Gun buybacks could be funded by gun sales tax, lawmakers propose (10% TAX on guns!)

[ShooterInPA1]

WASHINGTON — A group of Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Linda Sanchez of California is launching an effort to secure money for gun buybacks, firearms safety campaigns and anti-violence programs from a new tax on handgun purchases.

Sanchez unveiled the bill, which would impose a 10% tax on handgun purchases, Thursday at Los Angeles County Sheriff’s headquarters in Monterey Park.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,5668283.story

**************

CA cannot fall into the ocean soon enough for me.

[harty]

They are just coming up with all different kinds of ways and laws to screw over firearms owners. Looks like they are just throwing a bunch of shit at the wall with the hopes that something is gonna stick. These politicians are really out of control. We really need to make sure they dont get re elected. Dare I say this gun tax is the new TEA tax

[ayres]

all these people do is sit at home and think of ways to rape people of their hard earned money so they can just throw it in a burn barrel

[KBoy420]

The problem is that there is already legal precedent to do this. So called "sin taxes" have been assessed for years. You can't buy a pack of smokes in NY without paying $15. Why is the same pack of smokes in PA only $6?

Speaking from a purely economics standpoint (my major, unfortunately), I don't know why the Obamunist Administration hasn't already put a huge tax on ammo. (it's what I'd do if I was he, or believed in the same philosophy). The entire economic purpose of "sin taxes" is to modify consumer behavior. Smoking is bad for your health. Poor health causes more expenses within the healthcare industry, etc. etc. Let's tax the shit out of tobacco so people will stop using that stuff.

Bullets cause deaths. Deaths cause more expenses on law enforcement agencies and other municipal agencies, court systems, etc. etc. Let's tax the shit out of bullets so people will stop buying them.

In both cases, the economic premise is correct. Increases prices on inelastic goods to the point where consumer behavior is modified. It does work. I'm a smoker, and I pay a shit load for smokes. But at the current prices, the cost doesn't exceed my desire for the product. Makes a pack of smokes $20 and my behavior is forced to change.

The problem is as a nation, we have become used to this type of indirect control by our government. We are all guilty. We see these stories ont he news all the time that infuriate us, but we complain amongst ourselves and move on.

I too, hope that if this turns into some national sin tax against gun owners, that we don't just complain amongst ourselves and move on. Our Founders were willing to start a war over a tax on tea. What do you think they would have done over a tax on their guns?

[Don]

Sin taxes should be illegal, but they get passed because not a whole lot of people are going to go public and march in the street in front of the cameras opposing a tax on strip clubs and porn, etc.

[internet troll]

The problem is that there is already legal precedent to do this. So called "sin taxes" have been assessed for years. You can't buy a pack of smokes in NY without paying $15. Why is the same pack of smokes in PA only $6?

Speaking from a purely economics standpoint (my major, unfortunately), I don't know why the Obamunist Administration hasn't already put a huge tax on ammo. (it's what I'd do if I was he, or believed in the same philosophy). The entire economic purpose of "sin taxes" is to modify consumer behavior. Smoking is bad for your health. Poor health causes more expenses within the healthcare industry, etc. etc. Let's tax the shit out of tobacco so people will stop using that stuff.

Bullets cause deaths. Deaths cause more expenses on law enforcement agencies and other municipal agencies, court systems, etc. etc. Let's tax the shit out of bullets so people will stop buying them.

In both cases, the economic premise is correct. Increases prices on inelastic goods to the point where consumer behavior is modified. It does work. I'm a smoker, and I pay a shit load for smokes. But at the current prices, the cost doesn't exceed my desire for the product. Makes a pack of smokes $20 and my behavior is forced to change.

The problem is as a nation, we have become used to this type of indirect control by our government. We are all guilty. We see these stories ont he news all the time that infuriate us, but we complain amongst ourselves and move on.

I too, hope that if this turns into some national sin tax against gun owners, that we don't just complain amongst ourselves and move on. Our Founders were willing to start a war over a tax on tea. What do you think they would have done over a tax on their guns?

Not that this is the reason why he has not taxed ammunition, but that could potentially become a Constitutional issue (like so many other things they are trying to do) It could be perceived as an infringement to bear arms. Or he is waiting until the next round of gun control to implement an ammo tax.

[DennisH82]

They should put 1% tax on the VERBAL DIARHEA that comes out of all politicians blowholes. We could payoff the National Debt in 24 hrs.

[ShooterInPA1]

The problem is that there is already legal precedent to do this. So called "sin taxes" have been assessed for years. You can't buy a pack of smokes in NY without paying $15. Why is the same pack of smokes in PA only $6?

Speaking from a purely economics standpoint (my major, unfortunately), I don't know why the Obamunist Administration hasn't already put a huge tax on ammo. (it's what I'd do if I was he, or believed in the same philosophy). The entire economic purpose of "sin taxes" is to modify consumer behavior. Smoking is bad for your health. Poor health causes more expenses within the healthcare industry, etc. etc. Let's tax the shit out of tobacco so people will stop using that stuff.

Bullets cause deaths. Deaths cause more expenses on law enforcement agencies and other municipal agencies, court systems, etc. etc. Let's tax the shit out of bullets so people will stop buying them.

In both cases, the economic premise is correct. Increases prices on inelastic goods to the point where consumer behavior is modified. It does work. I'm a smoker, and I pay a shit load for smokes. But at the current prices, the cost doesn't exceed my desire for the product. Makes a pack of smokes $20 and my behavior is forced to change.

The problem is as a nation, we have become used to this type of indirect control by our government. We are all guilty. We see these stories ont he news all the time that infuriate us, but we complain amongst ourselves and move on.

I too, hope that if this turns into some national sin tax against gun owners, that we don't just complain amongst ourselves and move on. Our Founders were willing to start a war over a tax on tea. What do you think they would have done over a tax on their guns?

Well, then lets impose a $10 per month fee for free speech.

[harty]

The funniest thing about all these taxes they impose on the people are not being done to help us or assist the public in any way. All that money generated goes to the government to fund their projects and games. Our government is run just like the insurance companies in this country, whenever the opportunity arises to capitalize on the backs of hard working people they are all over it. Next they will try to charge us a tax for loading the bullet in the firearm

[KBoy420]

Well, then lets impose a $10 per month fee for free speech.

AND they will get away with it! Did any of us on these forums really believe that Obamacare was constitutional before it was legislation? They didn't read the bill, etc. etc. and it would never pass. It passed. Well, it's unconstitutional, the Commerce Clause etc. etc. It will be repealed. It's not legal. SC upholds it. Just sayin...

Well...maybe $10/mo for free speach won't happen...but...you get my ovarall point