# Dems want a 1000% tax on rifles



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
"What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."


			A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15s with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes
		


Comment:
The Democrats just need an issue for the mid term election.
But, this could backfire on the these far left extremists Democrats.
This could drive more mainstream voters to the polls.


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 5, 2022)

This would mean a lot of crates full of AR15's can be expected to fall off of the back of trucks if this kind of levy would pass.

Further, expect a lot of these weapons to be smuggled across the border, and new weapons not subject to this tax to be developed.

Taxes on coffin nails as well as the "master tobacco settlement" of 1998 or so, are what caused the Vaping Revolution after all.  

The great thing about this country is that we find ways around this silliness pretty quickly.


----------



## 1srelluc (Jun 5, 2022)

They know that they are done in November so they ain't stopping for shit. Of course Beyer has the safest district in Virginia so he can afford to run his yap.


----------



## pknopp (Jun 5, 2022)

I see this as no different than requiring people to go and get another voter ID even though they have had one for years and I support neither.

 Seems someone is always wanting to put restrictions on someone else.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> They know that they are done in November so they ain't stopping for shit. Of course Beyer has the safest district in Virginia so he can afford to run his yap.


This bill just makes dumb people feel safe


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...


.

Not going to happen and the Supreme Court has ruled in like cases several times.

One of the more popular cases in this regard was _Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner_, 460 U.S. 575.
You cannot tax an item associated with the exercise of a Constitutionally Protected Right with the intent of the tax to be prohibitory
in the ability for someone to actually exercise that Protected Right.

In reference to a 1000% tax on rifles, to create a hindrance in exercising one's Right ... That would be Unconstitutional.
There is a long list of Supreme Court Decisions referencing the sloppy attempts by the government
to pretend they can willfully infringe on the People's Rights through taxation.

Since it isn't a secret, has been attempted and failed on many occasions ...
It is safer to suggest the Progressives in the House are just trying to bullshit some more for the sake of politics alone.

.​


----------



## ozro (Jun 5, 2022)

What is needed is a 1000% tax on any income above their salary of all elected officials.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2022)

I would rather have you carry liability insurance


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jun 5, 2022)

Ban ssri's


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have you carry liability insurance


.

An example of how Progressives will do whatever they can to prohibit or infringe upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights ...
In order to fail yet again at creating their imaginary Utopia.

The intent to try and prohibit exercising a Protected Right is Unconstitutional.
Liability Insurance doesn't have anything to do with protecting anyone
and is an attempt to punish someone for or prohibit someone from exercising their Rights.

A person would not be liable until someone else is already dead/injured ... So it is not a safety issue.
Liability Insurance would have no effect on a life until someone has already been killed/injured ...
And legislating Liability Insurance would be done only with the intent to hinder or prohibit the exercising of one's Rights.

There are already laws that make any unlawful exercise a crime.
Victims are already able to address monetary compensation in Civil Proceedings.

.​


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have you carry liability insurance



That would be unconstitutional first off.  Second, what good would that do?


----------



## Polishprince (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have you carry liability insurance



Why should Criminals who get shot by a citizen be entitled to file a claim against their victims' insurance companies?

Sound like you are encouraging crime here.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have you carry liability insurance


And I'd rather have progressives stop trying to infringe on rights & individual freedoms.
Looks like we'll both be disappointed


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

Polishprince said:


> Why should Criminals who get shot by a citizen be entitled to file a claim against their victims' insurance companies?
> 
> Sound like you are encouraging crime here.


Anyone can file a claim against anyone.  The deciding factor would be whether the use of the gun was legal and necessary. Legitimate self defence is certainly legal and necessary.


----------



## petro (Jun 5, 2022)

Black Market will provide them at 1000% price reduction


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...


....shall not be infringed


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Anyone can file a claim against anyone.  The deciding factor would be whether the use of the gun was legal and necessary. Legitimate self defence is certainly legal and necessary.


.

That's correct with the inclusion that one can still be sued in Civil Proceedings even if the shooting occurred in "self-defense" and was ruled "justified".
It's not just a qualifier either and has been attempted both successfully and unsuccessfully.

.​


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ....shall not be infringed


The Dem Politicians know it.
They will just say that the Republicans votes against gun control in campaign ads.
The Dems are pandering to their dumb voter base.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

If the Dems are able to get away with this, it will open the door to putting a tax on guns that people already own.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Jun 5, 2022)

Democrat refusal to address the real issues, SSRI's and their pets in the barrios, and ghettos is cringeworthy.

Seems to be a cut and dry, unconstitutional measure. 

The Illinois SC overturned a measure like this last year.
_
 “directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s" second amendment right to buy the items for self-defense."



			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2021-10-21/illinois-supreme-court-tosses-county-tax-on-guns-ammunition
		

_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The Dem Politicians know it.
> They will just say that the Republicans votes against gun control in campaign ads.
> The Dems are pandering to their dumb voter base.


Well most of their base are Illegals and nonliving anyway, the rest are confused, brainwashed or dumb

81,LOL,LOL. Sureeee


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

the Dems also want to tax bullets
A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's …​


			https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-democrat-plans...
		

1 hour ago · The federal government already imposes a 10% *tax* on the importation and sale of handguns, per the *Tax* Policy Center. The *tax* rate is 11% for other guns and ammunition.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> If the Dems are able to get away with this, it will open the door to putting a tax on guns that people already own.


.

To tax firearms already owned ... They would have to conduct a door-to-door inspection of every house ...
Or admit to lying about not having a National Registry of firearms.

.​


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> And I'd rather have progressives stop trying to infringe on rights & individual freedoms.
> Looks like we'll both be disappointed


I would rather have gun owners stop killing 30,000 people a year


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> To tax firearms already owned ... They would have to conduct a door-to-door inspection of every house ...
> Or admit to lying about not having a National Registry of firearms.
> ...


The Dems are just the sort of goosestepping fanatics that would do it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's correct with the inclusion that one can still be sued in Civil Proceedings even if the shooting occurred in "self-defense" and was ruled "justified".
> It's not just a qualifier either and has been attempted both successfully and unsuccessfully.
> ...


I wasn't aware that liability insurance specifically for guns was a thing. Civil and criminal cases do have different rules, but liability insurance is generally civil only.  No insurence protects you from criminal actions.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...



First off, your post title is misleading.  The bill proposed is not a tax on all rifles, just the AR-15's.  Regular hunting rifles and ammo WOULD NOT be taxed.  Nor would weapons used by the military be taxed.  Bolt action and lever action rifles would continue to be the same price.  They only want to tax rifles that can throw a lot of ammo downrange in a very short amount of time (i.e. high capacity magazines and semi automatic rifles).  From your link......................

*Law enforcement agencies and the US military wouldn't be subject to the tax, Beyer said. The legislation would also apply only to future assault weapon sales — and not to the 20 million AR-15-style rifles already estimated to be in circulation across the US.  Other guns used for hunting and other recreational purposes would also be exempt.

Bullets wouldn't be subject to the new tax. But high-capacity magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition would be aggressively taxed at that level.*

Myself?  I have no problem with this.  All the rifles I've hunted with were bolt action rifles (because they are much more accurate), and the way I learned to hunt was that my uncle Bill gave each of us 3 rounds to carry while hunting.  If you missed and used up all 3 rounds, you had to hike back to the truck to pick up only 3 more (usually a long hike, and always known to us as the "walk of shame", because you obviously didn't spend enough time during the month of practice we had the month before hunting season to become accurate).  If you need to shoot 30 rounds at a deer while hunting, you need to either (a) spend more time at the range getting accurate, or (b) you don't need to be hunting at all.  Besides, hitting a deer with more than 2 rounds will mess up a lot of the meat you could use for food later.  And yeah, I've spent most of my life around guns, first while hunting as a kid in Montana, and then while in the military, and now as a retired military person who still likes to hunt.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> If the Dems are able to get away with this, it will open the door to putting a tax on guns that people already own.


We already pay taxes on lots of things we already own. Property taxes and auto registration are taxes on things we already own.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have gun owners stop killing 30,000 people a year


First of all, that's not anywhere close to a true number unless you're a complete moron & include suicides.
Second, take out the gang bangers killing each other in inner city poverty plantations & you'll have nothing to wet the bed over anymore.
I notice you all care very little for the blacks murdering each other though.
No all black lives matter to you, do they?


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I wasn't aware that liability insurance specifically for guns was a thing. Civil and criminal cases do have different rules, but liability insurance is generally civil only.  No insurence protects you from criminal actions.


.

That's true ... But there is Liability Insurance for firearm owners.

It is an option that covers the cost of representation, and liability should a firearms owner be sued in Civil Proceedings.
In fact ... Most companies that offer it, provide their own lawyers that specialize in firearms cases.
It includes a monthly/quarterly premium and is fairly expensive.

The plans vary and have options limited to, or include any combination of ...
Accidental Discharge, Criminal Use of a Firearm Lost or Stolen from Owner, and up to Intentional Discharge.
*It isn't indented to protect the person shot ... It protects the owner of the firearm.*

That's why it is bullshit when suggested as legislation to ensure safety.
Legislating the Mandatory Liability Insurance would *only* be to hinder or prohibit one's ability to exercise their Rights.

.​


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have gun owners stop killing 30,000 people a year


We dont have 30000 murders a year you lying retard. Ad the vast majority of the killers ate criminals prohibited by law from owning firearms already.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We dont have 30000 murders a year you lying retard. Ad the vast majority of the killers ate criminals prohibited by law from owning firearms already.



The shooter at Uvalde waited until his 18th birthday, and bought his guns legally.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 5, 2022)

The Dems aren't really going after the spree shooters.
They are going after the law abiding gun owners.
In reality it is their cultural contempt for gun owners.
This is why the radical left uses the term "gun culture".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> If the Dems are able to get away with this, it will open the door to putting a tax on guns that people already own.


....shall not be infringed


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> The shooter at Uvalde waited until his 18th birthday, and bought his guns legally.


With the money from his birthday presents


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> The shooter at Uvalde waited until his 18th birthday, and bought his guns legally.


where does an 18 year old high school student get 3000 plus dollars?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 5, 2022)

Pot Shops should have to charge Japan circa 1994 prices ( 80.00-100.00. USD per gram)


----------



## Failzero (Jun 5, 2022)

His belated Bar Mitzva 


CrusaderFrank said:


> With the money from his birthday presen


----------



## Failzero (Jun 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have gun owners stop killing 30,000 people a year


When Fentanyl kills 120 k per year 😆


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> First off, your post title is misleading. The bill proposed is not a tax on all rifles, just the AR-15's. Regular hunting rifles and ammo WOULD NOT be taxed.


.

Stop right there.

They tried that argument in _Minneapolis Star Tribune v Commissioner ... _And it failed_._
The tax in question was restricted to an ink and paper used by the Tribune ... To punish, hinder or prohibit the Tribune ...
And intentionally violate their ability to exercise their Protected Right freely.

They don't get to decide what anyone uses a firearm for in order to promote their desire to restrict Constitutionally Protected Rights,
by simply specifying what specific Right they want to violate.

.​


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 5, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> With the money from his birthday presents





RetiredGySgt said:


> where does an 18 year old high school student get 3000 plus dollars?



Nope, he didn't use money from his birthday, and the way he got the 3,000 plus dollars was to buy them on credit via a program offered by the gun store.  People who commit mass shootings don't really expect to come out of it alive, so buying these guns on credit wasn't really an issue, as he didn't expect to live, so didn't expect to have to pay for them.  And, credit companies LOVE to give credit to people who just turned 18, as they look at it as a good source of revenue.  Look at all the credit companies that operate on college campuses, looking to attract as many students as they can.  Hell, I remember back in Norfolk where they had "buy now, pay later" stores employing good looking women to ride around, offer a young sailor they saw walking a ride, but first, took them to a credit store where they gave them a hard sell for items they didn't need, and told them they could take the things now, and pay later via allotment.  I got snookered by one of those stores as a young Sailor who didn't know much about credit or know it was a scam.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's true ... But there is Liability Insurance for firearm owners.
> 
> ...


Ideally, insurance would cover payments to a victim for the unreasonable storage or use by a gun owner. Insurance companies would require training, and safe storage practices before issuing a policy.  Think of it as lability insurance for a car. If the gun owner wanted more coverage for himself, he could pay for a better policy, but the minimum would be reimbursement to the innocent victim.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...


This wont work...

First, SCOTUS has struck down these types of laws as a matter of precedent.

Second,  Pelosi wants to retain the HOR.  Thus she will never let this come to a vote as there a major amount of democrats who are in vulnerable seats.  To vote on this would ensure they lose both the house and the senate just to have it repealed or struck down.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Ideally, insurance would cover payments to a victim for the unreasonable storage or use by a gun owner. Insurance companies would require training, and safe storage practices before issuing a policy.  Think of it as lability insurance for a car. If the gun owner wanted more coverage for himself, he could pay for a better policy, but the minimum would be reimbursement to the innocent victim.


.

It's not really an ideal offer ... And it is sold to and paid for by firearm owners.
Requirements vary with the companies that offer it ... Some only offer it to people with CAC permits, and so on.

I could discuss any relevance it may have with Vehicle Liability Insurance ...
But driving is a Privilege and not a Constitutionally Protected Right, so there is no need to wander down that trail.

Firearms Liability Insurance was never even suggested as a legislative option until private insurers started offering it.
The market, protections, and services associated with it are geared towards the owner and not towards anyone shot or injured.
The people who purchase it are investing in protections against being taken to court or losing a court case.
It doesn't provide the plaintiff with legal representation, or systemic legal experience in the firearms field.

It doesn't have anything to do with the victims and never has since its inception.
It is only suggested as legislation to hinder or financially prohibit the free exercise a of Protected Right.

.​


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2022)

Failzero said:


> When Fentanyl kills 120 k per year 😆


Tax that too


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 5, 2022)

This violates the constitution in exactly the same way as a 1000% tax on abortions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...


This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – one Democrat is not ‘all’ Democrats.

Such a provision has no chance of passing; this is more baseless rightwing fear mongering.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 5, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Second, what good would that do?


Little to nothing.
Imagine, company (x) sells an AR for $1500
After the tax, they stop selling rifles.
Instead, they sell stripped lowers for $20 and then a lower parts kit, + assembled uppers for $1280
The 1000% tax applies to the lower, raising the price to $220.   220+1280 = $1500.
The manufactures makes a little less in this example, but this is mitigated to some degree by not having to pay labor to assemble the entire rifle.

Republicans then place a 1000% tax on abortions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

ABikerSailor said:


> First off, your post title is misleading. The bill proposed is not a tax on all rifles, just the AR-15's.


Correct.

Indeed, the thread premise is a lie – typical of the dishonest right.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> It's not really an ideal offer ... And it is sold to and paid for by firearm owners.
> Requirements vary with the companies that offer it ... Some only offer it to people with CAC permits, and so on.
> ...


There are lots of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution. The right to privacy, the right to a jury of your peers, filabuster, judicial review, the size of the Supreme Court, executive privalege, the right to remain silent, the right to persuit of happiness, freedom of speech, and of the press, freedom of expression, congressional districts,  the Air Force, the right to vote, the right to marriage and procreate, innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, and a host of other things we take for granted as necessary for our country are not mentioned in the constitution. . Only a fool would claim the ability to drive is not a requirement in today's world. Your "driving is a privalege" claim is a common but stupid remark used by right wingers.  Many things were never mentioned untill the need arose. The liability insurance I described will happen. Not now, while the NRA  and gun nuts have as much power as they currently do, but it will happen, and it will be perfectly constitutionally allowed.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2022)

Failzero said:


> When Fentanyl kills 120 k per year 😆


Fentanyl pouring across the southern border as a result of allowances made by the Biden politburo to the Mexican drug and child smuggling Cartels.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – one Democrat is not ‘all’ Democrats.
> 
> Such a provision has no chance of passing; this is more baseless rightwing fear mongering.


This fails as a _make excuses for fascist democrats_ fallacy. 

The 1000% tax on AR-15 rifles was just the latest absurdity proposed by Democrat buffoons as a way to kill the filibuster. 

*''We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to to qualify for reconciliation.”









						Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA08) Drafting Bill That Would “impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons”; Eyes Simple Majority Vote in Senate Using “Reconciliation”
					

Very interesting idea by Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA08):The recent violence is prompting one House Democrat to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapons used by differ




					bluevirginia.us
				



*


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Only a fool would claim the ability to drive is not a requirement in today's world. Your "driving is a privalege" claim is a common but stupid remark used by right wingers.


.

Only a fool would pretend driving is a right instead of a privilege.
In fact ... It is the only question present on all 4 versions of the driver's written exam in this State.

Again ... It doesn't matter what you want or what seems reasonable to you.
You don't have the power or authority necessary to change the facts or meaning.
You could try and argue with it ... But you will still be wrong.

And ... The Gun Control Lobby helps sell more firearms than the NRA does.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Only a fool would pretend driving is a right instead of a privilege.
> In fact ... It is the only question present on all 4 versions of the driver's written exam in this State.
> ...


You're right. My personal wants don't matter much, but when my wants coinside with the vast majority of people, including gun owners, and even NRA  members who want reasonable gun control, and with the present will of virtually all the country who is tired of depending on  thoughts and prayres to prevent the next pile of young school children's bodies from happening,  my wants seem to increase in value.


----------



## jackflash (Jun 5, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...


People in hell want ice water also, but it does not mean they are going to get it! Yes it could easily backfire on the statist left in the mid terms & beyond. The statist left needs to concentrate on getting criminals off the streets but they fear that move would derail their chances to get another Castro, Mao, or Hitler type of g'ment installed in America.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

jackflash said:


> People in hell want ice water also, but it does not mean they are going to get it! Yes it could easily backfire on the statist left in the mid terms & beyond. The statist left needs to concentrate on getting criminals off the streets but they fear that move would derail their chances to get another Castro, Mao, or Hitler type of g'ment installed in America.


Do you actually believe more than half of the country wants government styled after any of those you mentioned? You know that's crazy, right?


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You're right. My personal wants don't matter much, but when my wants coinside with the vast majority of people, including gun owners, and even NRA  members who want reasonable gun control, and with the present will of virtually all the country who is tired of depending on  thoughts and prayres to prevent the next pile of young school children's bodies from happening,  my wants seem to increase in value.


.

Well legal matters are often more defined than the fickle nature of general opinion.
It is also not my desire to deny that reasonable people can make reasonable decisions.

One of the reasons that wants or desires hold little value in the law though is precisely because laws last a great deal longer
and have greater influence than an emotional appeal to immediate circumstances.

Often the law retreats to an enduring principle rather than a desire.
Something Progressives continuously struggle with.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Well legal matters are often more defined than the fickle nature of general opinion.
> It is also not my desire to deny that reasonable people can make reasonable decisions.
> ...


The desire to reduce school shootings has been an emotional appeal to a current situation, but each time it happens it gains in strength and duration.  This is no longer just a current situation. It is ongoing.  Till now it's been rather easy to just wait until publc interest in the latest school shooting fades with nothing being done. I think the growing demand for action with each new event will reach a tipping point where it will no longer fade from attention. At that point changes will be made. This most recent event might have been that tipping point. If not, the next school shooting or the one after that will be.  Without substantial change, there will be future school shootings. It is inevitable. The sooner we do something, the fewer laws  we will have to change to soothe the demand for relief.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> The desire to reduce school shootings has been an emotional appeal to a current situation, but each time it happens it gains in strength and duration.  This is no longer just a current situation. It is ongoing.  Till now it's been rather easy to just wait until publc interest in the latest school shooting fades with nothing being done. I think the growing demand for action with each new event will reach a tipping point where it will no longer fade from attention. At that point changes will be made. This most recent event might have been that tipping point. If not, the next school shooting or the one after that will be.  Without substantial change, there will be future school shootings. It is inevitable. The sooner we do something, the fewer laws  we will have to change to soothe the demand for relief.


.

The law recognizes that the opposition to the measures suggested to satisfy that desire is not based in school shootings  ...
or the continual need to think that suggesting the same thing over and over will ever change the principles involved.

Feel free to struggle with it if you desire to. 

.​


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I would rather have you carry liability insurance


Why? 

 It doesn't cover murder and gun accidents are already covered under most homeowners/renters insurance.  Gun accidents are so rare that insurance is almost useless.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 8, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – one Democrat is not ‘all’ Democrats.
> 
> Such a provision has no chance of passing; this is more baseless rightwing fear mongering.


So this democrat is responsible for explosion in sales this past week?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why?
> 
> It doesn't cover murder and gun accidents are already covered under most homeowners/renters insurance.  Gun accidents are so rare that insurance is almost useless.


Why should society pay if you shoot someone?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why should society pay if you shoot someone?


look I don't have the time to explain to you how insurance works. And no insurer will ever cover murder or other intentional misuse.  That is not how insurance works.

What does that leave you?

Accidental gun incidents? 

Those are so fucking rare it does not justify insurance. But most of that is already covered under homeowners insurance.

So what is it you really want?  

Stop lying. You can admit it. Don't be a fucking pussy. Say what you really want. We already know.  Just admit it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> look I don't have the time to explain to you how insurance works. And no insurer will ever cover murder or other intentional misuse.  That is not how insurance works.
> 
> What does that leave you?
> 
> ...


Insurance will cover murder if you pay enough

Let gun owners pay for the carnage they cause


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Insurance will cover murder if you pay enough


Show me the policy. Show me an insurance policy ever issued the covers murder.

You know that makes an insurance company an accessory to murder don't you?

You are a dumb fuck.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Show me the policy. Show me an insurance policy ever issued the covers murder.
> 
> You know that makes an insurance company an accessory to murder don't you?
> 
> You are a dumb fuck.


Spread out over a hundred million gun owners, insurance companies will find a way to make a profit

Should only cost you $1000 a year to insure your guns


----------



## ozro (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Spread out over a hundred million gun owners, insurance companies will find a way to make a profit
> 
> Should only cost you $1000 a year to insure your guns


You are truly misguided. How about "parental insurance". When the thing you raised as a child kills people, the policy pays the victims. Make more sense. Oh, and without it, you can't have kids


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2022)

ozro said:


> You are truly misguided. How about "parental insurance". When the thing you raised as a child kills people, the policy pays the victims. Make more sense. Oh, and without it, you can't have kids


That child buys a gun gun or uses guns you bought him

You have insurance


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 8, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...




Then 1000% tax on internet access.....on books, especially conservative books, on permits for political rallies.......I can see the benefit for the democrats here.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 8, 2022)

pknopp said:


> I see this as no different than requiring people to go and get another voter ID even though they have had one for years and I support neither.
> 
> Seems someone is always wanting to put restrictions on someone else.




Voter ID prevents cheating, this tax infringes on a Right....big difference you doofus.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 8, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...



And your side spends 1000% of it's time making McCauley Caulkin faces and crying in each others coffee instead of doing anything about it.
NO PLANS.  NOTHING.   Just crying.

They are doing exactly what you have encouraged and allowed them to do and nothing less.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Then 1000% tax on internet access.....on books, especially conservative books, on permits for political rallies.......I can see the benefit for the democrats here.....


Internet doesn’t kill people
Guns kill people


----------



## ozro (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> That child buys a gun gun or uses guns you bought him
> 
> You have insurance


Nope, the policy needs to cover more than guns. Murder or assault by cars, knives clubs and anything else. It needs to pay for the cost when your animal od's. It needs to cover any cost incurred by society that the prodengy incurs onto society


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Internet doesn’t kill people
> Guns kill people



Right.....all by themselves....it's what you fools really believe.
But then, you are a certified troll.  Nothing more.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Voter ID prevents cheating, this tax infringes on a Right....big difference you doofus.



Question - Tell me one thing that you have achieved through ALL your posts that actually changed gun policy?

Just one.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 8, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Question - Tell me one thing that you have achieved through ALL your posts that actually changed gun policy?
> 
> Just one.




Me.......I have put forth the truth, facts and reality.......I am a resource for people who are in the fight.....

Why does what I post bother you so much.....

You know why?

Because when you see the truth, when you see the facts, when you see reality.....it makes you realize, in your lizard brain, that the anti-gun bullshit you believe is wrong...and stupid, and gets real people killed...

That little itch in the back of your brain is called guilt........listen to it....


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 8, 2022)

ozro said:


> You are truly misguided. How about "parental insurance". When the thing you raised as a child kills people, the policy pays the victims. Make more sense. Oh, and without it, you can't have kids


.

I am pretty sure he wouldn't support something as simple as ... 
_"Just take this test, pay $1000 a year, and we'll let you vote"_ ...  

.​


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 8, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> I am pretty sure he wouldn't support something as simple as ...
> _"Just take this test, pay $1000 a year, and we'll let you vote"_ ...
> ...




1000 dollars a year?  How about 1000 dollars to vote, in each election, for each candidate....


----------



## Failzero (Jun 8, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Spread out over a hundred million gun owners, insurance companies will find a way to make a profit
> 
> Should only cost you $1000 a year to insure your guns


Should cost no more than Insuring a Small Runabout Pleasure Boat


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 8, 2022)

A Republican lawmaker has suggested that gun stores start selling Snickers candy bars to bypass the gun tax on AR15's.









						Republican Tells Gun Stores to Use Snickers to Bypass Massive AR-15 Tax
					

Errol Webber's suggestion comes after Representative Donald Beyer proposed a 1,000 percent tax on assault weapons.




					www.newsweek.com
				




*Webber, one of several Republicans running against Democratic Representative Katie Porter, suggested that if the tax were to be enacted, stores could sell a Snickers bar for the price of the gun while selling the firearm for only $1 to get around the tax. This means that the high tax would only amount to $10.

"Simple solution: Say a particular AR-15 costs $950. Then gun store owners simply need to sell a 'fun-sized' Snickers bar for $950. Then have the customer eat the candy at the store so they can't request a refund. And then sell the AR-15 for $1. Then charge the $10 excise tax," he tweeted on Monday.*

What if the gun buyer is allergic to nuts?  This proposal is almost as nutty as a Snickers bar itself.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 8, 2022)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> House Democrats want to draft a measure aimed at severely restricting access to the AR-15-style weapon used by different gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means panel, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on assault weapons.
> "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation."
> 
> 
> ...



Another left-wing effort to make civil rights accessible only to the wealthy.


----------



## pknopp (Jun 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Voter ID prevents cheating, this tax infringes on a Right....big difference you doofus.



 I already have an ID.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Me.......I have put forth the truth, facts and reality.......I am a resource for people who are in the fight.....
> 
> Why does what I post bother you so much.....
> 
> ...



So,
You just proved beyond a doubt that you're not as intelligent as you would like to think.
I am as big a 2A advocate as you...maybe more so.

You "put forth" the truth?
You have never make a single post other than the damn obvious.  And in all your posts, NOT ONE gun grabbers mind has been changed.
Your own ego gives you WAY too much credit son.
Like every other conservatives, whining is your pacifier.  Your only means of handling your woes.
The weakness you "put forth" has and never will save the 2A or stop the Left nor ever convince a single Leftist gun grabber.

Find just ONE post where I post against the 2nd Amendment.  (and wasn't being sarcastic).   Just ONE.
I admit, I do get tired as hell of all you whiny bitches crying endlessly and doing absolutely nothing but crying.
That is a losing strategy I guarantee you that.
You probably visit Guns and Gadgets often.  TONS of the whiny do nuffin conservatives BrokeLoser spoke of there.



BrokeLoser said:


> Easy now...I side with Conservatives, I vote with Conservatives BUT they are the most nutless, spinless, big mouth pieces of shit that ever were. Come on man...they didn’t have the balls to keep heterosexual white Christians cool in a nation founded, built, run and funded by heterosexual white Christians. The Left has owned their sackless asses for decades....Sad but true.



The actual reason I have disdain for you and most conservatives is that ALL YOU EVER WILL DO IS CRY LIKE LITTLE BITCHES right up to the point they arrive and your door and take them all from you.  You never thought about plans to actually save the 2A....oh no.
Apparently, the reason you post here so often is because truth evades you.
The truth is that you, nor anyone on the conservative right is doing a damn thing but bloviating and whining on forums.
You have no plans to stop them from taking your guns other than endless whining and "maybe" an occasional small donation to Gun Policy Coalition or the NRA.

They have walked all over the Constitution and you will never do more than whine and cry 24/7.
Every talk radio show, every conservative talk show, every forum with conservatives ALL THE SAME.
Crying over what the gun grabbers are doing...but again, never and absolutely ZERO talk of plans to actually do anything.
You and every other weak conservative that visits guns and cowards and Colon Noirs YouTube channel..  Sorry but that's the truth.

The Founding Fathers didn't create the 2nd Amendment so that you could sit on forums, endlessly crying over what the tyrants are doing to you while you do nothing.  Hell, you don't even need the 2nd to do what you're doing so why bother crying over losing it?

And in case you mis-read my post.
NO..I do not advocate any actions against the government or violence.
I advocate getting together and making plans on what to do in case of tyranny...just like the FF's wanted you to do until the time comes to executel  those plans when tyrants go too far.

So far, every person on the Right feels that all they need to do (or can do) is bitch cry on forums 24/7.
Not sufficient.
Not what the FF's had in mind.
You and all conservatives now FEAR your government.  That means you've already pissed away your opportunities and continue to do so ad nausea.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jun 8, 2022)

And at this moment, I'm wasting my time as well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 8, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> So,
> You just proved beyond a doubt that you're not as intelligent as you would like to think.
> I am as big a 2A advocate as you...maybe more so.
> 
> ...


PLANNING an insurrection is illegal as committing one. Or havent you paid attention to the Government selling the idea that  any group training is a threat to the Country?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 8, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> So,
> You just proved beyond a doubt that you're not as intelligent as you would like to think.
> I am as big a 2A advocate as you...maybe more so.
> 
> ...




My posts are not meant to change the minds of anti-gun fanatics....dipshit....they won't be changed.....they need to be prevented from enacting their fascist gun grabbing agendas...

Dipshit.....I donate, vote and spread the word....you dumb ass......it is useful idiots like you that have allowed the democrats to gain so much ground ....


----------

