- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I am. What I am is a libertarian in the complete, European sense - friendly to non-government labor unions and workers' co-operatives, sympathetic to the rural poor, in favor of political equanimity. What I am not is an Austrian clone who reads Rand or Mises and goes off thinking I'm some rugged individual, like the millions of other rugged individuals out there.
Funny. The day before he committed the crime he had every right to own those firearms and a lot more besides. He apparently wasn't crazy then.
an assault weapon ban is political suicide for the deemsOnce more, with feeling: do you want to prevent there from being a massive public backlash against gun ownership? Then you must be prepared to give a little. This principle of 'noncompromise' on the Right has done it more harm than anything else I can think of.
Better a gunpowder tax than an assault weapons ban.
what do the gun haters like you give in return? given we have the constitution on our side TWICE
1) there is no proper power delegated to the federal government to regulate small arms-your side ignored the tenth amendment under FDR and grabbed that power
2) the second amendment.
each year gun haters like you want to take more from us and give us nothing in return
1. "My side"? I'd have voted against Roosevelt in every election save 1932, and then only residually, as a holdover Al Smith voter in 1928.
2. Congress has the authority to regulate and tax gunpowder sales as it does everything else. Note that I'm not calling for additional taxes on guns.
Gunpowder is mentioned nowhere in it.
Take your pity-party elsewhere.
the idiotic posts from the left are getting beyond pathetic.
a leftwing populist-aka a socialist. you hate individual freedom
your suggestion is stupid, irrational and based on hatred.
it does nothing positive and is designed to make shooting sports too expensive for most people
arms includes bullets and gun powder.
True, but that won't get more gov't and a gunpowder tax too. The idea is to use the latest "crisis" to expand gov't and/or taxation. Get with the program.
I see you've been reduced to sputtering epithets. It's all good fun, my man.
Once more, with feeling: do you want to prevent there from being a massive public backlash against gun ownership? Then you must be prepared to give a little. This principle of 'noncompromise' on the Right has done it more harm than anything else I can think of.
Better a gunpowder tax than an assault weapons ban.
Well, if that's true I'd suggest we just forget about guns, because the gun lobby calls the shots (oops) in this country. It doesn't matter how many dead 6 year olds get piled up.
so you are here to merely bait people? OK
Lets just have a mother killing ban, a gun stealing ban and a mass murder ban as well. Banning heroine, cocaine and extascy worked so well, obviously banning "scary looking" guns will work too, since no criminal orgainization is likely to import and sell them. Since you cannot put that toothpaste back into the tube, and punish the (deceased) moron responsible, you seek to do the next best thing - add gov't and raise taxes. :roll:
Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.
A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.
the power to tax is the power to destroy.
And again: the idea of a gunpowder tax originated in Britain. In the 1890s. In the Party that at the time was associated with low-taxes.
Though, of course, that said, in a modern context, the Democrats did win the last election. Quite handily, too, might I add.
The power to tax is deliberately not using the power to destroy, or else you'd have destroyed and not taxed.
Incidentally, your little threats are puerile and hilarious.
Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.
A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.
Do you remember what happened when the British tried taxing tea?
Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.
A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.
You said that a tax was better than an assualt weapons ban, implying that was the choice being offered. I offer a third alternative - using general revenue, and explained that banning things in demand does not make them go away, it simply transfers their distribution to criminal gangs.
You seem to want to transfer the cost (caring for, identifying or whaterver your plan is) of the mentally deficient onto only legal gun users, rather than simply using general revenue (aka borrowing).
"Using general revenue" is less libertarian than a selective, voluntary tax on a voluntary transaction. By far the largest part of our general revenue comes from income taxes. And raising income taxes indiscriminately on everyone in order to fight gun violence, when not everyone owns guns, is as morally wrong or worse than what you're accusing me of doing.
No, I want to transfer the cost of gun violence prevention onto those most likely to engage in gun violence - gun owners. And I think gun violence prevention, in conjunction with expanded mental health services, and in particular targeted treatment designed to prevent gun violence, is what's most pertinent here.
You ignore one major factor, the lastest infamous mass murderer was not a gun owner at all, he stole those guns from a person that he killed (his own mother). Is it the fault of his mother that she was chosen as his first victim? Perhaps we should tax mothers, since all that commit crimes with guns have had mothers, but may not have ever bought guns.
You ignore one major factor, the lastest infamous mass murderer was not a gun owner at all, he stole those guns from a person that he killed (his own mother). Is it the fault of his mother that she was chosen as his first victim? Perhaps we should tax mothers, since all that commit crimes with guns have had mothers, but may not have ever bought guns.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?