Folks,
A self-described retired engineer, Scott Dixon, proposes to tax guns out of existence here. I wonder what $400 times NOTHING is? My letter to his editor below. My thanks to David Codrea for bringing it to my attention.
Mike
III
To the editor, Ashland (Oregon) Daily Tidings.
tidingsopinion@dailytidings.com
Scott Dixon wants a $400 tax each year for each firearm in America. He believes that this will lead to fewer firearm deaths. Perhaps, but only after one side or the other wins the civil war which would erupt if his proposal is adopted.
Frankly, some of us firearm owners are done being pushed back from our traditional rights to liberty and property. For 75 years we have backed up at every gun control law, and we will now back up no further. Has crime abated because there are more gun control laws that, by definition, restrain only the law-abiding? No, but Dixon isn’t really after criminals and their behavior, he’s after law-abiding citizens’ firearms – their means of defense against criminal behavior and oppressive government.
Dixon’s plan is too cute by half if he thinks that gun owners are going to buy a plan that merely taxes our property out of existence rather than seizing it outright. Does he think we’re morons? Expecting us to obey such a government order is an extrapolation from his own cowardice. Just because he would obey a tyrannical regime doesn’t mean that we will. And may I remind him that we have the means to resist?
If Mr. Dixon wants his tax, he's going to have to kill me to get it. Not surprisingly, when his raid party comes to my door, I will shoot back. Nor will I be the only one. How is that going to lead to fewer firearm deaths exactly?
17 comments:
Seriously Mike, that town is over the top screwed up. I live next door to the place. The nation needs to take a hard look at it. It's the messiah's dreamtown. And the future of this country if we last. Or should i say if,"we", don't last. You couldn't find a place more definitive of governmental,"cluelessness", than Ashland. The place is a really bad joke. mthead
This goes back to the question of whether or not a tax on arms and ammunition is an infringement. What if the tax funds militia training and equipment?
Whatever the answer, the revenue must pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States (meaning the nation as a whole, not select people who inhabit cities run by the fiscally negligent), and it must be uniform throughout the States.
Also: since the only people who propose disarmament are the most profoundly ignorant, Mr. Dixon doesn't realize the nuances surrounding the definition of "gun". Were this tax to become law, the Knowledge Disabled would be surprised by how their ignorance produces undesirable results, I'm sure. (And I'm not even talking about the Vanderboegh Scenario.) Would they make parts subject to the full tax, so that an assemblage of lowers, uppers /slides and other parts make a four-digit tax liability? Or would they mistake the holes in their heads for "gun loopholes", and accuse gun owners of twisting the law?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Mr. Dixon's degree is in Social Engineering. It's the only type of engineering where getting people killed doesn't get one sued.
If he wants to try taking away our guns, he should come and do it himself, instead of sending others to do his work.
Its because of shit like this that I stopped reading mass-media long time ago. It's a waste of time and energy.
Anonymous #2 (the one whose comment didn't get posted) --
I'm sorry. Although I certainly agree with you that that is a possibility, it came too close to a direct threat to Dixon to post here. I probably scare 'em enough as it is. Appreciate your support though.
I have a pretty good idea what anonymous #2 had to say but people like Dixon are just the tools of the real problems and quite frankly he just isn't worth the effort. People like Dixon have done more to put our side on red alret than they could ever realize. And with that newfound alertness we pay great attention to someone like Mr Vanderboegh and we learn. Most of us are really quite knowledgeable but with Mike's help we are understanding what to do with that knowledge.
Weaver
"What if the tax funds militia training and equipment?"
What if the government stays the fuck out of it and grown-ups mind their own business?
Billy Beck said...
"What if the government stays the fuck out of it and grown-ups mind their own business?"
Then you can have a nice ham for supper when you nail a pig on the wing, with your trap gun.
If such were enacted nationwide, I can see a few percent obeying, maybe 20% turning their guns in or selling them, and the rest silently telling the gov't to F off by not reporting anything, not filling in tax documents and not paying anything. Many of those will pay the tax in copper-coated lead.
QUOTE I have a pretty good idea what anonymous #2 had to say but people like Dixon are just the tools of the real problems and quite frankly he just isn't worth the effort. People like Dixon have done more to put our side on red alret than they could ever realize. And with that newfound alertness we pay great attention to someone like Mr Vanderboegh and we learn. Most of us are really quite knowledgeable but with Mike's help we are understanding what to do with that knowledge.
Weaver QUOTE
Couldn't have said it better.
It's really very simple, the answer is NO. No taxes on our guns or ammo, no more gun laws, and NO more backing up. For those in the media or government who think most of this is just "Internet toughguy" talk you should spend some time getting to know some of us and realize that the majority of us have made up our mind. We have NO options.
Weaver
As there are far, far fewer criminals than firearms, impose the tax upon the former. A tax of four hundred bucks a month ought to put them out of business for good, or have I missed something?
To Scott Dixon....
"Nuts"
You guys are missing something major.
You can't tax something without declarations, inventories and audits.
If there is a firearm tax, the first thing that has to happen is that you will be ordered to report how many and which firearms you own. Then, the government must compile a record of all these declarations. Then, the government must keep records of all sales and transfers. Finally, the government must have the power to audit, including by inspection, these records.
That is why this would be a causus belli.
How about a $100,000.00 tax per year on retired engineers that come up with ideas like this? That should shut his big mouth. NO MORE BACKING DOWN!!!
It should be pretty obvious to the incoming administration, that the majority of money changing hands in this country since the election is not in the stock market, but by millions of people buying guns and ammunition, to prepare for a revolution or civil war if need be. It would be a tragic mistake if they decide to implement or re-implement any further gun controls. I am confident that would be the straw that broke the camel's back, so to say. I think that MANY people in this country are ready and willing to revolt against any further infringements of our rights. I believe that if our government continues to disregard and trample our Constitution and Bill Of Rights that many states will actually secede. The majority of the states became a part of the USA because of these documents, and if they no longer hold water then there is no reason to remain part of the USA. This government is too big already and getting bigger all the time. The government is no longer for the people by the people, now it is for the highest paying corporation or interest group. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves already. I don't like to be a pessimist but I believe this country is going to implode.
Of course our Govt knows how many millions of firearms and ammunition is being purchased since the election. And dont think for a moment that the FBI hasnt compiled a database specifically of the people who have purchased guns since the election that they have done checks on. Add that to the list of people they already have and that makes quite a nice list of people to round up. Not saying they have any chance of attaining this goal but it gives them somewhere to start.
You can't tax a right and for the moment, the right to keep and bear arms is an acknowledged right via supreme court stare decisis. The inferior courts would have to knock any tax at this level down. I really wonldn't worry about this joker, he simply doesn't understand the current state of the law.
Post a Comment