Dems sponsor bill for 20% tax on guns, 50% on ammo

[DarkStar]

[The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.]

Because "us vs. them" is how they see it.

[The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.]

Because they can't ever get enough money from us.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08 ... -new-bill/

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/26/ ... ammo-82227

[doubloon]

bite me

[Grounded]

Let em. Ill offset it by buying a bridgeport and a reloading press and going off their radar.

[Prince Yamato]

Hooray. The democrats found out about NFA weapons. Now they're going after them to publish law abiding gun owners.

[Historian]

Time to vote them out of office forever???

Get out the vote next year, take back the Senate, and
relegate slimy Harry Reid to the dust bin of history.

Could one say we should be able to CRUZ to victory?

[TROOPER]

This is called "constructive denial", and it is illegal. I'd like to think that the SC would shoot it down much in the way that they would shoot down a 'sin tax' on newspaper ink, but with the current court... who knows. The government mandate that a pulse requires you to buy something passed - and I don't see how that passed "life, liberty, and the pursuit...". How free can someone be if simply drawing air suddenly means they are required to either pay money, or pay money? No different than debtors' prison or indentured servitude.

No seriously, I'm still miffed about a tax on living - which is what Obamacare is since, if you're living, then you have to pay.

[eastern_hunter]

Is sad that the sponsors do not realize that the Second Amendment was created precisely for a time in which such legislators might run the government. But if they did, this kind of bill would never find its way in.

Sad times.

[.300WinMag]

This is called "constructive denial", and it is illegal. I'd like to think that the SC would shoot it down much in the way that they would shoot down a 'sin tax' on newspaper ink, but with the current court... .

Wishful thinking is putting it gently. For reference review the Hughes Amendment / Rangel / how many shits have been by the courts / gov in that 27 yr period.

[TROOPER]

This is called "constructive denial", and it is illegal. I'd like to think that the SC would shoot it down much in the way that they would shoot down a 'sin tax' on newspaper ink, but with the current court... .

Wishful thinking is putting it gently. For reference review the Hughes Amendment / Rangel / how many shits have been by the courts / gov in that 27 yr period.

Yes-and-no. What the Dems are proposing now is an actual sin tax ... a tax meant to influence behavior... not to be confused with Tennessee's tax on ammunition which is low, and about revenue. That said.. the SC took a s--t on the "imminent domain" portion of the Constitution.