How about making gun owners pay more taxes


By tovarichpeter   Follow   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 8:27am   1,568 views   58 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080   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     Viewing Comments 19-58 of 58     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    117 threads
    18,136 comments

    19   12:58pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  2. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    117 threads
    18,136 comments

    20   12:59pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Raw says

    How about our right to safety?

    Yep. Most Americans will not be allowed to drive.

  3. Call it Crazy


    Follow
    Befriend
    752 threads
    9,424 comments

    21   1:38pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    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.

  4. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    22   2:01pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

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

  5. jan


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    84 comments
    McKeesport, PA

    23   2:10pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  6. errc


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    46 threads
    2,413 comments
    32 male

    24   2:23pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    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

  7. mell


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    267 threads
    3,368 comments
    San Francisco, CA

    25   3:37pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  8. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    26   5:34pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  9. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    27   8:24pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  10. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    444 threads
    2,874 comments

    28   8:27pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  11. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    29   8:30pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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 !

  12. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    444 threads
    2,874 comments

    30   8:37pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

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

  13. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    31   8:38pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

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

    like they go after unregistered illegal aliens..

  14. Call it Crazy


    Follow
    Befriend
    752 threads
    9,424 comments

    32   8:55pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

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

    like they go after unregistered illegal aliens..

    and illegal drugs...

  15. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    33   8:59pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Let's start here:

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

  16. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    444 threads
    2,874 comments

    34   9:01pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  17. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    35   9:07pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  18. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    36   9:09pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  19. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    37   9:12pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    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.

  20. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    38   9:15pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  21. Call it Crazy


    Follow
    Befriend
    752 threads
    9,424 comments

    39   9:24pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  22. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    40   10:02pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  23. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    41   10:05pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  24. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    42   10:09pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  25. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    43   10:11pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  26. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    44   10:14pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  27. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    45   10:44pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  28. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    46   10:57pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  29. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    47   10:58pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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 !

  30. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    48   11:04pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    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.

  31. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    49   11:20pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  32. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    50   11:45pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  33. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    51   11:46pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    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!

  34. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    52   11:54pm Sat 2 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  35. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    53   12:38am Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  36. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    54   9:49am Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  37. Reality


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    3,938 comments

    55   10:11am Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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?

  38. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    258 threads
    5,664 comments
    Davis, CA

    56   12:07pm Sun 3 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  39. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    6,031 comments
    San Jose, CA

    57   11:00am Mon 4 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    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.

  40. elliemae


    Follow
    Befriend (25)
    462 threads
    7,711 comments
    Saint George, UT
    elliemae's website
    Premium

    58   11:32am Mon 4 Feb 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    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   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 345 milliseconds to create.