Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather
impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.
Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies who
have to clean up the mess after a shooting.
And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type
And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
firearms that they have never shot?
And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you
believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?
Which presumably you've never shot if you don't have any problem with
a box of shells costing 250 bucks.
By the way, how much tax would you charge on a can of powder or a box
of primers? And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
I guess you assume they will never be shot.
As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your definition
A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.
I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.
Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but
The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat
ballast was a total PITA.
Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.
Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.
As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost
of a usable weapon.
The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.
Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim
them for another purpose.
The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.
Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves to
hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.
I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference between
the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that
they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something *is*
enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.
Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out
there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the
right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.
Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those
citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today who
would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to do
You may say that you see a moral difference between the right to free
speech and the right to bear arms -- there are those who see the right to
free speech as something that is outmoded and should be subject to
strict "guidelines" that prevent giving offense to various protected
The fact is, that there are those now who say that the freedom enshrined
in the Constitution is no longer relevant and that the Constitution is an
impediment to the government exercising more control over our lives (for
our good of course -- it's always for our good). *That* is exactly why the
Constitution was established as it was -- to protect us from those who
would enslave us "for our own good". Just because the excuses given for
that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of
tyrannical behavior has not changed.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
And you know what, there is a mechanism to change anything that is outdated.
If someone wants to remove the 2nd amendment, they can go through the
defined process. But they're not going to backdoor it with the moronic idea
of taxing ammo.
But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof,
human nature has not changed one iota. :)
Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon
volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like
"Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ...
English translations abound:
All characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in
the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ... :)
Yep. Started reading Gibbon again shortly after the election and it
is actually giving me some hope that we have actually made some
Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to
demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't have
the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your ass.
Why should I prove that your solution addresses the problem that you
Then how is it that buying wheel weights at a store for purposes of
casting bullets for reloading purposes is not cost effective when you
are charging your ten dollar a bullet tax?
You really don't seem to have even tried to think this idea of yours
through and when challenged to do so you fall back on glib responses
and attempts to shift the burden of proof. I am curious as to why you
are so resistant to examining your own views.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.