'I Survived Columbine And It Feels Like Nothing Has Changed'

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,743
30,259
1,743
Australia
#22
You said putting a tax on a firearm did not violate the 2nd amendment. I am simply trying to determine the limit of that. Forget 5000, How about 100%? 50%? At what point would you consider a fee/tax on something as nothing more than an attempt to prohibit it's use? And at that point, would you consider that fee in violation of the constitution?

Let's look at a different example.....Do you agree with the Democrats that requiring a $10 voter ID infringes on some peoples ability to vote? What if that $10 went towards hiring security guards at polling places? Would that make the cost for the ID OK?
Let's reverse your question. You ALREADY pay sales tax on firearms. If a tax on firearms violates the 2nd amendment, it is already violated and could be raised. You have already lost the theoretical battle that you are attempting to fight. And, yep, the government could raise airport taxes so high nobody would fly. But, that is dumb compared to just prohibiting flight, like they did after 9/11. Your thoughts on this are strange. Why would a government take this roundabout way to kinda ban guns instead of just banning guns?

I'm not going to play a game of "What if...." for something that makes no sense. I can play that, too. "What if all gun owners got so fed up that they all started going on school killing sprees? There are so many guns we could never protect the kids. Ok, forget all gun owners. What if 10,000, 1000? 500? I'm simply trying to determine the limit of gun shooting sprees you would accept." Can we stop the battle of irrational fears now?

No, I'm not a democrat. I do not know anything about a $10 voter ID proposal but I would not knock such a proposal just based on the fact that there is a $10 charge. Certainly for voting they could/would set up a program for the indigent to avoid the charge. I suppose if you feel strongly about the 2nd amendment rights of the indigent we could have a waiver program of whatever tax proposal on guns for school safety for them also.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,743
30,259
1,743
Australia
#23
I understand the basic argument you're making, but I'm not sure you understand the scope of what you're saying. There are approximately 98K public schools in the US. If you hired only one armed security guards per school and paid them $50K per year, it would cost $4.9 billion annually. The overall cost would be higher though, because some schools are so large they would need more than one guard.

The most recent numbers I can find show that the federal government collects right around $123 million per year in tax from firearm sales. So if you crunch the numbers, they would have to raise sales tax by approximately 4000% to put one armed security guard in every school.

Obviously a tax increase like that would never fly. They wouldn't be able to fund school security through sales tax. They would have to tax citizens for simply owning a gun, and that should never happen.
Well, it appears you have written my proposal for me even before I did.:)

The FCC fee does not cover the entire cost of phone service. The airport taxes do not cover the entire cost of airports/air traffic control etc. But, the user fees put some of the burden on the user instead of making people that have no intent or ability to use the service fully liable.

TBH, the idea of spending billions to put guards in schools when we can't afford to pay teachers a decent wage makes me cringe. The last school guard was worthless. There just has to be a better way.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,743
30,259
1,743
Australia
#24
While we're modifying gun rights we should also consider modifying voting rights. Maybe require voter ID in every state? I would think electing someone based off an illegal vote is more dangerous than our gun laws currently.
Maybe that would be a great topic for another thread but I am not sure what voting has to do with this subject.
I would say that the federal government requiring a federal voter ID over the laws of the states which currently govern the process smacks of liberal big central government to me.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,078
23,048
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#25
Let's reverse your question. You ALREADY pay sales tax on firearms. If a tax on firearms violates the 2nd amendment, it is already violated and could be raised. You have already lost the theoretical battle that you are attempting to fight. And, yep, the government could raise airport taxes so high nobody would fly. But, that is dumb compared to just prohibiting flight, like they did after 9/11. Your thoughts on this are strange. Why would a government take this roundabout way to kinda ban guns instead of just banning guns?
There is a sales tax on everything, guns aren't singled out. Flying is not in the bill of rights, there is no comparison between the two. A government might try a roundabout way of banning guns if they knew an outright ban would get shot down by the supreme court. So if the legislature wanted to get around that, they could slap a high tax just on guns that make them so prohibitively expensive that nobody could buy them (or a high tax on ammunition, which has already been proposed). This is the entire point I've been getting at, sorry if it wasn't more clear. So again, how much tax is too much tax and do you think it is OK if used as a way to limit gun ownership and get around the legal ramifications of doing so?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,743
30,259
1,743
Australia
#26
There is a sales tax on everything, guns aren't singled out. Flying is not in the bill of rights, there is no comparison between the two. A government might try a roundabout way of banning guns if they knew an outright ban would get shot down by the supreme court. So if the legislature wanted to get around that, they could slap a high tax just on guns that make them so prohibitively expensive that nobody could buy them (or a high tax on ammunition, which has already been proposed). This is the entire point I've been getting at, sorry if it wasn't more clear. So again, how much tax is too much tax and do you think it is OK if used as a way to limit gun ownership and get around the legal ramifications of doing so?
The government does not and has not ever taxed an item out of existence. Could it theoretically happen? Of course. Anything could happen. Is it a realistic reason to argue against a normal tax. No.

Of course, it is not an "OK" way to do it. It has never been done so I have no idea why we are talking about it. And, the implementation of a realistic tax would have no bearing on a government passing an unrealistic tax. They could pass a 5000% tax tomorrow regardless of a small tax to fund school security.

It also would be wrong if the government confiscated all gunpowder and made the manufacture of any more illegal. Then you could bear arms, they just would not work. But, since that roundabout way is also not suggested by anyone rational, why are we discussing either of these?

I have given countless examples, some constitutionally protected and some not, where the government has taxed items and not put them out of existence with the tax. You have not given one single example where your fear has occurred. Can you point out minor detail differences with my examples? Yes, no example is ever perfect. Do you have ANY example at all? No.

So, again, how many gun bearers have to shoot up schools before you see it as an issue for gun bearers to deal with? Is 10000 dead school kids too many? What is the number? When you can get your head around that question without thinking "Gee, that question is just kinda out there" is about the same time I will feel that way about yours.

Your point it clear. But, it is imaginary. You have created a paranoid theoretical concern out of nothing and want me to discuss it like it is reality. Not gonna happen. I don't foster false paranoia.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,078
23,048
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#27
Do you have ANY example at all?
As far back as when Clinton was in office, you had at least one Democrat lawmaker state that "it was time for the federal government to tax handgun ammunition out of existence". Now it didn't happen, but that was in the 90's when the Dems were a whole lot more moderate on the subject. If they proposed it back then, then it's no stretch to think they would propose it today if they got the numbers in Congress to pass it. And I found that quote in just 10 seconds of searching, I imagine I could find other similar proposals over the years if I dug.

They are actually discussing a bill in California right now on this very topic, taxing guns and ammo to pay for security officers and counselors. No amount has been set yet. I've been trying to find out from you this whole discussion what is and is not a reasonable amount. I say any rate above 10% is trending into the area that you say is imaginary and paranoid, and above 20% will completely cross that line. We'll have to wait and see what number they ultimately settle on, but I'm curious what you think is too much.

Also, don't make claims about not fostering false paranoia one paragraph after throwing out the same old "how many deaths are needed util you care" trope. Do you want to have a rational discussion or just throw rhetoric around, you managed to avoid it up until this last post.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,743
30,259
1,743
Australia
#28
Also, don't make claims about not fostering false paranoia one paragraph after throwing out the same old "how many deaths are needed util you care" trope. Do you want to have a rational discussion or just throw rhetoric around, you managed to avoid it up until this last post.
That was put in there facetiously to show how absolutely ridiculous your line of questioning is. I thought it was obvious when I said "Can we stop the battle of irrational fears now?" I kept waiting for you to say, "Yea, I know it is unrealistic that our congress would tax guns out of existence in our lifetimes." But apparently, you actually believe your side's trope while my trope was put there merely to show how ridiculous you are being.

If you look through my posts here, I am generally not a big gun control advocate. I don't think the 2nd amendment trumps everything like some seem to do. But I'm not anti-gun in principal and think that every proposal from either side deserves a fair look.

When dems and greens start calling for nonsense like the US can just have everyone turn in guns "like Australia did" or when conservatives scream that a basic tax proposal means they are going to tax guns out of existence because a fruit loop from California said they liked the idea, I am going to be against it. I do not think extremism is the answer from either side. And, to me, your fear is extremist. It isn't reality.

And, no you have not been asking what is a reasonable tax rate. You have been fearmongering asking about absurd tax rates about prohibiting guns. You ignored completely when I said, "Ok, the system could have a plan in it to waive the tax for financial hardship." Basically, you have an "HE WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!" point and you are now trying to conceal it in. Even a 5000% tax rate would not ban them. You or I both could still get one at that rate if we wanted one.

If you are actually now finally asking what a reasonable rate is, I think in the range of sales taxes up to the range of liquor taxes. Tobacco taxes are being raised to the point that they are not by any means prohibiting use. But they are discouraging, particularly for younger people who tend to have less money. I think that makes sense for an addictive substance like tobacco, I do not think that discouraging the purchase of firearms by the less well-off through very high taxation fits with the strongest rationale for the 2nd amendment in my mind, prevention of tyranny. If California or a locality wants to tax guns at a higher rate to discourage use, then good for them I suppose. If the citizens do not like it, vote differently. But realistically, with open state borders, that would have minimal impact overall.