Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Government Now Tax Handgun Ammunition 10,000%?
http://www.americanthinker.com ^ | July 02 2012 | Michael Filozof

Posted on 07/02/2012 11:28:28 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45

Conservatives still reeling from Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to uphold the 2,700-page ObamaCare legislation as a Federal tax are rightly worried that Roberts opened the door to unlimited Federal coercion of the American public through the tax code. One possibility that should generate grave concern is that the Federal government could use to the tax code to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark decisions affirming Second Amendment rights in Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago. This is not a new idea; it is an old one. The New York Times reported in 1993 that the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) proposed adding a 10,000% Federal tax to 9mm handgun ammunition as part of "HillaryCare." Yes, you read that correctly; it is not a typo. Ten thousand percent. Did John Roberts just open the door for a future Democratic Congress to actually enact such a tax as part of ObamaCare? Of course, like most left-wing Democratic proposals, the truly rich would be unaffected. The goal of the gun-controllers has never been total disarmament, just the disarmament of the common man. The rich will always have a loophole, a political connection, or be able to hire private armed security firms. A truly wealthy person -- say, a Warren Buffett -- could easily pay a 10,000 per cent tax on a box of handgun ammunition, and it would be an absolute bargain if he ever had to use it to save his life. But most people would probably not be able to afford it -- and they'd just have to submit to the will of the armed criminal who stole his ammunition or purchased it on the black market without paying the tax.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: cripplecreek
I don’t know why not. In 09 the tax on loose cigarette tobacco rose by 2300%

You're correct - and don't forget, that is to fund health insurance for kids.

Since the ruling says the eds can impose a ta for not doing something, non-smokers, especially those who hailed that increased tax, should be required to pay a tax for NOT smoking. After all, it is for the children!

21 posted on 07/02/2012 12:14:39 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Didn’t Pat Moynahan (sp?) propose that back in the 1990s?

His idea was to tax ammo so high that people couldn’t afford it.

Don’t bet that this can’t or won’t be on their minds.


22 posted on 07/02/2012 12:15:00 PM PDT by History Repeats (If Obama had a son, he'd have his picture hanging on the wall of the Post office wanted board.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

If they do, lets give them our ammo. From the business end.


23 posted on 07/02/2012 12:15:52 PM PDT by crosshairs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

As long as they don’t charge the tax...retroactively. ;~)


24 posted on 07/02/2012 12:18:57 PM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

They can tax anything they want now. You’ll be paying property tax out of the ying-yang for your firearms—if you can afford it. They found the golden key.


25 posted on 07/02/2012 12:23:24 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
You're correct - and don't forget, that is to fund health insurance for kids.

Here in Michigan, the state tax on tobacco also rose which lead to an inevitable decline (Plummet) in revenues. This in tun led to a search for something new to tax. One thing they seriously considered was taxing food eaten by restaurant employees.

I seriously believe we need to take a ball peen hammer to the forehead of the American public by letting us pay all the taxes directly at the point of sale.
26 posted on 07/02/2012 12:24:20 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mick

What is non military about a saw off shotgun.

They have been in the military before rifles were.


27 posted on 07/02/2012 12:24:32 PM PDT by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Once the government carries people either by subsidies for private insurance or they become the single payer plan, then it will happen.

Anything that the government says is a "health risk", they will tax it sky high. The government will say you have the freedom to buy ice cream, tobacco, or ammunition, but because of the "health risks" associated with it, it will have such high taxes with it that it will become unaffordable.

They can easily call a box of ammo a heath risk, and since they pay for health costs, they need to tax it higher. They will say that the people that practice unhealthy lifestyles must pay a higher tax than those that lead a healthy lifestyle.

The tax percentage on ammunition will probably be much higher than the percentage they put on tobacco. The percentage will match their hatred for it.

28 posted on 07/02/2012 12:26:07 PM PDT by GregoTX (Federalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

We have?


29 posted on 07/02/2012 12:27:43 PM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Yes, we have.

Judge blocks Fla. law restricting doctor gun talk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2778882/posts

Fla. lawsuit: Can doctors ask patients about guns?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2748280/posts

Does that ring a bell?


30 posted on 07/02/2012 12:32:51 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

This is exactly the point of socialized healthcare.
There isn’t an aspect of your life that won’t have an impact on healthcare costs for the collective.
They can control EVERYTHING you do, eat, drink, breathe, etc.
Of course, the one “health risk” they won’t be addressing is homobuttsex. That health risk will be totally ignored, if not required... j/k, sort of.


31 posted on 07/02/2012 12:37:36 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WKUHilltopper

They have been taxing our cell phones. There is a universal fee on our bills which covers free phones for the poor. We had no choice but yet we pay it. I suppose one could be forced to pay a tax if they DON’T have a cell phone. Same for life insurance, if one doesn’t have it, they can be taxed and I expect that is coming. How bout cable tv, if you chose not to have cable you will be taxed. I suspect all of this is just a few years and attorneys away.


32 posted on 07/02/2012 12:38:47 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek

I blew off that much ammo yesterday at the range.


33 posted on 07/02/2012 12:40:02 PM PDT by Gaffer (NOVEMBER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
I think we have now established that the Federal government can pretty much tax whatever the hell it wants to tax, because it now freely ignores restrictions on its power as imposed by Constitutional enumeration. The government cannot force you to buy something, but it can tax you if you do, or if you do not.

But I am relatively certain that if the cost of a box of, say, .45ACP ammunition suddenly went from $19.95 to $1,995.00, those responsible would eventually see a great deal of such ammunition. But not in the stores.

34 posted on 07/02/2012 12:46:53 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; All

Since the ruling says the eds can impose a ta for not doing something, non-smokers, especially those who hailed that increased tax, should be required to pay a tax for NOT smoking. After all, it is for the children!

Just wait until they decide to tax parents who do not send their kids to public schools.

35 posted on 07/02/2012 12:56:00 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner

You’re right about that.

The problem was that nobody showed up at the “Miller” hearing to make that point.


36 posted on 07/02/2012 12:57:14 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
yep...but only if you have ammo inside you, inserted by outside force, and you visit a hospital for said ammo to be removed and you have no insurance.
37 posted on 07/02/2012 1:00:14 PM PDT by stylin19a (Obama - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Why were they asking? I don’t really see anything wrong here. All someone has to do, is not answer or just say they don’t own any.


38 posted on 07/02/2012 1:25:55 PM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

They can try, but it’d be a silly way for them to commit suicide.


39 posted on 07/02/2012 1:28:43 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Because firearms are considered a health hazard like smoking and obesity.


40 posted on 07/02/2012 1:31:47 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson