$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States

Why do SO many come on this forum with how things FEEL?
FINE go cry .

a reply to: namelesss

Fear...what kind of LEAP of logic ingnores reality?
I HAVE seen propaganda since I was a child I'm 55 now.
I submit my judgement is superior,both by training and intelligence.
You have shown nothing to depict your opinion but acusation.
THAT never will work.
MOST would have me on spelling however...

a reply to: namelesss

What's even more "relevant" is that 100% of crimes committed with guns are committed by criminals.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I honestly don't see how it's any different from the "sin taxes" that are added to alcohol and tobacco products.

The difference is those sin taxes were not specifically referenced as guns were. It was important enough to the guys writing it to specifically reference guns and gun laws.
Trying to throw guns taxes in with sin taxes is apples and oranges.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: namelesss
What's even more "relevant" is that 100% of crimes committed with guns are committed by criminals.

What a brilliant grasp of the obvious.
There are many 'legal murders' also, lest we forget.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: namelesss

Fear...what kind of LEAP of logic ingnores reality?

Strawman, ignored.
If you have a specific issue with my 'logic', either be specific, that perhaps we both might learn something, or just leave it alone.

I HAVE seen propaganda since I was a child I'm 55 now.

Then you must be absolutely chock-full of malware, son!

I submit my judgement is superior,both by training and intelligence.

I submit that your vanity and ignorance is only upstaged by your inability to hold a rational philosophical discussion.

You have shown nothing to depict your opinion but acusation.
THAT never will work.

Again, be specific in your complaints, or don't waste our time.
All that you have said thus far, is that you disagree with something that I said and... nyah, nyah..., you feel vindicated in your malware filled 'feelings of superiority'.

With what, EXACTLY, are you disagreeing, or, more 'intellectually', what would you like me to elucidate for you?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: namelesss

In point of fact I have, and probably will again.

I've got my eye on a pair of single shot pistols that will be just about perfect for boars.

What a brave little man!
I am so impressed!
Damned wildlife!
(For what are we overcompensating?)

Oh, wait, on second thought, I actually find that rather cowardly!
And it cries that you are rather lacking in Virtue (Empathy, Sympathy, Charity...) for an animal who will suffer more greatly with your egoic use of (over-compensational) pistols then a rifle!
Why not use a Bowie knife, and your teeth, like a real man? *__-

a reply to: namelesss

It fairly obvious that you know nothing of hunting. Or the pistols I speak of. ...and since you're so judgemental about it, I feel absolutely no need to explain it to you.

Tell me, do you always speak to people in such fashion, or just on an anonymous website? 'cause rudeness like that really is uncalled for.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I honestly don't see how it's any different from the "sin taxes" that are added to alcohol and tobacco products.

The difference is those sin taxes were not specifically referenced as guns were. It was important enough to the guys writing it to specifically reference guns and gun laws.
Trying to throw guns taxes in with sin taxes is apples and oranges.

But "sin taxes" are specifically applied to tobacco and alcohol purchases in those jurisdictions (not sure about gambling). Just as gun taxes would be specifically applied to all gun purchases in those jurisdictions. And Portland's gun tax adds a miniscule $25 per gun, so it's not like it's a large enough cost to deter the purchase itself. That's why it seems not different than a "sin tax" to me.

a reply to: namelesss

It ISN'T philosophy to those who are trained to USE them ,hence another and a rather CLEAR window to a failed debate USING philosophy to attempt to sway such a bread and butter issue.
APPLES and wax fruit Hoss.
The waste is yours as an attempt at semantic engagement, utilizing a more malleable and elaborate,semantic structure to continue to lose an argument,that we already are telling you the answer to which is in fact, N0.
My argument is long established as that of a soldier.
WHAT is YOUR passed?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: namelesss

It fairly obvious that you know nothing of hunting. Or the pistols I speak of. ...and since you're so judgemental about it, I feel absolutely no need to explain it to you.

So, that was easy.
Much easier, it appears, then what it would take to refute my statement about a rifle being a surer painless kill than a pistol.
Or the VAST majority of gun crimes involving those 'pistols' to which you so desperately cling!
Rather, you close your eyes, jamb your fists into your ears dismissing points which seem to bring discomfort by shouting "It fairly obvious that you know nothing of hunting. Or the pistols I speak of. ...and since you're so judgemental about it, I feel absolutely no need to explain it to you."!
What IS fairly obvious is that you cannot refute my points.
I'm NOT asking you to relinquish your pistols, nor do I vote for such, but getting on one knee and admitting philosophical defeat might be in order!
(Just kidding!! *__- )

Tell me, do you always speak to people in such fashion, or just on an anonymous website? 'cause rudeness like that really is uncalled for.

Some people consider it 'rude' to have their 'beliefs' critically examined.
Some consider it 'rude' when they realize that they have no logical defense. (We are NOT 'logical/rational creatures!)
Many consider their reflection in the mirror to be 'rude'.
At first.
'Rude/insult' exists in the eye (thoughts/imagination, ego) of the beholder! *__-
None intended!
Come, have a cup of tea!
If you don't shoot me!
(Again, just kidding!)

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: namelesss

It ISN'T philosophy to those who are trained to USE them ,hence another and a rather CLEAR window to a failed debate USING philosophy to attempt to sway such a bread and butter issue.
APPLES and wax fruit Hoss.
The waste is yours as an attempt at semantic engagement, utilizing a more malleable and elaborate,semantic structure to continue to lose an argument,that we already are telling you the answer to which is in fact, N0.
My argument is long established as that of a soldier.
WHAT is YOUR passed?

You have no argument to what I have said;
Pistols are the least preferred weapon with which to hunt as they offer a less sure painless kill.
You have no argument, you have your emotional ego to defend and offend (and you play with guns!), but no logic/rational support!
All emotion!
With a gun!
Great!
Nor can you deny that those pistols, that you do not need to 'hunt' with, are the primary cowards (yeah, how inflammatory) weapon of street rising crime!
Neither point can you refute.
In which case, perhaps someday you will have a good emotional 'justification' to shoot me, my 'trained killer', as that is how emotionally (rather than intellectually) led people, who play with guns, resolve their emotional conflicts!

Unless you can logically refute my points (and I don't think that you can), let's leave it here.
I'll give you the round, I'm not bringing logic to a gunfight. *__-

originally posted by: tinner07
We have a "massive tax" on cigarettes and nobody seems to care. I am not saying the tax on guns is right, but a 100% tax on smokes would probably be argued in favor here. A $1000 tax on weapons, unless you're buying a .22 at the local 5 and dime seems around 100%. ok maybe 200% I agree it is excessive.

Most of the new handgun market exists in the $300-500 range at retail, with plenty of good, reliable choices in that range. So typically, its going to be at least 200%. The courts might let a smaller tax slide, but this is clearly designed to prevent those of lower income from exercising their rights, and, as such, would very much seem unconstitutional.

As for this other debate...yes, people hunt with handguns. Not as many as with rifles and shotguns, sure, but its also not nearly as uncommon as some might want to believe.

a reply to: namelesss

No you fool, a pistol to me is a close killing tool.
I LIKE animals and YES IT hurts my feelings to watch them die.
Certain people ...NOT so much(Mostly bullies thugs and tangos) again YOU ARE not on the same planet here, YOU don't have a clue how essential they are.
No you are attempting to politically PIGEON HOLE an idea into the wrong answer.
MY father and family has had firearms in our house and I 've shot since 5.
I have had more training with them than YOU have reading.
As to killing a non combatant I would use a knife it's quiet fast and easy with those who can't fight.
BUT BEFORE you 'VICTIM" yourself at the idea, I doubt you would pose any threat requiring it.Philosophers,Yogis,new agers make LOUSY combatants YOU rely onMYSELF and MINE for that.
IN CASE a few details of reality have escaped your studies.
I suppose your next move is to accuse me of perpetuating violence ...the USUAL pedantic fare.
Perhaps you best stick to chakras and leave violence ...and YOUR ideas of it in your books.
I have a TRAITOR attacking my country,I wouldn't suggest a pistol.