New $25 Gun Tax

[Moonbeam]

Another brain dead illiterate playing his crack pipe propaganda organ. Push button A and automaton spits out talking point B. Do you really enjoy being a robot?

Try to be serious, Bobber. Do you know that for a second before I began to post in this thread I considered e-mailing a friend with my intention to spoof this thread because I was sure as hell that some dumb ass like yourself would doubt I was having some fun? Hehe, but I decided against it because anybody stupid enough to think I was serious who know my past style would be to stupid to believe any real evidence. I find it so sad that when I actually said I was having some fun of April Fools Day that you would assume I dredged that up retroactively. Don't you ever feel any personal shame? And now here you are calling me a robot without any evidence to support your claim.

From the OP's link:
----------
"Gun violence is a real problem for us," Preckwinkle said when she proposed the tax in October. "It's a problem for us in our criminal justice system and it's a problem for us in our health care system, and I make no apologies for the proposal."

The proposed gun tax is expected to bring in an estimated $600,000 in revenue.
------------

And yet, over and over like brain dead monkeys dancing to the tune of an organ grinder numerous brain dead illiterates have claimed and continued to claim, before and then after being corrected, that the law won't stop gun violence even though nowhere in the OP was it ever stated that it intended to. How fucking brain dead can Robots be. Now please show me where I am acting similarly to them. It's really sad when a person become so nasty they are willing to be pathetic to get in a jab. You know full well your personal lack of ethical standards doesn't bother me. I have only the hope you can return to the human race where we can feel real sympathy for dumb animals and hope for their evolution. Try not to be a small minded fuck. We have so much in common, otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

No. That's just ignoring reality. SCOTUS has already said reasonable conditions. A challenge would determine what is reasonable. Clearly your argument is unreasonable.

Ask J who wrote this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

[BoberFett]

Try to be serious, Bobber. Do you know that for a second before I began to post in this thread I considered e-mailing a friend with my intention to spoof this thread because I was sure as hell that some dumb ass like yourself would doubt I was having some fun? Hehe, but I decided against it because anybody stupid enough to think I was serious who know my past style would be to stupid to believe any real evidence. I find it so sad that when I actually said I was having some fun of April Fools Day that you would assume I dredged that up retroactively. Don't you ever feel any personal shame? And now here you are calling me a robot without any evidence to support your claim.

From the OP's link:
----------
"Gun violence is a real problem for us," Preckwinkle said when she proposed the tax in October. "It's a problem for us in our criminal justice system and it's a problem for us in our health care system, and I make no apologies for the proposal."

The proposed gun tax is expected to bring in an estimated $600,000 in revenue.
------------

And yet, over and over like brain dead monkeys dancing to the tune of an organ grinder numerous brain dead illiterates have claimed and continued to claim, before and then after being corrected, that the law won't stop gun violence even though nowhere in the OP was it ever stated that it intended to. How fucking brain dead can Robots be. Now please show me where I am acting similarly to them. It's really sad when a person become so nasty they are willing to be pathetic to get in a jab. You know full well your personal lack of ethical standards doesn't bother me. I have only the hope you can return to the human race where we can feel real sympathy for dumb animals and hope for their evolution. Try not to be a small minded fuck. We have so much in common, otherwise.

Try to be serious, Moonfreak. Do you know that for a second before I began to post in this thread I considered e-mailing a friend with my intention to spoof "liberal" stupidity because I was sure as hell that some dumb ass like yourself would doubt I was having some fun? Hehe, but I decided against it because anybody stupid enough to think I was serious who know my past style would be to stupid to believe any real evidence. I find it so sad that when I actually said I was having some fun of April Fools Day that you would assume I dredged that up retroactively. Don't you ever feel any personal shame? And now here you are calling me a robot without any evidence to support your claim.

From the OP's link:
----------
"Gun violence is a real problem for us," Preckwinkle said when she proposed the tax in October. "It's a problem for us in our criminal justice system and it's a problem for us in our health care system, and I make no apologies for the proposal."

The proposed gun tax is expected to bring in an estimated $600,000 in revenue.
------------

And yet, over and over like brain dead monkeys dancing to the tune of an organ grinder numerous brain dead illiterates have claimed and continued to claim, before and then after being corrected, that more laws will stop gun violence even though nobody with a brain believes it will. How fucking brain dead can Robots be. Now please show me where I am acting similarly to them. It's really sad when a person become so nasty they are willing to be pathetic to get in a jab. You know full well your personal lack of ethical standards doesn't bother me. I have only the hope you can return to the human race where we can feel real sympathy for dumb animals and hope for their evolution. Try not to be a small minded fuck. We have so much in common, otherwise.

 

[Matt1970]

------------

And yet, over and over like brain dead monkeys dancing to the tune of an organ grinder numerous brain dead illiterates have claimed and continued to claim, before and then after being corrected, that the law won't stop gun violence even though nowhere in the OP was it ever stated that it intended to. How fucking brain dead can Robots be. Now please show me where I am acting similarly to them. It's really sad when a person become so nasty they are willing to be pathetic to get in a jab. You know full well your personal lack of ethical standards doesn't bother me. I have only the hope you can return to the human race where we can feel real sympathy for dumb animals and hope for their evolution. Try not to be a small minded fuck. We have so much in common, otherwise.

So this is just another example of taking advantage of a good crisis. The government's answer to anything it can't fix is to just tax it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Ask J who wrote this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Oooh Oooh I know I know. And that is also the exact same ruling I referenced in page one when Matt1970 stated that no elaboration was needed on the blanket claim made by Outhouse that owning guns is a right that can't be subjected to any kind of taxation, according to SCOTUS.

Still haven't seen this ruling saying as such.

 

[Matt1970]

Oooh Oooh I know I know. And that is also the exact same ruling I referenced in page one when Matt1970 stated that no elaboration was needed on the blanket claim made by Outhouse that owning guns is a right that can't be subjected to any kind of taxation, according to SCOTUS.

Still haven't seen this ruling saying as such.

I don't think that was the ruling he was refering to.

 

[Fern]

I suspect the stated purpose of the tax will be what renders it unconsitutional, if so found.

A new $25 tax on every gun purchased in the county took effect Monday as part of County Board President Toni Preckwinkle's plan to pay for the violence she says crowds jails and drives up health care costs.
"There are responsible gun owners in Cook County who use firearms for either protection or recreation," Preckwinkle said at the time. "However, the social and economic cost of the criminal and irresponsible use is very high. As a result, Cook County residents are paying for the negative impact of a product that only a small portion our population uses."

Unequally burdening only those who elect to avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment right(s) strikes me as very problematic. Law enforcement, and its costs, are something that benefit the entire community. The (apparent) argument that crimes costs caused by criminals using guns should be funded by noncriminals using their weapons lawfully seem very specious to me. If a majority of the criminals were black could we also charge a tax on all black people because they share that characteristic? If a majority of the criminals lack an education can we also charge a tax on all uneducated people because they share that characteristic?

If this ever gets to the SCOTUS I could imagine some comical Q&A's during the hearing.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

I suspect the stated purpose of the tax will be what renders it unconsitutional, if so found.



Unequally burdening only those who elect to avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment right(s) strikes me as very problematic. Law enforcement, and its costs, are something that benefit the entire community. The (apparent) argument that crimes costs caused by criminals using guns should be funded by noncriminals using their weapons lawfully seem very specious to me. If a majority of the criminals were black could we also charge a tax on all black people because they share that characteristic? If a majority of the criminals lack an education can we also charge a tax on all uneducated people because they share that characteristic?

If this ever gets to the SCOTUS I could imagine some comical Q&A's during the hearing.

Fern

You raise a valid argument against what was actually proposed by the OP's link, unlike so many others here who can't read or think. I see guns as the cause of gun violence, I see alcohol as the cause of drunk driving, I see cigarettes as the cause of lung cancer. The last two are taxed to cover the cost society has to bear for irresponsible folk exercising their rights. I do now see why taxes on guns would be any different. How would you defend against that?

It is unfair to tax sinners but it is also unfair that they indirectly tax us.

 

[Fern]

You raise a valid argument against what was actually proposed by the OP's link, unlike so many others here who can't read or think. I see guns as the cause of gun violence, I see alcohol as the cause of drunk driving, I see cigarettes as the cause of lung cancer. The last two are taxed to cover the cost society has to bear for irresponsible folk exercising their rights. I do now see why taxes on guns would be any different. How would you defend against that?
-snip-

I would tax illegal use of firearms.

(But since that behavior is already criminalized, with fines, that seems redundant and unnecessary.)

Fern

 

[Spungo]

how many criminals buy legal guns?

Most of them? Those guns don't magically appear. A person buys a legal gun then sells it to a criminal on something like craiglist. This is not a complicated riddle.

This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money.

 

[Moonbeam]

Most of them? Those guns don't magically appear. A person buys a legal gun then sells it to a criminal on something like craiglist. This is not a complicated riddle.

This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money.

Do you care about gun violence?

 

[Moonbeam]

I would tax illegal use of firearms.

(But since that behavior is already criminalized, with fines, that seems redundant and unnecessary.)

Fern

I asked you how you would defend the notion that since we tax cigarettes and alcohol because of the damage they do to society and all who buy them pay that tax, why would it be illegal to tax gun sales. How do you counter that the logic of my argument? I don't see your proposed solution does that.

 

[Alex C]

a right guaranteed by the constitution is not taxable and against a SCOTUS ruling.

Firearms and ammunition have been taxed since 1937.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

 

[OverVolt]

The proposed gun tax will give them $25 in tax revenue, like one guy won't hear about it and buy his gun somewhere else.

Delaware has no sales tax and you cross the border and its like strip malls galore, LOL do they really think people won't just drive to the next county?

 

[Spungo]

Do you care about gun violence?

Give me $25 and I'll tell ya

 

[Moonbeam]

Give me $25 and I'll tell ya

Why? I knew that a person who assumes that others only care about money only cares about money himself which you only substantiated by asking for 25dollars.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Do you care about gun violence?

How is this tax going to do anything about gun violence?

 

[Moonbeam]

The proposed gun tax will give them $25 in tax revenue, like one guy won't hear about it and buy his gun somewhere else.

Delaware has no sales tax and you cross the border and its like strip malls galore, LOL do they really think people won't just drive to the next county?

"The proposed gun tax is expected to bring in an estimated $600,000 in revenue."

Do you seriously think I would drive very far and waste gas and my infinitely valuable time to save 25 dollars. I have money to buy convenience and I'm not the only one who knows the value of money.

 

[chucky2]

In Reality though, that's just what a ton of people are going to do. Unless you've lived here, I don't think you understand the intense dislike for Crook Co. People will waste more than $25 in gas and their own time to go purchase in Will, Lake, DuPage, McHenry, or even Indiana, to give the finger to Crook/Chicago.

Chuck

 

[cubby1223]

People in Chicago absolutely do travel out of the city to buy things. They don't make daily trips for single items. But when situations take them out to a suburb, they take the opportunity to stock up on items to last until the next time they expect to be out in the suburbs again.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I would do it just out of principle. And it's not like people buy guns every day.

 

[Moonbeam]

How is this tax going to do anything about gun violence?

The first objection to the law was that it would do no good stopping gun violence which I pointed out had nothing to do with the intention of the legislation, the actual intention of which was to do something about the cost of gun violence to the tax payer by raising revenue to pay some of the cost from gun owners rather than raising it elsewhere. With one bull shit argument down against the legislation, a new front opened:

"This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money."

In this little beauty we see the idea that yes, the legislation really isn't specifically about reducing gun violence, but with the implication that's the pretense, with the real goal to get their hands on money. So now we have politicians who know that raising taxes on gun sales will do nothing to curb gun violence, and say nothing about doing so with their law, but do say they intend to have gun owners pay for some of the costs of that violence by a new gun tax law, are only doing it for the money, as if it were going somewhere other than specifically stated, like maybe in their own pocket.

So we have an imbecile of a poster who says that under the guise of decreasing gun violence, with no such claims made, the secret intention was to raise money, which is exactly what the law makers said, that they care nothing for gun violence but yet are raising money to ameliorate the effects. This is the thought process of a brain dead asshole.

So the answer to your question, obviously, is that what the law may do about gun violence is raise more funds to deal positively with its effects, pay medical costs for emergency rooms, more prison cells for shooters, etc. Nowhere in the OP was there any indication that the law intended to do more that ameliorate the onerous financial effects of an area badly plagued by gun violence and limited tax base.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would do it just out of principle. And it's not like people buy guns every day.

It doesn't make any difference what you would do. The estimate was 600 thousand additional taxes. Do you have a reason to question that estimate? What if it were half or less, wouldn't it still be money to spend on folk who have been shot? Do you want to dump them in the street because you have principles?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The first objection to the law was that it would do no good stopping gun violence which I pointed out had nothing to do with the intention of the legislation...

Then why did you later respond to someone by asking "Do you care about gun violence"?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It doesn't make any difference what you would do.

It doesn't matter any less than what you would. I was responding to your comment that you wouldn't go out of your way to save $25.