It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Documentation of Hillary's Endorsement of a National 25% Retail Sales Tax on Guns

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Here's some good evidence that Hillary Clinton might want a huge tax on gun sales.

Going all the wayyy back to 1993 when the then First Lady Clinton was in front of a Senate hearing and pushing for a massive gun tax.

What goes around comes around.

Documentation of Hillary's Endorsement of a National 25% Retail Sales Tax on Guns


In 1993 Senate testimony Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. And video footage shows her nodding fiercely as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence”

In passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993, Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. Americans for Tax Reform has released footage of Clinton’s visceral facial expressions which shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence.”

Clinton concluded her gun tax endorsement by saying, "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that."


Watch Hillary’s Face as She Endorses A New National 25% Gun Tax







posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
As if guns were not already expensive at it is.

Out of REACH of most people.

The True Cost of Buying a Handgun

Most people buy firearms with what they call disposable income. Something less and less people have these days.

25%?

What does the Bill of RIGHTS have to say on that.

Other than it's an infringement on the second, and the ninth.

But there are TWO others here at play.



Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


www.law.cornell.edu...



Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


www.law.cornell.edu...

More than 20 bucks? Check.

Excessive 'fine' she just calls it a 'TAX'. Check.



Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


www.law.cornell.edu...

I call it a violation of 4 amendments.


Because that is all of the above.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
But what can we do? If we say we're voting for Trump the Europeans will make fun of us!!



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

This doesn't infringe on the second amendment. The other stuff might be correct (I don't know) but this has nothing to do with the second.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: neo96

This doesn't infringe on the second amendment. The other stuff might be correct (I don't know) but this has nothing to do with the second.


Yeah it does.

Making something so expensive most people can't afford it.

INFRINGEMENT.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: neo96

This doesn't infringe on the second amendment. The other stuff might be correct (I don't know) but this has nothing to do with the second.


Sure it does.

Just like a poll tax.




posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: neo96

This doesn't infringe on the second amendment. The other stuff might be correct (I don't know) but this has nothing to do with the second.


Sure it does.

Just like a poll tax.



Add one more amendment violation.

The 24th Amendment Ended the Poll Tax January 23, 1964



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Ah, right, so it's only infringement if the ease of access to guns goes over an arbitrary limit you've set in your head? I know this is an emotional issue for you, but try to think about it logically.

Are the homeless with no access to firearms having their second amendment rights violated?

Face it, this isn't against the second. The other stuff maybe, but not the second.
edit on 5/6/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I met a younger dude probably in his late teens early 20s was at a gun club with his uncle, he was saying he can't understand how we were not afraid to own firearms. Apparently he would be too paranoid to have one in his house because for whatever reason he believes the police will have him on a tight leash type of thing. I was shocked, I told him when I was his age I gave zero #s about any of that. I conclude years of programming and manipulation of information combined with an education system that does not allow young minds to think for themselves.

Grown up opinions in some youth seem to be the opinions of their state sponsored mentors and teachers, anything against those ideas are scary and shocking. At least that what I think when reflecting on some conversations I have with some younger folks.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Sure it does, it infringes on the rights of those who receive a low or minimum wage to keep and bear arms.

It creates an unreasonable financial burden to exercise a right that shall not be infringed.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

If I wanted a firearm, I might purchase one illegally so there is no record and I don't have to pay taxes on it.

But I don't want a firearm. So this is a hypothetical post.

Really.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

This infringes on the second amendment exactly how taxing people who go to church would infringe on the first.

You can't have it where people are free to do thing A or B, but tax those things heavily enough that it excludes even a relatively small minority from participating.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Some people like this tax on guns.

And many of the same people are shouting about voter i.d.'s costing $20.




posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: anon29

So you're saying that everything to do with firearms should be totally tax exempt? (Even a 1% difference would exclude people)
Even then, the very poor would need a subsidy to be able to obtain one...

Bullet stamps? They'd also need a way to get ammunition, apparently.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

No. I'm saying firearms being included in the current sales tax makes sense, and that a new tax being introduced on firearms does not.

That's what I'm saying.

I thought the previous post was pretty elegant. Guess not



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Why is anyone paying for firearms? I just dredge every bit of water I come across and its amazing how many other ATS members are not very good at keeping their guns inside the boat and thus fall overboard
meaning I've got enough even for good ol'bubba to say "get me a beer this is gonna take a long time"


edit on 5-6-2016 by Maxatoria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I honestly don't really care, but the point I'm trying to make is that it has nothing to do with the second amendment. I'm taking the idea that a 25% tax increase is a violation to its logical conclusion. If this is an issue then:

A) Firearms must be totally tax exempt, and/or
B) Firearms must be totally subsidized by the government to the point where any citizen can obtain at least one.

Otherwise all you're doing is deciding on an arbitrary point where it's suddenly a violation. Surely you understand this.
edit on 5/6/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn




Ah, right, so it's only infringement if the ease of access to guns goes over an arbitrary limit you've set in your head?


Actually because a GD piece of Paper says so right along the Bill of RIGHTS.

But hey.

We know CLinton can't read, or she can, and just ignores the hell out of it.



The final phrase of the Taxing and Spending Clause stipulates: but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States


en.wikipedia.org...

Keep on beating a dead horse though.




Are the homeless with no access to firearms having their second amendment rights violated?


And keep on throwing straw mans.

Heres' some more from that GD piece of paper.



No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


SImply put just because Clinton is a gunphobe.

There is no constutitional authority to jack up the price of a good she hates the ever living hell of.

The same argument ALSO applies to tobacco, and alcohol.

Don't know why people let them get away with that snip.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


I disagree. Its intended to prevent low-wage earners from exercising a constitutional right by making it too expensive for them. To me, that's as much an infringement as, for example, a tax on voting or attending a religious service.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Are those quotes are from the second amendment? That's what I'm talking about, after all. If they are from the second then I will agree with you that this is a violation. Otherwise... They're irrelevant.

As I said in my first post:

The other stuff might be correct (I don't know) but this has nothing to do with the second.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join