Allen West: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You

[bigrebnc1775]

Lakhota are you objecting that the government should not force people to buy a gun and be taxed if you don't in the interest of personal security?

No.

Health care is a different issue though...

Sure it is if it doesn't fit a person agenda. I wouldn't support it but looks like the obamacare supporters to save face should support it.

 

[The T]

I contend that anyone who doesn't attend church should be taxed.

*I* Contend that leftist DORKS as YOU should pay a TAX to be on these boards.

 

[Lakhota]

I contend that anyone who isn't a certified deranged wingnut should be taxed.

 

[Ava]

I'll stick with my Colt 1911.

At least it's American made

Gosh, I love that guy. He is a LEADER! What a team he and Chris Christie would make???

 

[Desperado]

next it will be that everyone has to buy a Chevy or find yourself paying another tax, so that
the Treasury Department will recover t all of its investment in GM.

 

[Lakhota]

Voice Inside Allen West’s Head Told Him That 80 House Democrats Belong to the Communist Party [Updated]

 

[Listening]

I'll stick with my Colt 1911.

At least it's American made

Gosh, I love that guy. He is a LEADER! What a team he and Chris Christie would make???

Can your avi's get any better....????

 

[Listening]

I contend that anyone who isn't a certified deranged wingnut should be taxed.

Of course you would.....

That let's you off.

 

[The T]

I contend that anyone who isn't a certified deranged wingnut should be taxed.

So in your lexicon? GUESS who you just taxed?

YOURSELF.

Dumbass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I contend that anyone who isn't a certified deranged wingnut should be taxed.

Of course you would.....

That let's you off.

She's a certified deranged wingnut

 

[uscitizen]

You know Glocks are made in Smyrna GA, right? I've carried one on and off for over a year. It must be defective because it's never gone off unexpectedly.
The Colt is an over-priced piece of shit that is long past its time. If it ever had one.

I haven't found the Colt to be a pos at all, quite the opposite.

I like my Remington-Rand .45.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i'll stick with my colt 1911.

at least it's american made

gosh, i love that guy. He is a leader! What a team he and chris christie would make???

wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lakhota are you objecting that the government should not force people to buy a gun and be taxed if you don't in the interest of personal security?

The government can’t force anyone to buy health insurance or a gun.

As the Healthcare Cases majority observed:

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

Congress has a plausible rationale for home ownership, professional educations, and health insurance.

What would be the rationale for gun ownership? What would be the purpose of taxing individuals who don’t own a gun?

For example: how much does it cost a given jurisdiction to protect unarmed citizens? How much would be saved by arming all citizens? If all citizens were armed, could local law enforcement be done away with, saving communities that expense?

We know lack of health insurance, and providing care for those without insurance in emergency rooms, drives up health care costs. What costs are being driven up due to a lack of gun ownership?

And what of citizens who can’t defend themselves, armed or not? Ex-offenders, the mentally ill, and minors are not allowed to own guns but they’re entitled to be protected nonetheless. In addition, there are many elderly and disabled persons who can’t use a firearm, including those who are blind or are developmentally disadvantaged.

The fact is, unlike the ACA, there would be a significant percentage of the population exempt from both required gun ownership and the tax whether they can afford to purchase a firearm or not.

Given these facts and examined comprehensively, the ACA/mandatory gun ownership analogy fails.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lakhota are you objecting that the government should not force people to buy a gun and be taxed if you don't in the interest of personal security?

The government can’t force anyone to buy health insurance or a gun.

As the Healthcare Cases majority observed:

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

Congress has a plausible rationale for home ownership, professional educations, and health insurance.

What would be the rationale for gun ownership? What would be the purpose of taxing individuals who don’t own a gun?

For example: how much does it cost a given jurisdiction to protect unarmed citizens? How much would be saved by arming all citizens? If all citizens were armed, could local law enforcement be done away with, saving communities that expense?

We know lack of health insurance, and providing care for those without insurance in emergency rooms, drives up health care costs. What costs are being driven up due to a lack of gun ownership?

And what of citizens who can’t defend themselves, armed or not? Ex-offenders, the mentally ill, and minors are not allowed to own guns but they’re entitled to be protected nonetheless. In addition, there are many elderly and disabled persons who can’t use a firearm, including those who are blind or are developmentally disadvantaged.

The fact is, unlike the ACA, there would be a significant percentage of the population exempt from both required gun ownership and the tax whether they can afford to purchase a firearm or not.

Given these facts and examined comprehensively, the ACA/mandatory gun ownership analogy fails.

If you don'y buy it you will be taxed. What part of this don't you understand is forcing someone to buy something.

What would be the rationale for gun ownership? What would be the purpose of taxing individuals who don’t own a gun?

In the interest of personal security just as healthcare was deemed in the interest of personal care.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I contend that anyone who doesn't attend church should be taxed.

*I* Contend that leftist DORKS as YOU should pay a TAX to be on these boards.

 

[Steelplate]

When a lack of guns cause 62% of all bankruptcies, when non-gun owners cause gun owners to continually pay more for their guns, ammo and shooting costs, you and West let me know, ok?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am pissed at Allen West, he thinks the government should force American citizens to buy a non American made gun. Glocks aren't even made in the U.S.


“I have a great idea. I believe that for personal security every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9 mm and if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you.”

Allen West: "Every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm" - YouTube

I'd be willing to bet he was joking.

But I carry a knife. Faster to pull and more deadly up close.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am pissed at Allen West, he thinks the government should force American citizens to buy a non American made gun. Glocks aren't even made in the U.S.


“I have a great idea. I believe that for personal security every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9 mm and if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you.”

Allen West: "Every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm" - YouTube

I'd be willing to bet he was joking.

But I carry a knife. Faster to pull and more deadly up close.

You would be taxed under west example. just saying.

 

[Too Tall]

Congress has a plausible rationale for home ownership, professional educations, and health insurance.

What would be the rationale for gun ownership? What would be the purpose of taxing individuals who don’t own a gun?

For example: how much does it cost a given jurisdiction to protect unarmed citizens? How much would be saved by arming all citizens? If all citizens were armed, could local law enforcement be done away with, saving communities that expense?

Billions would be saved, just as you stated. 2 cops instead of 200.

We know lack of health insurance, and providing care for those without insurance in emergency rooms, drives up health care costs. What costs are being driven up due to a lack of gun ownership?

See above

And what of citizens who can’t defend themselves, armed or not? Ex-offenders, the mentally ill, and minors are not allowed to own guns but they’re entitled to be protected nonetheless. In addition, there are many elderly and disabled persons who can’t use a firearm, including those who are blind or are developmentally disadvantaged.

Those that are armed will protect them. And we did keep 2 cops.

The fact is, unlike the ACA, there would be a significant percentage of the population exempt from both required gun ownership and the tax whether they can afford to purchase a firearm or not.

The blind, crippled and crazy are exempt from the tax for not buying a gun and the 30 million that the taxpayers buy their healthcare Insurance for are exempt from the tax

Given these facts and examined comprehensively, the ACA/mandatory gun ownership analogy fails.

Looks like a good analogy to me.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ruger .357