We tax a gallon of gasoline to build and maintain roads and bridges

[nonoyes]

How about we tax each and every bullet, maybe $1 to $10... to build and maintain a more peaceful, less deadly nation?

Just a thought.

Or is taxation going away with Republicans in charge of the House? Do we need to simply get rid of Republicans in Congress as a better solution? Republicans seem to love the gun freedom, even more than a few dozen Dems on this DU place do. Opposition to gun control? Republican answer: let someone shoot them, Democratic answer: I'm not sure we have one.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Solve poverty, inequity, hopelessness, and the violence will go away.

I don't know why everyone is looking for a new law to solve this when the truth is that our society is ill due to theft of our future, our hope, our jobs, our health care.

Those in power are taking more and more away from most of us to enrich the very few at the top.

Reverse this trend, improve schools and healthcare and the economy and provide treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and the violence will ebb.

JMHO.

[freshwest]

23. +1

[CreekDog]

24. not sure it will go away, and in the meantime, guns are a very big part of violence and pollution

in this country.

we should use resources from the things that directly or indirectly cause problems to solve those problems --short of that, if you don't want to charge for something used to cause problems in the country, you have to ban it.

so take your pick, ban the things, or charge a modest fee or tax and direct resources towards preventing the bad things while keeping the guns and ammo mostly legal.

[Hoyt]

30. Agree. But most who covet guns would still covet them, carry them, buy the latest lethal technology

The odds of anyone needing a gun in our society are ridiculously small, yet look at gun sales, gun promotion, etc.

[geckosfeet]

2. Just a thought. How about we fund national health care and medical research?

What is this obsession people have with other peoples firearms and ammunition? Why is it ok to reach into the pockets of gun owners?

[PDJane]

3. Because it partly works, and the US is going to need all kinds of solutions to fix the problem.

Mind you, I'd be happier if you got to a point where taxing the very, very rich at an effective tax rate of about 60%...and making sure that the rest of the country had a minimum wage you could live on would assist.

[geckosfeet]

12. How about we tax food at 10%. That way everyone pays more. Granted the poor will feel the pinch

more, but it is a fairer approach than singling out one group of people based on some arbitrary criteria.

But I do agree with increasing taxes on accumulated and amassed wealth. Reduced taxes on investment dividends is an absurd example of providing tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

[PDJane]

18. The plan is to make those who can afford it pay, not to tax the essentials of life.

If you can afford to amass wealth, then you need to be taxed on that wealth. The American dream cannot come true if all the wealth is clustered at the top.

[geckosfeet]

20. Whose plan? I am not aware of any legislation moving in that direction.

Of course, I would be the last person to know if there was....

[bossy22]

4. there is already a tax on bullets

I believe it is a 6% tax and it goes to wildlife conservation

[nonoyes]

6. SO let's ad 600% to that tax

to PRESERVE people?

[bossy22]

9. Why don't we seize the assets of all family members of gun offenders?

[ellisonz]

37. ^^^^

Blocked

[slackmaster]

45. It's 10% on firearms and 11% on ammunition, charged at the wholesale level

HTH

[nonoyes]

7. I'm sure your ducks love that tax!

No comment.

[BainsBane]

8. Chris Rock has a solution

Forgive the injection of humor. He's brilliant, and does have a point here.

[nonoyes]

17. LOVE this clip, probably should have been part of my OP.

If one cannot afford to fire a bullet, a gun still looks like fun to won.

[apocalypsehow]

10. I have long proposed a $5 per round tax on handgun calibers .25 & up, and on the military-style

rounds for assault rifles, .223, 7.62 x 19, etc. No civilian needs such an assault rifle in the first place, but if they're going to own them, let them pay an appropriate tax to help pay for their carnage their deadly little hobby wreaks on the rest of us.

[bossy22]

11. unintended consequence?

more powerful non-military calibres end up being used and the situation becomes more deadly. .223 is a relatively weak calibre when compared to many other hunting rounds

also all they would do is start manufacturing "military style" firearms in non-military calibres- which they already do.

You assume there the correlation equals a causation.

[Niceguy1]

13. It would be thrown out

as unconstitutional as the the intention (and effect) of the tax would be to limit the exercise of a constitutional right by making it cost prohibitive.

[Progressive dog]

14. Are you a Constitutional scholar or just a gun nut? nt

[bossy22]

15. you don't have to be a constitutional scholar

to see the very real possibility that a 600% tax would be seen as an infringement by the courts

and why does it have to be only the two types you mention? Why can't it the poster be someone who supports some gun control but feels this goes too far?

[Progressive dog]

32. Because the poster stated an opinion on Constitutional law

as fact. So what the poster did was claim as fact the NRA absolutist opinion as to what the 2nd Amendment means. There is no wiggle room in the post.

.

[Niceguy1]

16. Neither

I have read it from the courts. Just because I am not a abolitionist doesn't make me a gun nut.

Life isn't black and white... it is full of nuances.

You must be part of the 1% as the policy you advocate for would mean that they would be the only ones who could afford to use firearms....

[BainsBane]

19. That's absurd

There is a tax on newspapers, magazines, and cable TV. Does that limit your right to free speech? What an ridiculously uninformed comment.

[wyldwolf]

22. Yes, true

Provided we have a constitutional right to firearms (and, quite honestly, that 'right' hinges on which ever direction the Supreme Court leans), there is no such provision for ammunition. And for the strict constructionists among us, I'm quite comfortable with everyone having the right to own a single shot musket.

[Straw Man]

27. Rights.

Provided we have a constitutional right to firearms (and, quite honestly, that 'right' hinges on which ever direction the Supreme Court leans), there is no such provision for ammunition.

Well, that would have been a pretty sorry-ass militia, then, with their ammunition-less arms. No, I think you'd have a hard sell to the Supreme Court with that one.

And for the strict constructionists among us, I'm quite comfortable with everyone having the right to own a single shot musket.

If you would like a response to that statement, I must insist that you write it on parchment with a quill pen and have it delivered to my home by a horseback messenger. I can PM you the address. If you would like to include the entire forum in the conversation, please hand-set it using lead type and print up as many copies as are necessary using a manual press. And hire a lot more horses.

[wyldwolf]

28. That, in itself, opens up another set of questions and, quite honestly...

... ground that has been covered here continuously.

We were speaking strictly in reference to NiceGuy1's obvious vast and unequaled constitutional knowledge from post 13. If HE can play the "I'm a scholar" game, anyone can. But in reference to my post, when ammo was rationed during the Revolutionary war, was George Washington in violation of the future 2nd Amendment?

And being that writing utensils and paper have never been questioned as to their constitutionality, your point is moot.

[Straw Man]

34. Yes.

That, in itself, opens up another set of questions and, quite honestly...

... ground that has been covered here continuously.

Which is why I was surprised to see it again.

But in reference to my post, when ammo was rationed during the Revolutionary war, was George Washington in violation of the future 2nd Amendment?

No -- he was trying to win a war. I'm sure he fervently wished for more ammunition and would have dispensed it freely if he had it.

And being that writing utensils and paper have never been questioned as to their constitutionality, your point is moot.

I'm questioning them now. Electronic media have a tremendous potential to create social harm, one that they fulfill each and every day.

[wyldwolf]

36. circular arguments from you

because Washington was trying to win a war, rationing ammo - a direct (according to you) violation of the spirit of the 2nd amendment, was ok. But trying to save thousands of innocent lives of year ISN'T an good reason to ration ammo ('rationing' having the same affect as taxing.)

Regarding writing utensils and paper, we were comparing items and their constitutional (or lack of protection.)

[BainsBane]

40. the notion that constitutionality

requires having mass stockpiles of ammo is absurd. The gun activists exaltation of the Second Amendment to biblical proportions is strange. Rights must be balanced against one another. They see the Second Amendment as absolute, trumping the right to life, free speech, and everything else. Their supposed devotion to the constitution is no where to be found when the gun lobby restricts First Amendment rights of doctors and legislators to talk about guns.

[Straw Man]

26. Absurdity.

There is a tax on newspapers, magazines, and cable TV. Does that limit your right to free speech?

If it were 600%, you would certainly have a strong case that yes, it does.

[Niceguy1]

29. the taxes on those are small

and not intended to limit a right. The taxes proposed here are far greater than the cost of the item and the intention of this tax is to make it it unaffordable for the average person to exercise their rights.

[guardian]

39. It would limit your right to free speech

if the tax were so high as make it prohibitive for the average person to buy a newspaper or have access to TV, etc.

[apocalypsehow]

41. No, it wouldn't. Congress could raise it to a MILLION dollars a round, and the courts

would sign off on it - the right of Congress's power to tax is virtually unlimited.

You have a "right" to own a firearm, per the 5-4 right-wing Scalia court, but that right comes with any number of acceptable and allowable regulations. Ammunition, on the other hand, you have no "right" to own, per any clause of the Constitution or any court at any time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Not so-the Supremes have already held that such a tax is unconstitutional

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/

U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

No. 81-1839

Argued January 12, 1983

Decided March 29, 1983

460 U.S. 575

Syllabus

While exempting periodic publications from its general sales and use tax, Minnesota imposes a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of such a publication, but exempts the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year. Appellant newspaper publisher brought an action seeking a refund of the ink and paper use taxes it had paid during certain years, contending that the tax violates, inter alia, the guarantee of the freedom of the press in the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax.

Held: The tax in question violates the First Amendment. Pp. 460 U. S. 579-593.

(a) There is no legislative history, and no indication, apart from the structure of the tax itself, of any impermissible or censorial motive on the part of the Minnesota Legislature in enacting the tax. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, distinguished. Pp. 579-580.

(b) But by creating the special use tax, which is without parallel in the State's tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. When a State so singles out the press, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from imposing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, thus undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. Moreover, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional. Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation. Pp. 460 U. S. 581-585.

[NYC_SKP]

21. Never gonna happen, and never should.

$5 for every single shot is ridiculous.

Put a crazy tax on every thing that might be dangerous, yeah, that's a happy world.

[PDJane]

25. it's a partial and temporary solution. The permanent solution is going to be a long slog.

The permanent solution is social justice, a dismantling of the barriers between black and white and asian and mexican. The permanent solution is a world where we are in it together, a world without the worst of religious attitudes, and a world that understands there is only room for so many of us.

[oneshooter]

31. Have you ever heard of a"temporary tax" that truly was.

[PDJane]

38. one or two. Mostly around one thing that had to be built, like water purification.

Usually, though, they get added to something else.

[CokeMachine]

33. What's a 7.62X19?

Introducing the 7.62x19, an all new pistol round designed to be silent but not deadly! Its capable of pushing a 125gr .308 caliber bullet at 100fps matching the ballistics of the original Daisy Red Ryder. Due to the small case and extremely HUGE projectile there is no room for powder so magnum primers are recommended for best results!

Did a search on 7.62X19 the above is what I lifted from a gun board. I didn't want to pollute the place with a link.

Did you mean 7.62X39 (SKS stuff)??

[ellisonz]

35. "I didn't want to pollute the place with a link."

[apocalypsehow]

42. Yep, I meant 7.62 X 39, the so-called "Soviet round." Thanks for the correction. n/t.

[CokeMachine]

43. I knew what you meant.

Just wanted to give you a bad time.

[GoldenEagle16]

44. What about all the ARs chambered for non-military rounds?

you are basically putting a tax on every rifle cartridge ever made.

[freshwest]

46. Would need a direct connection. Tax going to pay hospitals for handling gunshot wounds, or form an

insurance company to handle all the damage from all of these - accidental shootings. We all end paying for dead breadwinners, emergency room visits, disability and other things that happen from guns. Responsible gun owners should have no more problem paying for insurance for gun accidents than for trees falling down or car wrecks. And those who don't have coverage can be sued. People need to think about these things - they are not toys. Why not insure the owners like the owners of cars?

[oneshooter]

47. Would you insure the owner, or the gun?

[freshwest]

48. The owner of the gun, just like the owner of a car. Inanimate objects can't sign contracts. Not yet.

A person possesses something, they are responsible for it. Your car is insured for theft - likewise, if a person's gun is insured for theft and it's stolen to commit a crime, the owner's insurance takes care of that.

An owner can miminize their premium by documenting the status and safety of their storage, proving that their operation of the gun will be done legally, etc.

The same applies to a car which I'm using as an example, since if a car is improperly maintained, recklessly handled, or used in a malicious manner in order to hurt someone, that's a crime. It's called in some places vehicular homocide and a person can go to prison for it. Vehicles have a destructive ability if not used in the correct way.

Back to the house, if a tree on your property falls onto another person's car or house, you are liable. If your gun accidentally shoots someone in the same fashion, or a family member, the medical and other costs are borne by the insured.

I'm sure it sounds strange, but why not take the same level of care in licensing, registration,. proof of ownership, training as a car when one is using something that is so dangerous?

Take the drama out of this, just like with pollution - stop it at the source. Be responsible for what one does in every way possible. As far as the argument criminals don't carry insurance for their acts, well, just tack that onto the rest of what they did.

A gun is a thing that people buy. It's a financial cost to them and society at large. That includes whoever gets shot. I am guessing some people have homeowner's policies that cover possessions, both at home and on the road, like laptops and other goods.

So of course it's the owner - why shouldn't the owner of the gun be responsible for all that might occur, such as with vehicles, or construction, or the operation of a business?

Doctors carry malpractice that goes up with complaints from their own mistakes. I'm just suggesting this to be less punitive in controlling gun use and bet that people will think about the entirety of gun ownership - not just the way it makes them feel, whatever the gun dealer told them, but the relationships between the gun owner and the society at large.

This is what gun control is about. Not ending an industry, but narrowing down possession and operation of firearms. Less spur of the moment purchasing and actions with a gun. We see these stories of people shooting in public or at home, of children getting killed.

In each of those situations, there should have been a mandatory legal provision for insurance at the point of sale. Just like a car. You go to buy a car, you have to show insurance before they let you take it away. I understand the cash value is not the same, but guns don't have another purpose but killing. So they should be put in the hands of trustworty people.

I am thinking that the guys who spout off about good guys with guns should put their money where their mouth is - be in charge of what happens from start to finish, don't just cry and say 'I didn't mean to shoot him!'

If such a level of responsibility was required, a constant amount of money put out monthly, they would take their ownership more seriously. If they can't pay for the damage they might do, they should not own a gun.

JMHO.

[oneshooter]

49. The reason I asked was because some folks were talking about a policy for each firearm.

I carry a $1million cover policy on my home and land, $1 million on my business, have all my firearms that are not in use in steel fireproof safes installed in a concrete block room inside my home. I have both a alarm system and a fire suppression system.

However I live 30 miles from town on 40 acres and, depending who is on duty at the time, usually must give directions to LE if they are needed.

Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.

[Duckhunter935]

52. Yep

a lot of people here see gun owners that way

[ellisonz]

53. ^^^^

Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.

Thanks but no thanks - I blocked this poster and the one below in concurrence with the broad brush insult.

ellisonz
GCRA Host

[manicdem]

55. Bad precident

Taxing rights out of existance would set a very bad precident. The right wingers would then put the same tax on abortions, contraceptives, and other necessities of life.