Taxes on guns

[tjvh]

In that regard, the price of a gun would be considered an infringement on the ownership of a gun.

No one has complained about the fact that you need to pay money to own a gun. And not only do you pay money to own a gun, that money goes into the hands of private enterprise.

If people are too poor to be able to afford a gun, shouldn't the government subsidize guns and be given away for free? If poor people can't afford a gun, their 2nd amendment rights are being infringed. Should gun manufacturing be taken over by the government entirely and handed out for free?

Only if you bastardize the meaning of right.

A right is a personal thing; it covers what YOU can do, not what is required of others. IOW, you have a right to own a firearm, not a right to make others provide you with one. The government charging for the exercise of your right (or requiring something like insurance) is not connected with the need to pay another for the work to create a firearm. That is an expression of the government infringing on your right as the ‘charge’ is not inherently required for exercising your right. Purchasing on the other hand is. Of course, you could always make your own if you were that hard up

My right to drink is taxed heavily.

Why shouldn't guns be taxed too?

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to read what you said sfcalifornia... The very first thing that popped into my head is that you just authored one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB in quite some time. TM would be proud of you.

 

[Oldguy]

In that regard, the price of a gun would be considered an infringement on the ownership of a gun.

No one has complained about the fact that you need to pay money to own a gun. And not only do you pay money to own a gun, that money goes into the hands of private enterprise.

If people are too poor to be able to afford a gun, shouldn't the government subsidize guns and be given away for free? If poor people can't afford a gun, their 2nd amendment rights are being infringed. Should gun manufacturing be taken over by the government entirely and handed out for free?

Only if you bastardize the meaning of right.

A right is a personal thing; it covers what YOU can do, not what is required of others. IOW, you have a right to own a firearm, not a right to make others provide you with one. The government charging for the exercise of your right (or requiring something like insurance) is not connected with the need to pay another for the work to create a firearm. That is an expression of the government infringing on your right as the ‘charge’ is not inherently required for exercising your right. Purchasing on the other hand is. Of course, you could always make your own if you were that hard up

My right to drink is taxed heavily.

Why shouldn't guns be taxed too?

How would you feel about raising the federal tax on a bottle of beer by $3 to encourage you to drink less?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Only if you bastardize the meaning of right.

A right is a personal thing; it covers what YOU can do, not what is required of others. IOW, you have a right to own a firearm, not a right to make others provide you with one. The government charging for the exercise of your right (or requiring something like insurance) is not connected with the need to pay another for the work to create a firearm. That is an expression of the government infringing on your right as the ‘charge’ is not inherently required for exercising your right. Purchasing on the other hand is. Of course, you could always make your own if you were that hard up

My right to drink is taxed heavily.

Why shouldn't guns be taxed too?

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to read what you said sfcalifornia... The very first thing that popped into my head is that you just authored one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB in quite some time. TM would be proud of you.

And thank YOU for proving what a horse's ass you are although I thought the topics was guns. Run along now little boy, the adults are having a discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In that regard, the price of a gun would be considered an infringement on the ownership of a gun.

You cannot be more wrong; nothing about the constitutional protection for right to arms invalidates the need to -buy- the weapon from someone before you can exercise your right to arms.

Taxing the exercise of ANY right as a means to restrict the exercise of that right violates the constitution.

Selective interpretation works both ways.

The 2nd specifically says: .......shall not be infringed.

If poor people want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights but cannot afford to do so, then their rights are being infringed.

Clearly you fail to understand that the 2nd prohibits actions against your rights by the government. The gun shop owner requiring you to pay for your gun doesn't qualify.

 

[tjvh]

My right to drink is taxed heavily.

Why shouldn't guns be taxed too?

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to read what you said sfcalifornia... The very first thing that popped into my head is that you just authored one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB in quite some time. TM would be proud of you.

And thank YOU for proving what a horse's ass you are although I thought the topics was guns. Run along now little boy, the adults are having a discussion.

The adults are laughing at you.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to read what you said sfcalifornia... The very first thing that popped into my head is that you just authored one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB in quite some time. TM would be proud of you.

And thank YOU for proving what a horse's ass you are although I thought the topics was guns. Run along now little boy, the adults are having a discussion.

The adults are laughing at you.

Has anyone ever heard a horse's ass laugh? It's not pretty.

 

[Spoonman]

And thank YOU for proving what a horse's ass you are although I thought the topics was guns. Run along now little boy, the adults are having a discussion.

The adults are laughing at you.

Has anyone ever heard a horse's ass laugh? It's not pretty.

no really, it's you we're laughing at

 

[hortysir]

Is there anything that's considered "infringement"??

 

[Mad Scientist]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

"The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out."

You should have been a Lawyer OldMan, you're Bullshit Technique is without peer.

Well then...show me how the Second Amendment prohibits taxes on guns...especially since we already have them. Since there isn't a Constitutional prohibition on applying taxes to guns, isn't the only question left to answer is how much?

Show me how the the First Amendment prohibits taxes on speech and we'll Tax THAT right out of existence as well! How ya' like THAT sh*t?

The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. That's why the Banksters went after the Central Bank (Federal Reserve) FIRST!

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out."

You should have been a Lawyer OldMan, you're Bullshit Technique is without peer.

Well then...show me how the Second Amendment prohibits taxes on guns...especially since we already have them. Since there isn't a Constitutional prohibition on applying taxes to guns, isn't the only question left to answer is how much?

Show me how the the First Amendment prohibits taxes on speech and we'll Tax THAT right out of existence as well! How ya' like THAT sh*t?

Or abortion. No reason we cannot tax abortion out of existence.
Or the free press. Or churches.

 

[sfcalifornia]

The adults are laughing at you.

Has anyone ever heard a horse's ass laugh? It's not pretty.

no really, it's you we're laughing at

Uh-uh, it's YOU we're laughing at:

The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to begin. Sixty votes were required for approval.


Read more: Senate moves forward on gun control - The Hill's Floor Action

 

[Spoonman]

Has anyone ever heard a horse's ass laugh? It's not pretty.

no really, it's you we're laughing at

Uh-uh, it's YOU we're laughing at:

The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to begin. Sixty votes were required for approval.


Read more: Senate moves forward on gun control - The Hill's Floor Action

yea and the house will crush it. game over - done

 

[sfcalifornia]

no really, it's you we're laughing at

Uh-uh, it's YOU we're laughing at:

The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to begin. Sixty votes were required for approval.


Read more: Senate moves forward on gun control - The Hill's Floor Action

yea and the house will crush it. game over - done

16 Republican senators voted for it. You sure about that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If tobacco products can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to quit smoking for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to firearms?

Would punitive taxes on guns, making them less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the damage guns can do to others? The Second Amendment does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Not constitutional. Not legal. The Amendment specifically says shall not be infringed. A punitive tax would in fact infringe on ones right to own firearms. As for tobacco care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution that gives you the right to smoke?

 

[Oldguy]

. As for tobacco care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution that gives you the right to smoke?

Care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution which gives you the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke? Or, anything else you find offensive?

While there is no enumerated right to smoke in the Constitution, the whole of the rights protected by it rests upon the principle of free choice. Without free choice, you are not free, with or without a Constitution.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Uh-uh, it's YOU we're laughing at:

The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to begin. Sixty votes were required for approval.


Read more: Senate moves forward on gun control - The Hill's Floor Action

yea and the house will crush it. game over - done

16 Republican senators voted for it. You sure about that?

yup

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.); Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.); Richard Burr (R-N.C.); Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.); Tom Coburn (R-Okla.); Susan Collins (R-Maine); Bob Corker (R-Tenn.); Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.); Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); Dean Heller (R-Nev.); John Hoeven (R-N.D.); Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.); Mark Kirk (R-Ill.); John McCain (R-Ariz.); Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.); Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

 

[martybegan]

. As for tobacco care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution that gives you the right to smoke?

Care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution which gives you the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke? Or, anything else you find offensive?

While there is no enumerated right to smoke in the Constitution, the whole of the rights protected by it rests upon the principle of free choice. Without free choice, you are not free, with or without a Constitution.

If something is not prohibited to the government by the constitution, it is then up to the people working through the legislatures to determine how or if they want to regulate, ban, encourage or even tax a given activity.

In my opinion, the closer said legislative body is to the people voting for it the better, i.e. local is better, but the constituion (and the state constituions) deal with this as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

. As for tobacco care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution that gives you the right to smoke?

Care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution which gives you the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke? Or, anything else you find offensive?

While there is no enumerated right to smoke in the Constitution, the whole of the rights protected by it rests upon the principle of free choice. Without free choice, you are not free, with or without a Constitution.

more precisely what in the Constitution gives you the right not to be exposed

to second hand smoke that occurs in a privately owned business that

you have the freedom to walk into or not

 

[Oldguy]

If something is not prohibited to the government by the constitution, it is then up to the people working through the legislatures to determine how or if they want to regulate, ban, encourage or even tax a given activity.

In my opinion, the closer said legislative body is to the people voting for it the better, i.e. local is better, but the constituion (and the state constituions) deal with this as well.

I agree. The closer to The People the better. (I wonder if that's because we know where they live... and they know it? LOL)

So, can we assume you would have no problem with heavily increased taxes on guns if they are imposed by a state, county or local government instead of the federal government? Granted, we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, but the Courts have decided that right is not absolute and that gun control measures are Constitutional (See: the Heller and McDonald decisions).

 

[Oldguy]

. As for tobacco care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution that gives you the right to smoke?

Care to cite the amendment or clause in the Constitution which gives you the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke? Or, anything else you find offensive?

While there is no enumerated right to smoke in the Constitution, the whole of the rights protected by it rests upon the principle of free choice. Without free choice, you are not free, with or without a Constitution.

more precisely what in the Constitution gives you the right not to be exposed

to second hand smoke that occurs in a privately owned business that

you have the freedom to walk into or not

I won't argue that point. However, I would argue that the decision should be left up to the business owner and not forced on him by blanket laws.