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

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Are those quotes are from the second amendment? T

Oh wow.

'Hello police?. I think I am getting trolled.'.

One more time:

Taxing and Spending Clause

a reply to: vor78

I actually agree with that. However, the argument I am making is that if increased taxation on guns is a violation of the second specifically then logically it must follow that any taxation or limited access on guns is a violation. If it is fine for the poor and homeless to not have access to firearms, then it follows that it is also fine for all but the obscenely wealthy to not have access to firearms. If it is okay for a single person to have access, then it is also fine for all but a single person to have access. Otherwise it is arbitrary and hypocritical.

a reply to: neo96

I'm not trolling you, I'm trying to drill the point into your head that I am talking about the second amendment, and only the second amendment. All other documents are irrelevant and I have already stated that you are correct in those matters.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You're having trouble with this one!

Let's try another analogy.

Person A is a Christian and goes to First Baptist Church of townsville.

Person B is a Hindu and goes to...wherever Hindus go to hum.

The government decides that there needs to be a tax on Hindus when they hum. However, there is no tax imposed on Christians going to church.

This would be a violation of the 1st amendment. I think that's fairly clear.

Still with me?

In this analogy the religions represent different products. Let's say that the Christians going to church represents Old Spice deodorant, and that the Hindu humming represents a Sig Sauer P226.

Both the Old Spice and P226 are products that are manufactured and sold to consumers and are subject to sales tax. If the government says that starting now, the P226 is subject to an additional tax even though there is an amendment requiring that the government create no unreasonable barrier for a person to bear arms, well then we have a problem.

I would agree with you that this line of thinking suggests that there should be no tax on guns. While that is a nice idea, and probably should be the case if we actually followed the constitution, we do not live in an anime fantasy world. If we did income tax would also be declared unconstitutional and I would buy an octopus to pleasure my girlfriend.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I think you can make the argument that any tax on firearms is an infringement. That being said, I would assume that the sales tax application to firearms sales would stand up to judicial scrutiny since it applies to virtually everything. The problem here is that this is a targeted tax.

As for equal access, I would point out that 2A is a limitation on government. Perhaps the government should provide means for low income earners to purchase firearms, but as it stands, firearms sales are transactions between private citizens and private businesses. Maybe the government is slacking on its obligations to its citizens, but private businesses have a right to turn a profit on their products.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I am talking about the whole shebang.

AS INFRINGE is defined.

Since apparently TAXES Being uniform throughout the united states is getting ignored.

From the dictionary.

: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US ) : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

www.merriam-webster.com...

Now then.

A 25% tax LEVIED by the state on a $500 firearm means a person has to cough up another $125 bucks to PRACTICE a Constitutional RIGHT.

That is an infringement.

A 25 % tax LEVIED by the state on an 'assault' weapon that cost $1500 means a person has to cough up another $375 bucks to practice a Constitutional RIGHT.

INFRINGEMENT!

: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Come on now say it with me.

I-N-F-R-I-N-G-E-M-E-N-T!

If people think healthcare is a right and should be provided by government. . .

And we KNOW gun ownership is a right, then why doesn't government provide firearms?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If people think healthcare is a right and should be provided by government. . .

And we KNOW gun ownership is a right, then why doesn't government provide firearms?

If I ever ran for potus.

I would make it a RIGHT LOL.

I would create a bloated big government program that robs from the rich, and give GUNS to the poor and huddled masses!

People would LOVE ME!

a reply to: anon29

I'm not arguing that it's not a problem, I'm arguing that it's not a violation of the second amendment specifically, unless you believe that guns should be tax exempt.

I would agree with you that this line of thinking suggests that there should be no tax on guns. While that is a nice idea, and probably should be the case if we actually followed the constitution, we do not live in an anime fantasy world. If we did income tax would also be declared unconstitutional and I would buy an octopus to pleasure my girlfriend.

A lot of things would be different if you actually followed the constitution (for better or worse.) This ties into an overall point that I haven't addressed which is that the constitution actually has no "real" power. What it does is provide a focal point for the will of the people and hardens their minds against change and influence. What the second amendment actually means is an arbitrary thing depending on who you are. For instance, I can (and have before) made a totally logical argument that the government is obligated to make sure that every citizen possesses at least one or two military-grade firearms with ammunition at all times, but can otherwise ban sales of guns or whatever they want. Obviously it's incorrect from your perspective, but if you squint your eyes and tilt your head sideways then it isn't wrong.

It's like money, or diamonds. Only valuable because everyone has decided (or been tricked into thinking) that they are.

a reply to: neo96

You sound like someone I know....

a reply to: DBCowboy

Wouldn't that be socialism, though?
Don't you hate socialism?

Also, yes, there is a technical argument to be made that the government is obligated to provide firearms to every citizen irrespective of context.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wouldn't that be socialism, though?
Don't you hate socialism?

Also, yes, there is a technical argument to be made that the government is obligated to provide firearms to every citizen irrespective of context.

My point alludes to a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

This imposition of taxes to manipulate gun ownership is an example of government taking things away because they want to.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This imposition of taxes to manipulate gun ownership is an example of government taking things away because they want to.

Some people can't see the forest for the trees.

a reply to: neo96

I am talking about the whole shebang.

AS INFRINGE is defined.

Since apparently TAXES Being uniform throughout the united states is getting ignored.

Yes, yes it is. Well, technically not ignored. I told you I agreed with you there.

Now then.

A 25% tax LEVIED by the state on a $500 firearm means a person has to cough up another $125 bucks to PRACTICE a Constitutional RIGHT.

That is an infringement.

The question you must ask yourself is thus: Isn't the firearm being $500 in the first place already an infringement? Shouldn't it be free? Why is it okay to have to pay $500 to practice a constitutional right, but not okay to have to pay $625? (Purely in context of the second. We've already agreed that the additional taxing is already unconstitutional.)

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The question you must ask yourself is thus: Isn't the firearm being $500 in the first place already an infringement?

The reason a gun costs $500 to begin with is because of the 80 plus years of UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun control.

Regulations effect price points as much as anything else.

On top of the TAXES which really shouldn't even exist to begin with as someone already pointed out.

Hell we had the Boston Tea Party for taxation without representation which is what those taxes are.

Up to and including what Clinton wanted to do.

You know how much a gun goes for in the street ?

If you are an ex-con with the right connections and you are buying, a Glock, a Colt 1911 or a clone, or other semi-auto handgun will cost $150 to $200. Revolvers are less valuable, but a .357 or larger will cost at least $150 – while smaller calibers usually cost $75 for a Jennings or equivalent to $100 for a Beretta Jetfire or equivalent. But if your street name is “Sum Dood,” the price depends on your desperation

extranosalley.com...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If people think healthcare is a right and should be provided by government. . .

And we KNOW gun ownership is a right, then why doesn't government provide firearms?

Maybe they want to tax guns and require everybody to buy one.

Just like insurance !!!

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some people like this tax on guns.

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

Let's play their games.

Background check to vote.

Then a mandatory 'cooling' off period

Wait 6 months to make their vote 'quiet' only after the FEDS sign off.

Then a $200 tax stamp levied.

Then one day create a 25% voting tax on top of all of the above.

Who cares if it's a constitutional RIGHT!

Let's treat voters like gun owners!!!!

Money for the government and limiting firearms to certain people. Want a bigger black market, this will help it.

This is a good way to keep the poor from owning guns.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having such a problem with? It would be a direct violation of the second amendment.

There's a reason it never gained any traction. It would not have withstood a court challenge. Not even in the ninth circuit here on the left coast.

A 25% sales tax on an item is prohibitive in the extreme.