Two state lawmakers say they'll sponsor a bill to repeal state taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition in Oklahoma.Well, that would be consistent with "shall not be infringed."
Which kind of opens the door for questioning why we have what was supposed to be a taxing agency...
Hmmmm...
ReplyDeleteWondering, Would the WoG crowd support a standard sales tax on Guns and Ammo (In fact on all finished goods) if it meant getting rid of the income tax?
I understand the argument that a tax is a way to prohibit the purchase of guns or to infringe on the purchasing of guns.
The problem is that that really is a slippery slope, we can't then tax computers because they can be used for free speech.
Well now, computers et allia, are not mentioned in the Constitution. Gun people advocated and fought for taxes on guns and ammunition to raise revenue that is solely devoted to wildlife conservation. Anti-gun people don't pay those taxes, but they have greedily eyed the money raised. They just envision a better place to spend it. Sam W
ReplyDeleteComputers are mentioned in the First Amendment and in the Ninth Amendment. If not by name, certainly by intent. Computers are "electronic assault quills", after all.
ReplyDeleteAlmost a day late but you can celebrate today being Boston Tea Party day - even though it started on the night of the 16th - and remember that the whole revolution was started by taxing and gun confiscation.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas my fellow over taxed, over gun controlled American Citizens.
:)
And to think, I moved to the wrong state back in 1991. Should have moved 30 miles west.
ReplyDeleteGotta love Oklahoma, little drawback with the tornadoes though.
You've probably heard the old saying to the effect that "if you can get them asking the wrong questions - the answers don't really matter".
ReplyDeleteMy question has to do with the word 'tax'. Many assumptions seem to be vested in that word. Save me some time and tell me the difference between a protection racket and a 'tax'. You're welcome to suggest 'voluntary' as one difference - but history belies that notion.
David started this discussion with an article that suggested that some 'lawmaker' wanted to stimulate an economy via their arbitrarily dropping one sort of constituent tax.
First - one might want to wonder if economies are indeed stimulated by protection rackets.
And I suppose I'd wonder secondly who'd be picking up the tab in that 'lawmakers' imagination.
Don't suppose a member of that protection racket would reduce their overhead and pass that along to the 'customer' - do you?