Taxes on guns

[boedicca]

Since smoking is not a right,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since smoking is a victimless crime, what measures/regulations are justified to compel the behavior of not smoking?

(This does not include smoking in public places/smoking on your children, since there are victims in those crimes, this is assuming you're smoking privately or with other smokers).

owning a gun is a victimless crime.

Correction: owning a gun is victimless action and a constitutionally protected individual right.

 

[Spoonman]

Since smoking is a victimless crime, what measures/regulations are justified to compel the behavior of not smoking?

(This does not include smoking in public places/smoking on your children, since there are victims in those crimes, this is assuming you're smoking privately or with other smokers).

owning a gun is a victimless crime.

And that right there folks is why the left will never be satisfied with a tax or a limit on magazine size. People like Spoonman will never be happy until the ownership of guns is a crime.

are you for real? i probably own more guns than anyone on this board

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

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?

 

[boedicca]

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.

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?

What a load of sophistry.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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?

If this government wasn't loaded with Communists and Fascists on both sides of the aisle, I'd propose a free 12 week program that teaches every 18 year old male how to use modern military firearms and auxiliary weapons, then sends him home with an M4, some grenades and lots of ammo.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

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?

how? your taxes pay for your ability to vote

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

It is. See "1934 National Firearms Act".

P.S. the NFA was found unconstitutional almost immediately, by a Federal District Court.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, but when nobody showed up for the defense, the (government) prosecution recited several lies about guns. With nobody there to refute them, the Court rubber-stamped them into an opinion reversing the lower court, and the case has never been revisited since. The case was US v. Miller, decided in 1939.

 

[tjvh]

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.

Genius. Yeah let's just make it even harder for poor people to protect themselves and exercise their Freedoms. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you loons not fully grasp? By the way... I don't recall an amendment protecting cigarettes.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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

 

[sfcalifornia]

If a poll tax is wrong, this is wrong.

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.

 

[sfcalifornia]

If a poll tax is wrong, this is wrong.

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?

how? your taxes pay for your ability to vote

Poor people don't pay taxes, remember?

 

[sfcalifornia]

If a poll tax is wrong, this is wrong.

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?

 

[Spoonman]

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.

well if they stopped buying drugs with their gov't handouts they wouldn't be

 

[Spoonman]

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?

as long as you tax the right to speak amd vote while you're at it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

*sigh*

You don’t have a constitutionally protected right to drink. Can you just end the stupidity already.

BTW – I don’t agree with bullshit targeted taxes anyway. Not on a constitutional basis but on a freedom basis. It is anti-freedom to try and tax behaviors one does not feel ‘correct’ or ‘good’ so you are really barking up the wrong tree anyway. The constitution however, as currently interpreted, does not leave a window open for you that want to tax a right out of existence. That is a direct infringement even if you cant understand what infringement actually means.

 

[Spoonman]

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?

how? your taxes pay for your ability to vote

Poor people don't pay taxes, remember?

right, we pay there wa,y remember

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

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?

Geesh. This has to have been parroted by every uber left wing college in america. Illogical leaps and bad analogies.

 

[Oldguy]

So basically what you're asking for is the ability to place punitive taxes on guns that make ownership so expensive that many Americans couldn't afford them?

I'm curious...if a tax was imposed on abortions in the same manner...what would the response be from the Left? You might want to think on this "solution" long and hard before you start trying to do end runs around the constitution. Know what I'm saying?

No, I'm not asking for that. Others are.

What I'm curious to know is how someone can be against punitive taxes on guns, but for punitive taxes on other things like junk food or cigarettes, especially when the justification is the same: Safety.

Frankly, I'm not sure most people even see the connection.

 

[PaulS1950]

There is nothing unsafe about a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen. No one's safety is in danger until the gun is in the hands of a criminal - that is already illegal but the judicial branch chooses not to prosecute for such things.