Taxes on guns

[Oldguy]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

they may become more affordable

in a black market situation

which is the case for cigs

 

[Article 15]

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.

If a poll tax is wrong, this is wrong.

 

[Oldguy]

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.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

 

[Oldguy]

Law abiding people who buy their guns legally will pay the tax and be punished for exercising their legal rights and criminals won't pay the tax.

Stupid plan.

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

 

[martybegan]

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

Going by that logic there is a tax cost for EVERYTHING borne by the general taxpayer, and there should be a tax for people doing skiing, parkour, brisk power walking by a senior citizen, anything that might lead to a cost of emergency response.

Should there be a cost to a person going onto the steps of city hall to air thier grivances??

(I know some places require permits for this sort of thing, I disagree with that as well)

 

[Old Rocks]

Better yet, mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. Be very easy to set up. And would only be checked when you were found to have a gun on you outside of your own property. For people owning manual action guns, stored safely, and having no record of violence, the cost would be minimal. For those owning arsenals, with thousands of rounds of ammo, kept in bedroom closet, it would be rather expensive.

If you were found to have a gun outside the home, with no proof of insurance, the gun is confiscated, until you provide proof of insurance. The first time. The second time, a major fine. We do it with automobiles, we can do it with guns.

 

[ba1614]

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.

I don't approve of punitive taxes on anything, cigarettes included.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Better yet, mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. Be very easy to set up. And would only be checked when you were found to have a gun on you outside of your own property. For people owning manual action guns, stored safely, and having no record of violence, the cost would be minimal. For those owning arsenals, with thousands of rounds of ammo, kept in bedroom closet, it would be rather expensive.

If you were found to have a gun outside the home, with no proof of insurance, the gun is confiscated, until you provide proof of insurance. The first time. The second time, a major fine. We do it with automobiles, we can do it with guns.

Mandatory insurance is nothing but a tax. And homeowners insurance will cover any unintentional injury caused to a third party by a weapon in a home.

 

[martybegan]

Better yet, mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. Be very easy to set up. And would only be checked when you were found to have a gun on you outside of your own property. For people owning manual action guns, stored safely, and having no record of violence, the cost would be minimal. For those owning arsenals, with thousands of rounds of ammo, kept in bedroom closet, it would be rather expensive.

If you were found to have a gun outside the home, with no proof of insurance, the gun is confiscated, until you provide proof of insurance. The first time. The second time, a major fine. We do it with automobiles, we can do it with guns.

Yet another attempted end run around the 2nd amendment. And again, owning a car is not a right.

And Again, why do you hate poor people so much?

 

[Oldguy]

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

Going by that logic there is a tax cost for EVERYTHING borne by the general taxpayer, and there should be a tax for people doing skiing, parkour, brisk power walking by a senior citizen, anything that might lead to a cost of emergency response.

Should there be a cost to a person going onto the steps of city hall to air thier grivances??

(I know some places require permits for this sort of thing, I disagree with that as well)

That's my point exactly. It starts with tobacco, then it's junk food, then it's guns. Where does it stop?

It has to be opposed whenever it rears its ugly head and regardless of what it's applied to. Getting people to see past their own particular bias against the behavior in question at the moment, though, is difficult.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

Going by that logic there is a tax cost for EVERYTHING borne by the general taxpayer, and there should be a tax for people doing skiing, parkour, brisk power walking by a senior citizen, anything that might lead to a cost of emergency response.

Should there be a cost to a person going onto the steps of city hall to air thier grivances??

(I know some places require permits for this sort of thing, I disagree with that as well)

That's my point exactly. It starts with tobacco, then it's junk food, then it's guns. Where does it stop?

it doesnt

 

[Oldguy]

Going by that logic there is a tax cost for EVERYTHING borne by the general taxpayer, and there should be a tax for people doing skiing, parkour, brisk power walking by a senior citizen, anything that might lead to a cost of emergency response.

Should there be a cost to a person going onto the steps of city hall to air thier grivances??

(I know some places require permits for this sort of thing, I disagree with that as well)

That's my point exactly. It starts with tobacco, then it's junk food, then it's guns. Where does it stop?

it doesnt

Well, you may go ahead and surrender, but I won't.

 

[jon_berzerk]

That's my point exactly. It starts with tobacco, then it's junk food, then it's guns. Where does it stop?

it doesnt

Well, you may go ahead and surrender, but I won't.

who said surrender

surely not me

 

[martybegan]

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

Going by that logic there is a tax cost for EVERYTHING borne by the general taxpayer, and there should be a tax for people doing skiing, parkour, brisk power walking by a senior citizen, anything that might lead to a cost of emergency response.

Should there be a cost to a person going onto the steps of city hall to air thier grivances??

(I know some places require permits for this sort of thing, I disagree with that as well)

That's my point exactly. It starts with tobacco, then it's junk food, then it's guns. Where does it stop?

It has to be opposed whenever it rears its ugly head and regardless of what it's applied to. Getting people to see past their own particular bias against the behavior in question at the moment, though, is difficult.

While I think sin taxes are stupid, I dont see a consitutional argument against them except in the case of firearms and any other right listed in the consitution via amendment.

If there is no consitutional prohibition, you have to defer to the legislatures of the states and localities (if allowed by state consitution)

That being said bloomberg's Soda size limit is an example of it being done wrong procedurally. He used an executive agency to create a rule, not legislative action, and he appropriately got smacked down by the courts.

 

[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.

 

[Oldguy]

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?

 

[Goodoledays]

Let me clarify something. I'm not proposing such a thing and, in fact, would vehemently oppose it as I oppose ANY tax to compel behavior modification because I think the loss of freedom isn't worth the results.

However, such cigarette-like taxes on guns has been proposed, and I guarantee you WILL be offered up sooner rather than later.

The whole purpose of this thread isn't to offer up a new plan for gun control, but to highlight that once you support the notion that taxes are a legitimate tool to compel behavior modification for smokers, you've already lost the battle to keep it being done to gun owners. The justification will be the same: Public safety. And, you've already bought off on that.

Sucking the combustion byproducts of the tobacco plant into your lungs is not a consitutionally protected right, and thus is susceptable to all sorts of laws, even an outright ban if someone decided along the way to do it.

Since smoking is not a right, methods such as onerous taxes to prevent such use, while not something I prefer, are not barred by the consitution.

Placing a tax on firearms for the sole purpose of making them too expensive to own by some people meets the definintion of "infringment" to me, and thus should be struck down as consitutional.

Something like this also raises the issue that the rich and well off (or well connected) would have easier access to firearms than someone not as rich, well of, or well connected.

Really?

“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical,” California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost … to those who want to buy firearms.”



Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com


Sound familiar?

You have to realize California is in such bad shape they want to tax everything. If they do it to guns...next they will be going for a tax to even use your toilet. Maybe a five cent tax everytime you flush.