Dems want a 1000% tax on rifles

[ABikerSailor]

With the money from his birthday presents

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]

.

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.

.​

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]

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."

MSN

www.msn.com

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.

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]

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]

When Fentanyl kills 120 k per year

Tax that too

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

MSN

www.msn.com

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.

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]

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]

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]

.

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.

.​

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

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.
​

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]

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."

MSN

www.msn.com

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.

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]

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]

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]

.

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.

.​

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]

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]

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.