States look to tax guns, ammo - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: States look to tax guns, ammo

  1. #21
    I guess the word "infringement" is kind of like the word "is" to the liberal mind
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  3. #22
    The republican party is dead....
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  4. #23
    Even _IF_ "gun violence" were responsible for 30% of hospitalizations (which I suspect required a Rube Goldberg approach using statistics to obtain such a figure), how does that figure change if the firearms involved in such violence were legally obtained....because those are the one's you are taxing with this proposal.

    The current administration is doing a good job keeping the focus OFF off of honest studies of patterns of "gun violence" and how they relate to the overall state of public safety. Yeah, let's spend 99% of our budget and political efforts battling a 2% problem. The only conclusion being that public safety is NOT the primary concern in gun grabbing attempts.

    Ever notice how honest studies tend to cite their sources and state their assumptions?

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Right, and on that subject.....
    Senator Toomey Betrays Gun Owners

    Wednesday, 10 April 2013 15:42
    Written by Gun Owners of America

    Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) - but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.

    See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun "ranters" have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.

    Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”

    Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

    The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

    And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

    So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.

    Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

    But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

    (More at link....)
    At the bottom of that alert there is a link to an automated system that allows you to send pre-written (or edited in your own words) emails to your Senators and/or House Reps. It's free, and you can also sign up to receive free email blasts about these kinds of time-sensitive issues that come up all too often these days.

    I stopped copying and pasting where I did because I wanted to highlight some implications of that last point.

    Most people never have to see a psychiatrist for any reason throughout their lives, while some people virtually make a living by finding psychs that will diagnose them as disabled due to some mental illness that will qualify them for disability or other public assistance. Then some folks are advised to go to a psych in the normal course of Rx treatments that are known to cause depression or other temporary side effects for the duration of the treatment. I have personal experience with both the chronic disability treatment type of case, and having to visit a psych on the advice of a medical doctor overseeing the side effects of a temporary medical treatment that is known to cause depression. In the former case, my only sister spent the last 12 years of her life in the care of psychiatrists that fed her depression by loading her up with psychotropic drugs while she sat in her government-paid-for apt. doing absolutely nothing. Someone trying to cure her depression would've gotten her in rehab, cleaned her system of the drugs, and encouraged her to at least get out of the house and volunteer at a hospital or old folks home just to get her to stop focusing on herself and her own problems for a couple of hours each day. But the doctors weren't interested in healing, they kept her in a continuous cycle of manic highs and depressive lows that made her think she couldn't survive without them. In the end, she couldn't survive with them. She committed suicide in 2006 by overdosing on the very pills she'd been prescribed to "help" her for the previous 12 years.

    Somehow, modern medicine believes my sister's mental illness and suicide has a bearing on my own mental stability. For at least the last seven or eight years, whenever I have to see a new doctor, the questions on family history include ones about how family members died, and if I have any history of suicide in my family. I have always left such questions blank, but not everyone is as cautious about such things as I am. Most people might well think that the government will never get a hold of such information, that HIPPA will protect their, and their family's, privacy rights. SURPRISE! Not now that ObamaCare is the law of the land, and as it regards gun access and/or ownership, not if the "compromise" Toomey (and obviously other Republicans) are contemplating gets passed.

    As to the subject of temporary treatment, I have a disease that is treatable, but the cure is often worse than the disease. The treatment is a chemo-therapy that only has a 50/50 success rate, and lasts 48 weeks while causing all manner of side effects, from rashes to extreme headaches to nausea to extreme weight loss to blurred vision and yes, to depression. I tried the treatment the first time back in '02 and could only tolerate it for seven weeks before I bailed. In '05/'06, after working hard to get myself in better shape to be better prepared to deal with the side-effects, I decided to try it again. My new supervising doctor required his patients to go to a psychiatrist before starting the treatment so that he could evaluate how well (or poorly as the case may be) the patient was dealing with the depressive effects. I had to go back to the psych every two weeks for the first six months of treatment. No depression showed up at all, so he cut me loose and told my primary doc he didn't need to worry about my mental state for the remainder of the chemo.

    A little less than a year after that series of psych visits, I started making myself aware of the mental "defective" provisions within the NICS system. There was a revision being considered that expanded the government's "right to know" about psychiatric patient records, and though the changes that were being proposed would not have been retroactive to authorize the government to dig through my records, it became apparent that if I tried the (unsuccessful) treatment again with the same requirements that I be monitored by a psych, I would likely be forcibly disarmed under those NICS provisions that did pass in 2007.

    So bottom line, HIPPA protects no one from nothin' when it comes to guns, and Toomey and whoever ends up supporting his "compromise" will make it even less so if they get their way.

    Pay attention folks. Things are not as they seem. There is no "compromise" afoot. There is only gun-grabbing tyranny coming from the lying hacks in both parties. Don't let them steal your rights over pizza and beer tonight. Get on the horn.

    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #25
    Ok. With respect to background checks & mental health, I agree that S 480 does not fix the issues from the 2007 law and is not good legislation, even though I think the pols involved probably truly believe that it is. For those of us who believe in the importance of the 2nd amendment, just shouting no amongst ourselves is not going to carry the day for us here, because we’ll be outvoted as we have been before. Also, more is required than just calling and e-mailing representatives just to say no (though that’s a start…). As advocates for freedom-loving, armed, responsible, law-abiding citizens, what do we propose instead?
    I don’t think the mentally unstable, being treated with psychoactive drugs, should have legal access to firearms. Is there anyone here who truly thinks otherwise? I know of no gun rights organization, NRA, GOA, 2A Foundation, etc., that stipulates that the availability of firearms for those who clearly are mentally unstable, deranged, and a danger to themselves and others should not be infringed. I think it’s universally accepted that guns should have been kept out of the hands of wackos like Holmes, Lanza, Cho Seung Hui, etc., all of whom had known psychiatric problems. We all agree that we should not be penalized for the predictable effects of poor legislation that results in poor (if not impossible) law enforcement. What’s called for is good legislation that makes legitimate law enforcement possible, that does not penalize the law-abiding. I am not so naïve (none of us here are) as to believe that this will prevent all incidents, but in two of the three atrocities above (Holmes, Hui) it might have. I believe that with respect to mental health and 2nd amendment rights, good legislation falls in the realm of the possible, and that it could be good for us all.
    That said, S 480 clearly does not reach the mark (and S 374 is way off the mark!). I am concerned with: 1. the easy potential for arbitrary, subjective rulings made against a citizen that leave little or no avenue for redress, 2. certain mental health issues that are temporary in nature that end up penalizing someone permanently even after their health issue has been successfully and demonstrably solved (the plight of many veterans for instance), and, 3. the tendency for legislation to accomplish nothing but to ensnare the law-abiding in trivial and innocent violations, the consequences of which are anything but trivial.
    IMO, our various organizations in support of 2nd amendment rights are collectively failing us. The issue with respect to mental health is a problem on many levels, and it is going to be addressed whether we will or no. Why are we not writing the proposed legislation, through our organizations, ourselves? I don’t see this being done, and that’s a mistake.

  7. #26
    It's a warm fuzzy (and a folly IMO) to think that we can restrict ownership in a pre-emptive, and selectively fair pattern, which is the case being proposed for the mentally unstable. Mental instability is not an on/off thing. At best, we must look at some kind of "checklist" to subjectively identify the "severity" of someone's mental illness before deciding if "we" will allow "them" to own firearms. At worst, ANYTHING that can be categorized as a mental issue is an excuse for disarming the individual. That results in a snowball effect for creation of additional laws to address loopholes. Has that been a historically successful endeaver?

    In the end, the only "just" way IMO is to treat citizens equally until they have been tried and convicted of a crime. Enforce the laws already on the books. Honest studies of public safety appear to indicate that less regulation of firearms at worst has ZERO impact on public safety, but more than likely has a POSITIVE impact in that regard.(

    Ok, I know people are going to reply asking how would I feel if a mentally deranged individual legally obtained a firearm and murdered my family. I would be just as upset as if they illegally obtained the firearm and murdered my family. I may even recant my position at that point. However, I would recant based on an emotional, not logical response to the tragedy. I may yield to the desire to believe that a restriction on that one persons rights might have averted that particular tragedy, even though they could likely have gone through illegal channels to obtain the firearm.

    The 2nd amendment leaves little to the imagination (or so one would have thought). However, EVEN when viewed throught the looking glass of public safety interests, we MUST come to the conclusion that LESS firearms restrictions are the best approach...without lots of caveats.

    If we, as pro-gun rights advocates, so much as WAVER on this point, we may as well give up right now.
    1) Banning full-auto unconstitutional
    2) Requiring a permission slip to carry concealed in public unconstitutional
    3) Gun free zones (excluding private property)...are unconstitutional
    These kinds of restrictions get put into effect because some who are supposed to be helping our cause see them as "common sense restrictions", or "not a big deal....because I don't care about that particular one".

    There's a BIG difference between accepting a compromise in these areas in an attempt to make progress...or in this case avoid taking too many steps back (i.e. the restriction on mentally unstable in exchange for dropping the AWB and mag capacity limitations), and freely endorsing such compromises.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Creswell, Oregon
    This is exactly how we have lost our freedoms through out history. Compromise here and there cause it really doesn't effect very many or in the name of perceived safety and/or perceived common sense. Of course we all know it never stops there.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Crook County Illinois already does it. Obviously, the reason for this is to make guns more expensive and thus, discourage firearm ownership.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts