« previous   misc   next »

How about making gun owners pay more taxes


By tovarichpeter   Follow   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:27am PST   2,475 views   58 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/02/181255/commentary-how-about-more-taxes.html

For a lot of people, one is never enough and bigger is always better. That includes magazines that hold more rounds. The 22-caliber, bolt action rifle that I learned to shoot at age 11 as a Boy Scout is insufficient.

« First     « Previous     Comments 19-58 of 58     Last »

Peter P   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 4:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

zzyzzx says

How about making parents pay more taxes? After all, it's for their children!!!

Absolutely! There should be a global child tax. The proceed will be distributed to the people as dividends.

Peter P   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 4:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

Raw says

How about our right to safety?

Yep. Most Americans will not be allowed to drive.

Call it Crazy   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 5:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Comment 21

Reality says

It seems to me, people should get tax breaks for owning guns legally, as that cuts down the profitability of violent gangs and reduce the need to spend on building a paramilitary police.

You might have a good idea there. Gun owners should get a reduction on their homeowners insurance, like they do for having an alarm system. After all, they are providing a better level of security for their home than what the police provide.

New Renter   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 6:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

Of course its was a tax which was the first step to the criminilization of marijuana.

jan   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 6:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

Private gun ownership is not to protect the house, it is to protect yourself from an overreaching government. Once they take the 2nd away it is SO much easier to take away the others. It is a lynch pin issue. And we have an overreaching government.

errc   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 6:23am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 24

What about a tax on people advocating more and higher taxes? I mean, they are so pro more taxes, they'd be lining up to fill the coffers at treasury, right? These same people would certainly never OUTRIGHT CHEAT AND LIE ON THEIR OWN TAXES LMFAO ROFL

mell   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 7:37am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

Raw says

zzyzzx says

How about making parents pay more taxes? After all, it's for their children!!!

We need children to pay for our retirement when they grow up and start working. If anything, we need to invest in them, educate them, and make sure they develop into high earners so that they can pay lots of taxes to support us.

I have grand plans when I retire and want to make sure the future generations can pay for it. :)

Yeah, but this is a ponzi scheme by definition as people become older and older but need more and more expensive medical care during their old years. Does not compute.

New Renter   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 9:34am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

jan says

Private gun ownership is not to protect the house, it is to protect yourself from an overreaching government. Once they take the 2nd away it is SO much easier to take away the others. It is a lynch pin issue. And we have an overreaching government.

How exactly does your glock protect you from higher taxes? Or from warrantless wiretapping?

Reality   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:24pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

New Renter says

How exactly does your glock protect you from higher taxes? Or from warrantless wiretapping?

An un-armed populance would demand ever more heavily armed police and para-military bureaucrats to protect them, instead of taking responsible actions for their own defense. If pilots had been armed on 9/11 and had been trained to fight back instead of submit to criminals like sheep, much of the subsequent loss of liberty in the US may well have been avoided.

lostand confused   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:27pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

Raw says

How about our right to safety?
The right to have our children grow up in
safety must take precedence over the rights of others to own assault
weapons.
We want to live in a safe, progressive and peaceful country.

You would love Mexico, where they have very strict gun laws. The gun market is underground, just like the drug market here. Oh, it isn't safe by any stretch of imagination.

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:30pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

tovarichpeter says

How about making gun owners pay more taxes

tax to discourage their right under the constitution...

sort like a tax to discourage minorities from VOTING...

REALLY only a pompous ass Liberal would think of that...

They seem OK with that ,,,, Irony !

lostand confused   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:37pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

You gun control advocates need to go out and have some fun.

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:38pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

will the anti-gun lobby go after unregistered illegal guns...

like they go after unregistered illegal aliens..

Call it Crazy   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:55pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 32

thomaswong.1986 says

will the anti-gun lobby go after unregistered illegal guns...

like they go after unregistered illegal aliens..

and illegal drugs...

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:59pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

Let's start here:

People who vote for wars, should be required to fund them.

lostand confused   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:01pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 34

Vicente says

Let's start here:


People who vote for wars, should be required to fund them.

Or even better, be shipped off to the frontlines to fight.

New Renter   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:07pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Reality says

If pilots had been armed on 9/11 and had been trained to fight back instead of submit to criminals like sheep, much of the subsequent loss of liberty in the US may well have been avoided.

LOL! You clearly have watched too many bad movies.

The pilots had their hands full just dealing with the airplanes. I doubt even a well trained and armed flight attendant would have risked firing a weapon into a crowded aircraft. It's far more likely any firearms would have ended up in the hands of the terrorists.

Against nutcases armed with box cutters in a crowded aircraft hand to hand combat training would have been FAR more useful.

Nice try though.

New Renter   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:09pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

Reality says

An un-armed populance would demand ever more heavily armed police and para-military bureaucrats to protect them, instead of taking responsible actions for their own defense.

How did it feel when you pulled this out of your ass?

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:12pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 37

New Renter says

Against nutcases armed with box cutters in a crowded aircraft hand to hand combat training would have been FAR more useful.

It wasn't a problem of armament or hand-to-hand combat experts.

It was a mindset problem, that flight crews had it drummed into their heads NOT to resist a hijacking. Because NOBODY would be crazy enough to crash their plane into buildings right? Passengers prior to 9/11 generally would have had this mindset too, wait it out and at the end SWAT or Dirty Harry or someone will clean their clocks.

You didn't need guns on the plane, United Flight 93 proved this point.

New Renter   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:15pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

Vicente says

New Renter says

Against nutcases armed with box cutters in a crowded aircraft hand to hand combat training would have been FAR more useful.

It wasn't a problem of armament or hand-to-hand combat.

It was a mindset problem, that flight crews had it drummed into their heads NOT to resist a hijacking. Because NOBODY would be crazy enough to crash their plane into buildings right? Passengers prior to 9/11 generally would have had this mindset too, wait it out and at the end SWAT or Dirty Harry or someone will clean their clocks.

You didn't need guns on the plane, you just needed crew and passengers to go Flight 93 on the hijackers.

Understood. My point was IF resistance was to be offered hand to hand would have been more effective than a firearm.

Call it Crazy   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:24pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 39

Vicente says

People who vote for wars, should be required to fund them.

I believe they already do.... it's certainly not Obama's 47% that's paying for them.

Reality   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 40

lostand confused says

Vicente says

Let's start here:

People who vote for wars, should be required to fund them.

Or even better, be shipped off to the frontlines to fight.

Agree! And those advocate gun bans should be shipped off to cities like Detroit, Chicago, NYC and DC combat zones where civilian gun ownership is already banned.

Reality   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:05pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 41

New Renter says

LOL! You clearly have watched too many bad movies.

The pilots had their hands full just dealing with the airplanes. I doubt even a well trained and armed flight attendant would have risked firing a weapon into a crowded aircraft. It's far more likely any firearms would have ended up in the hands of the terrorists.

Against nutcases armed with box cutters in a crowded aircraft hand to hand combat training would have been FAR more useful.

Nice try though.

Piloting a modern passenger airliner mid-flight consists of turning on the auto-pilot switch. As for your assertion about firearms being most likely taken by the terrorists, that must be why they put air marshalls on flights. What do you think the air marshalls are armed with? magic lassos?

Reality   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:09pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 42

New Renter says

Reality says

An un-armed populance would demand ever more heavily armed police and para-military bureaucrats to protect them, instead of taking responsible actions for their own defense.

How did it feel when you pulled this out of your ass?

Haven't you noticed where the votes for more police come from? Haven't you noticed the common sight of policemen in former eastern bloc countries where civilian gun ownership was outlawed? That's assuming you travel around the world.

Reality   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:11pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 43

New Renter says

Understood. My point was IF resistance was to be offered hand to hand would have been more effective than a firearm.

That must be why all the air marshalls were armed with a third hand instead of a gun. LOL.

Reality   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:14pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 44

Vicente says

You didn't need guns on the plane, United Flight 93 proved this point.

United Flight 93 proved that when guns are not on the plane, a missile might become necessary to blow up the plane mid-air and spread fragments over several miles. What, you think the passengers took apart the plane mid-air with their bare hands and proceeded to drop the pieces off in the final few miles?

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:44pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 45

Call it Crazy says

I believe they already do

Let me know those "balanced budget" people raise taxes to pay for the wars. Oh right, GOP doesn't raise taxes ever. Wars will magically pay for themselves.

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:57pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 46

thomaswong.1986 says

tax to discourage their right under the constitution...

sort like a tax to discourage minorities from VOTING...

REALLY only a pompous ass Liberal would think of that...

They seem OK with that ,,,, Irony !

Yeah sort of like a VOTING TAX, or trying to make it difficult to register to vote, or stand in unreasonably long lines! I mean, if you in any way ever inconvenience a citizen then you're HITLER! That never happens in America right?

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 2:58pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 47

Vicente says

Let me know those "balanced budget" people raise taxes to pay for the wars

would you be for the Iraq / Afghan invasion had it been paid for ? ... doubtful!

if you dont want to fight cause your a pacifist.. than get out of the way !

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 3:04pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 48

Vicente says

difficult to register to vote, or stand in unreasonably long lines! I mean,

unreasonable long lines.. nada.. very reasonable when over 200M are voting.

and yes.. registering should include checks to see citizen status.. dont want them
damn pesky Canadians influencing American elections.

Safe controls over votingis a must. If Congress mandates Sarbanes Oxley over business/industry than the same standards and best practices should apply to Govt.

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 3:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 49

thomaswong.1986 says

registering should include checks to see citizen status.. dont want them

damn pesky Canadians influencing American elections.

So you're for spending money like a faucet, without any checks to see if it's a REASONABLE expenditure of money. Deploy bulldozers made of gold to swat a fly. You must be one of those spend-happy Libruls. Sort of like that fellow in Florida thought it'd be a BRILLIANT idea to drug-test welfare recipients, which turned up nearly nothing except a fat profit for companies doing drug testing. I'm quite certain I've been told it's only idiotic Libruls who spend money like crazy on fears that have no basis in fact.

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 3:45pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 50

Vicente says

So you're for spending money like a faucet, without any checks to see if it's a REASONABLE expenditure of money. Deploy bulldozers made of gold to swat a fly.

as if you were for someone like Romney when it comes to control spending.

PLEASE.. who you foolin'

Vicente says

Sort of like that fellow in Florida thought it'd be a BRILLIANT idea to drug-test welfare recipients, which turned up nearly nothing except a fat profit for companies doing drug testing.

LOL! South Florida has had blistering problems of coke addicts since the mid 70s.
and many in San Francisco Prime on welfare do buy on the 15 and 30th of the month..
they even wrote a RAP song about it...Bone Thugs-n-Harmony – 1st of tha Month

Proposition N - Care not Cash
This measure appeared on the November 2002 San Francisco ballot.

http://www.spur.org/goodgovernment/ballotanalysis/Nov2002/propn

This measure is an attempt to solve a piece of the homeless problem in San Francisco. It deals with the issue of general assistance cash grants--i.e., "welfare checks"--that are given to homeless people. Currently, San Francisco provides vastly larger amounts of money than other counties in the region. Many people believe that this causes two problems: 1) homeless people from other places come to San Francisco; 2) homeless people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol end up spending their welfare checks on their addictions instead of meeting their basic needs. Care Not Cash attempts to remedy this problem by shifting the city's general assistance support for homeless individuals into the form of vouchers for food and shelter instead of cash.

The Effects of Government Transfers on
Monthly Cycles in Drug Abuse, Crime and Mortality
Carlos Dobkin* and Steven L. Puller**
March 2006
Abstract

This paper analyzes the monthly patterns of adverse outcomes due to the
consumption of illegal drugs by recipients of government transfer payments. We
find evidence that certain subpopulations on government cash aid significantly
increase their consumption of drugs when their checks arrive at the beginning of
the month, and as a result, experience adverse events including arrest,
hospitalization, and death. Using data from California, we find that the overall
rate of drug related hospital admissions increases abruptly at the beginning of the
month, with admissions increasing 25% during the first five days of the month.
We find that this cycle is driven largely by recipients of Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). SSI recipients also experience an abrupt 22% increase in within
hospital mortality after receiving their checks on the first of the month.

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 3:46pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 51

Vicente says

I'm quite certain I've been told it's only idiotic Libruls who spend money like crazy on fears that have no basis in fact.

you been told right.. and so it is!

thomaswong.1986   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 3:54pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 52

The Facts....

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/almost-1600-welfare-applicants-in-florida-decline-to-undergo-drug-testing

Almost 1,600 Welfare Applicants in Florida Decline to Undergo Drug Testing

By Join Together Staff | October 12, 2011 | 28 Comments | Filed in Community Related, Drugs, Government, Legislation & Prevention

Almost 1,600 people applying for welfare benefits in Florida have declined to undergo drug testing, which is required by a new state law. According to state officials, less than one percent of the 7,028 welfare applicants who underwent screening tested positive for drugs since the law went into effect in July.

and what the ACLU said... of course no comments made regarding those who declined to test.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare

In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs — a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 4:38pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 53

thomaswong.1986 says

as if you were for someone like Romney when it comes to control spending.

I'm all for controlling spending, WHEN it make sense. Something I have no idea if President RMoney knows anything about, never worked with him.

I have a crazy relative who'll drive across town to save 10 cents on something. Because they don't have enough sense to include the time cost of the additional drive, and fuel and wear&tear costs to get there and back.

Do you spend $1 to save a dime? How is that "cutting spending"?

What's the cost/benefit on the drug testing?

New Renter   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 1:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 54

Reality says

New Renter says

LOL! You clearly have watched too many bad movies.

The pilots had their hands full just dealing with the airplanes. I doubt even a well trained and armed flight attendant would have risked firing a weapon into a crowded aircraft. It's far more likely any firearms would have ended up in the hands of the terrorists.

Against nutcases armed with box cutters in a crowded aircraft hand to hand combat training would have been FAR more useful.

Nice try though.

Piloting a modern passenger airliner mid-flight consists of turning on the auto-pilot switch. As for your assertion about firearms being most likely taken by the terrorists, that must be why they put air marshalls on flights. What do you think the air marshalls are armed with? magic lassos?

The autopilot is great for a normal flight which a hijacking is far from. the pilots would have tried to get the plane on the ground as quickly - and as safely - as possible. One can' t do that on autopilot.

Perhaps now it might be possible to override and shut out the cockpit entirely and fly a hijacked plane from the ground.

As for air marshals I would think they would be perfectly capable of disarming guys armed with nothing more than boxcutters on a crowded plane without the need of a firearm.

Reality   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 2:11am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 55

New Renter says

The autopilot is great for a normal flight which a hijacking is far from. the pilots would have tried to get the plane on the ground as quickly - and as safely - as possible. One can' t do that on autopilot.

Perhaps now it might be possible to override and shut out the cockpit entirely and fly a hijacked plane from the ground.

The technology has been implemented on airliners for much longer than a decade.

New Renter says

As for air marshals I would think they would be perfectly capable of disarming guys armed with nothing more than boxcutters on a crowded plane without the need of a firearm.

So why do you think the air marshals are armed with guns?

Do you think people become Batman or Superman as soon as they put on the costume of government bureaucrats?

Vicente   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 4:07am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 56

New Renter says

Perhaps now it might be possible to override and shut out the cockpit entirely and fly a hijacked plane from the ground.

Code 16309.

http://youtu.be/N4pcIuo6Kbw

Hacking an airplane, that'd be a great terrorist weapon.

New Renter   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 3:00am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 57

Reality says

New Renter says

As for air marshals I would think they would be perfectly capable of disarming guys armed with nothing more than boxcutters on a crowded plane without the need of a firearm.

So why do you think the air marshals are armed with guns?

Do you think people become Batman or Superman as soon as they put on the costume of government bureaucrats?

Batman or Superman, no. They'd HAVE to be to be capable of taking out a terrorist on a crowded, confined, and physically turbulent aircraft without going through the entire clip on the rest of the passengers and the fuselage OR losing the gun to the terrorist.

Do I think someone can be capable of not needing a firearm to disarm a crazy man with a boxcutter? Yes. How do I know? I personally know people who are very well trained in such matters.

So why do they carry guns? Maybe to make people like you feel better since you don't seem to have any faith in unarmed combat skills.

elliemae   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 3:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 58

Requiring that gun owners pay more taxes would cause people to lie about owning a gun. Also, would probably result in tax credits for owners who are low income. Bad idea.

« First     « Previous comments    

tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net