Would you support this?

[A 7.62 Exodus]

So, I was laying in bed last night, just thinking about stuff when I had this thought. Before I start: mods, I feel like this could go a million different places, so feel free to move it if you see fit.

Would you support a bill that taxes every new firearms related purchase at some percentage if that money went to a fund, and only that fund, to fight against illegal guns. We all know that it's illegal guns, owners, and purchasers that are giving us a bad name, so how would you feel paying a tax that went straight to the proper authorities to go after these types of people?

Just a thought. Discuss

 

[JollyMon]

No. Because it wont do anything to prevent theft.

 

[Que]

That seems to be the reason behind every tax: so the proper authorities can do something to make things better. I've not seen one work so far, so I'm a "No" on this one.

 

[baldmax]

I vote no. We do not need any new tax. The government has agencies in place to fight this. They already get enough of my money.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

That seems to be the reason behind every tax: so the proper authorities can do something to make things better. I've not seen one work so far, so I'm a "No" on this one.

Fair enough. I may have posted the thread, but I'm not entirely on board myself. I'm looking forward to seeing what some other people have to say on the matter

 

[eldirector]

1) There are no (well, very few) illegal guns
2) We already spend millions enforcing "gun laws"
3) The same people that enforce these laws spend millions BREAKING the same laws
4) Violent crime is already at the lowest rate in decades, and trending down, with law enforcement funded at CURRENT levels.

Personally, if my money was going to be taken by force, I would prefer that it be spent on long-lasting fixes to the root problems. Not more band-aids.

 

[HoughMade]

Every new tax makes sense to someone....so to honor Nancy Reagan, I'll just say NO.

 

[KG1]

Put me down for no. They would use that money to create an even bigger draconian environment that would effect ALL gun owners.

 

[spec4]

No, we are already taxed to pay for our criminal justice program. Makes as much sense to me as the Chicago (Crook County) tax on guns to pay for govt services to shooting victims.

 

[AngryRooster]

No. The money rarely goes for what it's supposed to. It's not the guns that need regulated, it's the criminals. Regulating the criminals goes WAY deeper than just keeping them in jail or enforcing the current laws. It goes back to how people think, the morals & respect they are raised with and retain, etc. There is no tax that can do that.

Even if the money did go where it was supposed to, under who's definition are we getting the meaning of "illegal"? There is no guarantee that what's legal now will remain that way. Change the simple meaning of a couple of words and you change the intent of the entire thing.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, I was laying in bed last night, just thinking about stuff when I had this thought. Before I start: mods, I feel like this could go a million different places, so feel free to move it if you see fit.

Would you support a bill that taxes every new firearms related purchase at some percentage if that money went to a fund, and only that fund, to fight against illegal guns. We all know that it's illegal guns, owners, and purchasers that are giving us a bad name, so how would you feel paying a tax that went straight to the proper authorities to go after these types of people?

Just a thought. Discuss

No. There's already taxes getting paid, employees being hired, facilities and assets built and bought to combat the people that use guns for illegal purposes. Throwing more money at the problem (which is not guns by the way) will not help. It's a heart problem not a gun problem and money is not the answer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Would you support a bill that taxes every new firearms related purchase at some percentage if that money went to a fund,

We have this already.

How's it working out?

 

[Thor]

No. The extra money should go to buying me ammo to defend against illegal guns.

 

[olhorseman]

I'm a ho, my vote can be bought with

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

We have this already.

How's it working out?

Kirk, I knew you'd be along to knock it out of the park. Oh, and to answer your question: it isn't

 

[jgressley2003]

We are taxed enough as it is, no I would not support it.

 

[Flyingbrian]

I have to sy no on this. It has already been said but worth repeating. Rarely does a new tax go for its original intent

 

[Old Dog]

No, No and No again!!
The Pitman- Robertson Act placed a tax on all firearms and archery equipment back in 1937. The revenue generated from this excise tax is apportioned to state wildlife agencies for conservation efforts, hunter's education and shooting projects and programs. Do you see the results? A lot of land purchases and mandatory hunter ed courses (which are taught mostly by volunteers), but very few public ranges and shooting projects. So the tax and spend does not work out with any equity for the stated purposes.
Besides:
There are no illegal guns, only people who illegally possess or use guns.
State and Federal agencies spend millions enforcing "gun laws" and the same agencies are also BREAKING those laws.
The agencies that would be in charge of using these tax funds are the very agencies that are also charged with restricting your gun rights per current laws.
Don't want the CDC receiving any additional funds to push more bogus "health" research trying to prove that guns are a health issue (and don't think that wouldn't happen with what's her face).

 

[Mgderf]

No, No and No again!!
The Pitman- Robertson Act placed a tax on all firearms and archery equipment back in 1937. The revenue generated from this excise tax is apportioned to state wildlife agencies for conservation efforts, hunter's education and shooting projects and programs. Do you see the results? A lot of land purchases and mandatory hunter ed courses (which are taught mostly by volunteers), but very few public ranges and shooting projects. So the tax and spend does not work out with any equity for the stated purposes.
Besides:
There are no illegal guns, only people who illegally possess or use guns.
State and Federal agencies spend millions enforcing "gun laws" and the same agencies are also BREAKING those laws.
The agencies that would be in charge of using these tax funds are the very agencies that are also charged with restricting your gun rights per current laws.
Don't want the CDC receiving any additional funds to push more bogus "health" research trying to prove that guns are a health issue (and don't think that wouldn't happen with what's her face).

^ Bravo sir!
Now THAT is a quality post. Rep's inbound.

 

[ruger1800]

ARE YOU FREAKING INSANE? DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT I PAY WAY MORE THAN A FAIR SHARE OF TAXXXXXX