The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

zmiller4 said:
Wait...

I'm not really seeing how what John Stewart apparently says (can't find the direct quote, but I think this captures what he's getting at) contradicts the supreme court.
Click to expand...

I was out of town and missed that episode, but my understanding from the FB quotes I've seen is that he talked about more than just ammo.
 
Seggy said:
To begin here is what we can do...

-If you want to buy a gun there is a mandatory six month wait unless you pay a $5000 tax per gun to get it earlier provided you have completed an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-As a said an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-For every gun related death per year, so say there are 10,000 gun related deaths per year in America gun owners are expected to pay a dollar per death on their yearly income taxes, so $10,000. This is in addition to a yearly tax of $1000 per gun one owns

-Gun dealers must pay a $5000 tax per gun they sell as well. This is in addition to a one time fee of $500,000 to be allowed to sell guns per store. So Walmart or Dick's Sporting Goods would need to pay that for every store they want to sell guns.

-Yearly gun 'recurrent' classes that are between 2-3 days long that promote safety. If you want to go to more than one a year, you can get up to a $5000 rebate on the above new taxes

-If a gun dealer has more than three guns per every five years used in a violent crime, they lose the right to sell guns for a period of 5 years and then need to pay the $500,000 fee again PLUS an additional $2,000,000 reapplication fee.

-The above monies would be used to bolster law enforcement to suppress the black market on fire arms.


There has been so much pontification about 'mental health' from your side of the argument, so with that in mind, we can use the above monies to bolster mental health treatment and other health treatment for Americans. How does the above work for y'all?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that this is just keeping with your recent trollish behavior and wasn't intended to be serious. Because if it was serious, you've obviously suffered some sort of extreme head injury.
 
Seggy said:
To begin here is what we can do...

-If you want to buy a gun there is a mandatory six month wait unless you pay a $5000 tax per gun to get it earlier provided you have completed an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-As a said an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-For every gun related death per year, so say there are 10,000 gun related deaths per year in America gun owners are expected to pay a dollar per death on their yearly income taxes, so $10,000. This is in addition to a yearly tax of $1000 per gun one owns

-Gun dealers must pay a $5000 tax per gun they sell as well. This is in addition to a one time fee of $500,000 to be allowed to sell guns per store. So Walmart or Dick's Sporting Goods would need to pay that for every store they want to sell guns.

-Yearly gun 'recurrent' classes that are between 2-3 days long that promote safety. If you want to go to more than one a year, you can get up to a $5000 rebate on the above new taxes

-If a gun dealer has more than three guns per every five years used in a violent crime, they lose the right to sell guns for a period of 5 years and then need to pay the $500,000 fee again PLUS an additional $2,000,000 reapplication fee.

-The above monies would be used to bolster law enforcement to suppress the black market on fire arms.


There has been so much pontification about 'mental health' from your side of the argument, so with that in mind, we can use the above monies to bolster mental health treatment and other health treatment for Americans. How does the above work for y'all?
Click to expand...

Note to self - buy stock in companies that make brown shirts.
 
OH MY!

Looks like I have struck a nerve on here with a few folks...

Hacker15e said:
So is the objective to generate money for mental health care/treatment, or to create high barriers to firearms ownership? Is the long term objective to create such high barriers that legal ownership eventually goes away? Do you also propose that citizens who are unable to pay the tax be forced to cede ownership of their personally owned firearms to the state (for destruction?)?
Click to expand...

Quite a few members on here have been sharing that they are 'piling up' on firearms recently, with jacked up prices, so I figure they can afford an increase tax.

Most importantly, how would levying an enormous tax on law-abiding firearms owners reduce violence committed with firearms?
Click to expand...

This is already a concept we see EVERYDAY here in America. From auto insurance to home owners insurance, we pay for others. Fact of life.

Do you assume that once legal firearms are taken out of circulation that the problem would go away?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not
 
z987k said:
So that only the super rich have guns? And that law abiding citizens like myself become law breakers?
Click to expand...

A lot of folks have said recently they have been 'piling up' for the Zombies coming so I figure everyone on here can afford to pay more to go shooting.
 
Seggy said:
This is already a concept we see EVERYDAY here in America. From auto insurance to home owners insurance, we pay for others. Fact of life.
Click to expand...

I understand the concept of shared risk pool, just not how it would combat violence, or violence committed with firearms in this situation.
 
Sorry, but the imposed taxes you suggest would get any politician run out of office faster than you could believe. Gun laws have to be realistic to pass, and those are not. Trying to push that through is unrealistic...
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

The real point that needs to be made is that while y'all engage in group think changes ARE coming. Sooooooo, instead of saying we 'have a mental health problem' in this country, why don't the supporters of the 2nd Amendment come up with soultions to make sure those with mental health problems don't hurt themselves or others using a tool y'all cherish.

But, don't try to tell me that I can't buy one because you don like it.
Click to expand...

I never did say that.
 
scooter2525 said:
Seggy were those arbitrary numbers or was there a specific science to how you came up with them?
Click to expand...

Pulled them out of my butt.

Also, I'm curious to how that would specifically prevent future mass shootings, or even shootings in general.
Click to expand...

Lung Cancer is down with the crack down and heavy taxes on cigarette companies and smokers. Same concept here.
 
ppragman said:
This is the most asinine and arbitrary thing I've ever read.
Click to expand...

So are a lot of laws in this country.

Also, why should we punish gun retailers for things their customers do? You don't charge car dealerships when a drunk-driver runs over a kid, hell, you don't revoke a liquor license if someone drives home drunk and gets caught. Indeed, why should I be taxed for the irresponsibility of others,
Click to expand...

You are already taxed for the irresponsibility of others. So get over it.
 
Seggy said:
instead of saying we 'have a mental health problem' in this country, why don't the supporters of the 2nd Amendment come up with soultions to make sure those with mental health problems don't hurt themselves or others using a tool y'all cherish.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, these types of decisions should be made by mental health professionals. Just because a number of Americans misattribute the problem to firearms doesn't mean the burden is on firearms owners to come up with a solution. I don't have the faintest idea about how to fix it because what I know about mental health is squat.

Would we want the flight attendants to negotiate a pilot contract or teach cockpit CRM? After all, they're on the airplane too, right?
 
Seggy said:
Couldn't agree more.

The real point that needs to be made is that while y'all engage in group think changes ARE coming. Sooooooo, instead of saying we 'have a mental health problem' in this country, why don't the supporters of the 2nd Amendment come up with soultions to make sure those with mental health problems don't hurt themselves or others using a tool y'all cherish.



I never did say that.
Click to expand...
The only changes that would come would be to lose my party a bunch of seats in the House and Senate if this is the hill they pick to die on.
 
It's interesting to me that the gun question is one of the few "wedge issues" that drives a wedge right through Party Lines. You have pinko, bedwetting commies like ATN and Spira lining up with deranged, sociopathic borderline anarchists like Waco and me. Seems like an excellent reason for the Pretend Two Party System to treat the issue like Plutonium...rather surpised they seem to be gearing up to take it on. Whyever would they risk it, hmm?
 
Yep, I thought they had learned their lesson. About 14 years without so much as a whimper about gun control. Then along comes a bunch of dead kids that they can take advantage of, and they go right back to pushing the one issue that's cost them more elections than anything else.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm guessing that this is just keeping with your recent trollish behavior and wasn't intended to be serious. Because if it was serious, you've obviously suffered some sort of extreme head injury.
Click to expand...

Finally....I AM NOT SERIOUS AT ALL concerning my post about my 'plan'. You can call it trolling, that is fine, but y'all need to relax the butt muscles, stop pretending to be scholars, and get off some soapboxes.

In ALL seriousness, take a look at Daniel Patrick Moynihan's (BTW, he was probably one of the smartest politicians EVER) plan on how to reduce violence. It would be a HEAVY tax on bullets, but not the ones used for hunting or target practice. Here is an article from August that touches on the plan...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html


Is it perfect? No. Is the current system perfect? No. However, I do think that the solution Biden (him and Mounihan served a couple of decades together in the Senate) comes to is centered around heavier taxes on bullets and guns. Take a look at what the government did to the tobacco companies. Are cigarettes banned? Nope, but if you want to smoke, you pay heavily for it. The tobacco companies didn't win the fight against the government with increased taxes and had probably similar financial interests as the gun lobby and gun companies have. Also, the Republicans can say that 'they won the fight and no gun bans were put in place', as they are voting themselves raises with the higher tax revenue they collect.

Once again, the above is in complete seriousness. Everyone can relax about my 'plan' :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top