firearms that are not in use in steel fireproof safes installed in a concrete block room inside my home. I have both a alarm system and a fire suppression system.

However I live 30 miles from town on 40 acres and, depending who is on duty at the time, usually must give directions to LE if they are needed.

Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.

a lot of people here see gun owners that way

Taxing rights out of existance would set a very bad precident. The right wingers would then put the same tax on abortions, contraceptives, and other necessities of life.