Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The legitimacy of a tax is not based on an items popularity. That would be a form of price gouging, good grief.OK, someone explain it to me.
It appears to be a tax on guns at 25 dollars/gun. And a few cents per round. While I don't like taxes it is what government does to raise revenue. Since guns sales are sky rocketing it seems like the natural target for a tax increase. So the judge, in my opinion, ruled properly, although I don't like putting anymore taxes on the people.
The hell it ain't. What world do you live in? They tax the crap out of cigarettes on the premise of health concerns then make MJ legal so they can tax that also. Wouldn't make much sense to tax something unpopular.
You're wrong about the marijuana.
No politician has the guts to write a law that legalizes marijuana for all adults. Then get it passed in a state congress and had it signed into law.
It's been done by the petition and ballot initiative process.
It's the PEOPLE of a handful of states that have legalized marijuana and taxed it. Not politicians.
So it's the PEOPLE who want it and have absolutely no problem with paying the tax.
If you don't want to pay the tax it's easy not to. Don't buy any.
They will give the money back at the same time a private health insurance company gives money back to someone who never gets sick.The gun tax is a Pigovian tax, just like the cigarette tax.
The odds of a smoker getting cancer and becoming a huge burden to the taxpayer is much greater than the odds of a non-smoker. So all smokers have to pay an extra tax as their share of their increased risk to society.
Just so with gun buyers now in Seattle. Every gun owner is a greater risk than a non gun owner and so they must pay their share of their increased risk.
So when is government going to give cigarette smokers some money back since many of them die before or during their early use of Social Security and Medicare?
That's the nature of insurance.
Next!
Ya, what about any place that serves/sells alcohol??Shouldn't car dealerships be responsible for DUI's and hit and runs committed with the cars they sold?
The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.
So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?
Oh?That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.
Most manufacture don't sell Autos, knives and baseballs as deadly weapons. However, I see the action of city council as just a political statement. The law also requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police. I think this will help law enforcement and is much more important than the gun fee.It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Unlike the people who buy sneakers or automobiles, 80% of the people who buy gun do so for protection; that is shooting people if they see fit. Since you usually can't defray the cost of medical care for victims of gunshots to the shooters, we are defraying those costs to those that made the shooting possible, the gun industry. It's a similar situation with the tax on cigarettes. We tax cigarettes to pay for research, educate people on dangers of smoking and to help victims of cigarette smoke. Unfortunately for the cigarette manufactures they didn't have the NRA on their side so their industry got stuck with the tax.
Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
So, you'd be ok with a similar fee on automakers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, etc.?
You enjoy being a control freak??Most manufacture don't sell Autos, knives and baseballs as deadly weapons. However, I see the action of city council as just a political statement. The law also requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police. I think this will help law enforcement and is much more important than the gun fee.It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
So, you'd be ok with a similar fee on automakers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, etc.?
Most manufacture don't sell Autos, knives and baseballs as deadly weapons. However, I see the action of city council as just a political statement. The law also requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police. I think this will help law enforcement and is much more important than the gun fee.It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.Bull. They tax cigarettes to control people, that's all. Remember who really runs this country: Insurance companies.
Speaking of which, a shooter is liable for damages or deaths he or she may have caused. A victim can sue you for compensation via payroll garnishments, property such as an automobiles or house, and if the shooting took place on your property, even the insurance company.
Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
So, you'd be ok with a similar fee on automakers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, etc.?
According to police quite oftenMost manufacture don't sell Autos, knives and baseballs as deadly weapons. However, I see the action of city council as just a political statement. The law also requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police. I think this will help law enforcement and is much more important than the gun fee.It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.You're not likely to collect anything from most shooters. After paying legal fees most of them would have little or nothing left. Those that get convicted will be earning less than a buck a day in prison. Most of those that get released won't have jobs to pay their legal bills much less jury award.
Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
So, you'd be ok with a similar fee on automakers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, etc.?
When have gun owners lost or had their firearm stolen and didn't report it to police?
And this will help lower crime, silly naïve little progressives.According to police quite oftenMost manufacture don't sell Autos, knives and baseballs as deadly weapons. However, I see the action of city council as just a political statement. The law also requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police. I think this will help law enforcement and is much more important than the gun fee.It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
So, you'd be ok with a similar fee on automakers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, etc.?
When have gun owners lost or had their firearm stolen and didn't report it to police?
According to police quite oftenMost manufacture don't sell Autos, knives and baseballs as deadly weapons. However, I see the action of city council as just a political statement. The law also requires gun owners to report cases of lost and stolen firearms to police. I think this will help law enforcement and is much more important than the gun fee.It would seem to me that putting a fee on the gun industry to help pay medical expenses would help defray law suits because the victims would not be able to collect damages for those medical costs. In Washington state their is no fees charged for purchasing guns other than carry and conceal permits. I doubt these fees will have any real impact on the sale of guns or taxes I pay.Gun owners come from all classes of life from the rich to the poor. Even Donald Trump carries his gun (so he says) from time to time.
So who would pay for me if I'm attacked and I can no longer defend myself because they stripped my right of firearm ownership? I could lose weeks or months from work or even permanent disability.
A criminal likely has no assets. A criminals likely doesn't legally own a firearm. A criminal likely doesn't have any cash. A criminal sure as hell wouldn't have insurance even if it was the law.
So we go back to the gun manufacturers. Do you suppose they can afford these lawsuits or the massive costs it would take for them to defend the company from lawsuits? Of course not, they would go out of business, and the liberals would have found a way around the Constitution and our rights. After all, there are thousands of people that get shot every single year. And you can't remove suicide victims from the batch because their family would be able to sue the gun manufacturers and sellers.
It's a backdoor liberal concept to try and disarm the American public. But let a Republican try something like that saying it will be legal to sue abortion clinics if the patient realizes she made a mistake by having an abortion, and then wants compensation. Or that we need to have a federal tax on abortions of $400.00. Then the liberals would be up in arms (no pun intended).
So, you'd be ok with a similar fee on automakers, knife manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers, etc.?
When have gun owners lost or had their firearm stolen and didn't report it to police?
Ray, you really think felons and drug dealers call the cops when their guns get stolen?
You idiot.
Oh?That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.
