Lewis Diuguid: To reduce gun ownership, tax weapons like property (Barf alert)

Kansascity.com ^ | Jan 30, 2013 | Lewis W. Diuguid

[KeyLargo]

Let’s Tax Guns

Make it more expensive to build an arsenal.

By Asha Rangappa|Posted Friday, Dec. 21, 2012, at 1:41 PM

“A federal excise tax on guns could change the social landscape. It would work like this: Everyone who can pass a background check to own a firearm would be entitled to purchase one weapon, tax-free. This would leave our right to own a weapon for self-defense unencumbered and would therefore be constitutional under the Second Amendment. After that, the government would levy an excise tax on each additional weapon owned. The amount of the tax would increase as the number of weapons owned increased.

Of course, some people may try to avoid taxes by buying guns on the black market. But they’d risk the IRS coming after them for tax evasion, which is relatively easy to prove (Al Capone, anyone?) and carries civil and criminal penalties. Tax evasion has been law enforcement’s tool for combating organized crime and the drug trade. Extending its reach to unregulated guns could prove very effective: After all, you can’t hide your weapons in a Swiss bank account.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/taxing_guns_make_it_more_expensive_to_build_an_arsenal.html

[KeyLargo]

And words of wisdom from the Chicago Police Superintendent yesterday:

Appearing on a Chicago Sunday morning talk show, superintendent Garry McCarthy expressed his conviction that firearm owners who lobby their elected representatives or who donate money to political campaigns are engaged in corruption that endangers public safety. McCarthy went on to express his belief that judges and legislators should rely on public opinion polls when interpreting our Constitution.

After dismissing the citizen’s right to redress grievances, McCarthy focused on the 2nd Amendment. Despite recent court decisions to the contrary, McCarthy opined that the 2nd Amendment limits citizens to owning smooth-bore muskets. McCarthy went on to say that he believes the 2nd Amendment supports mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners and the mandatory application of GPS tracking devices to civilian owned firearms.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

[philman_36]

Americans will never surrender their lust for guns

How cute! Putting a negative Christian concept in the article.

Does the author actually believe such a negative connotation on the issue is going to sway people?
Does he believe that people aren't smart enough to see through what he's trying to do? /rhetorical questions

Here's your clue, Lewis. Desire isn't quite the same thing as lust.

Do you desire people to read, and believe, your claptrap or do you lust for them to do so?

[TexasFreeper2009]

lets see how this theory works with other rights...

to reduce free speech... just tax it like property!

hm...

just don’t see this happening.

[KeyLargo]

“just don’t see this happening.”

I hope that you are correct, but also many conservatives did not believe that Obama would have a second term in the White House or that GOP would lose more seats in Congress.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I will admit, I didn’t see Obamacare being upheld by the USSC either.

[digger48]

Seeing this rhetoric more and more in the comment sections.

Obama Central has put out the talking point that gun owners are addicts and mentally ill simply because they own guns.

Alinsky still on.the job

[digger48]

Seeing this rhetoric more and more in the comment sections.

Obama Central has put out the talking point that gun owners are addicts and mentally ill simply because they own guns.

Alinsky still on.the job

[goodnesswins]

The U.S. ranks No. 1 globally in private gun ownership, with 270 million guns in civilian hands, or 88.8 firearms per 100 people. U.S. law enforcement officers only have 897,400 firearms; the military, 3.1 million.

I guess he doesn't see the issue here....

[MrB]

It’s not even “desire”.

It’s “recognition of the necessity of”.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I've noticed that a lot of democrats believe majority opinion should rule over the Constitution.

The last time that was tried it was called segregation.

[KeyLargo]

Colorado Democrats Driving Businesses Out of State

Filed under 2nd Amendment, Business, Economics, Gun Control, Jobs

Evidently, Colorado Democrats aren’t concerned about their 7.6% unemployment rate with their newly proposed legislation.

On Friday, the Colorado State House of Representatives which is controlled by Democrats, used a voice vote to give an early approval House Bill 1224 that would drive out some of the state’s businesses. The bill is designed to limit all ammunition magazines to 15 rounds or fewer.

If the bill is passed and become law in a state known for hunting and gun ownership, at least two companies said that they would relocate to states that are more gun friendly.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9502/colorado-democrats-driving-businesses-out-of-state/#ixzz2LGpv2A3P

[Voice of Reason1]

This is our future Ping:

Now they want to tax jewellery: New Lib Dem wealth plan to target ALL assets - including buy-to-let homes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279810/Now-want-tax-jewellery-New-wealth-tax-plan-target-ALL-assets—including-buy-let-homes.html

Just remember that there are only two reasons to register guns: to Tax them or to Take them.

[William Tell]

"Everyone who can pass a background check to own a firearm would be entitled to purchase one weapon, tax-free. This would leave our right to own a weapon for self-defense unencumbered and would therefore be constitutional under the Second Amendment. "

Everyone who can pass a background check to buy a newspaper would be entitled to purchase one paper, tax-free. This would leave our freedom of the press unencumbered and would therefore be constitutional under the First Amendment.

Everyone who can pass a background check to attend a church would be entitled to attend on one day, tax-free. This would leave our freedom of religion unencumbered and would therefore be constitutional under the First Amendment.

Everyone who can pass a background check to have a trial by jury would be entitled to one trial, tax-free. This would leave our right to a jury trial unencumbered and would therefore be constitutional under the Sixth Amendment.

[1010RD]

You’d think liberals would figure that out. I actually believe they get it, but they’re lazy losers who need the money and getting it through legal theft is easier than physical force.

[philman_36]

Obama Central has put out the talking point that gun owners are addicts and mentally ill simply because they own guns.
Just the continuation of the ongoing progressive meme.

Sadly, it's gaining traction among some.

[philman_36]

It’s “recognition of the necessity of”.

I stand corrected.

I was merely trying to offer a comparison between the two words showing the fallacy therein and expose the author's questionable antics at the same time.

[appalachian_dweller]

>> If the shtf, journalists should be high up on the target list. <<

They are.