Online users
???: Message???: MessageBartb: Message 

Elizabeth WHO? She wants to WHAT? (RÊUÁGE!)
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

10/02/2019, 14:52:19

Author Profile Mail author Edit
bearingarms.com

Warren's Gun Tax Likely To Hit Poor Worst - Bearing Arms

Tom Knighton
4-5 minutes

When it comes to crime statistics, all people are not created equal. Well, they were, but then various circumstances can increase their risk of being the victim of a crime so that not everyone faces an even risk. For example, someone living in an expensive gated community and ventures only into certain parts of the city is highly unlikely to become the target of a criminal while someone who lives in the poorer part of town is far more likely to be.

As a result, guns–and expensive item to begin with–don’t need to be any more expensive than they already are.

However, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to throw a tax on top of the expense. That’s going to hurt the poor worse than anyone.

But Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has devised a way to disarm the poor — a steep national gun tax of 30 percent and an ammunition tax of 50 percent.

Her plan would triple the federal excise tax from its current 10 percent (for handguns) and 11 percent (for shotguns and rifles) and nearly quintuple the ammunition tax from its current 11 percent.

The burden of the tax will fall on the people, not the manufacturer.

Under the Warren gun tax plan, parents seeking a typical $400 shotgun to protect their family would have to come up with $520.

Who would be unable to buy guns because of the Warren gun tax? Certainly not the oft-mentioned “millionaires and billionaires” she claims to want to stick it to. Many poor households will be unable to afford a gun to protect their home.

It’s obvious which group Sen. Warren is targeting. Her tax targets those among us who are already the most vulnerable. Many people under the poverty line live in dangerous neighborhoods. While rich liberals like Ms. Warren can afford private security guards, the rest of us need to be able to defend ourselves.

Ms. Warren states her gun tax would “reduce new gun and ammunition sales overall and bring in new federal revenue.”

Oh, it would likely reduce new gun and ammunition sales, but not to those who can afford the hit.

Further, such a high tax on ammunition would be absolutely stupid. One of the knocks we constantly hear about armed citizens is that they’re not sufficiently trained to be able to meet threats, they’re not trained like the police. Now, we all know that’s bunk, but training is important.

A tax on ammunition would have a deleterious effect on training for the average citizen and likely to make it impossible for a poor individual who has managed to scrape together the money for a firearm to also put together enough money for sufficient ammunition to train and become proficient with their weapon.

I’m sorry, but no.

If there was ever a reason to oppose Warren, this is it. She can talk all she wants about how she’s there for the poor, but the truth of the matter is that she’s only remotely interested in the poor who are comfortable fitting into the predetermined box Warren has built for them. That includes no guns for them. They just have to trust the very same police officers that Warren’s fellow party members have been painting as racist psychopaths for some time now.

While that characterization is bull, it doesn’t change the discrepancy presented by anti-gun Democrats like Warren.

They don’t actually value the poor’s lives, just their votes.

Tom Knighton is a Navy veteran, a former newspaperman, a novelist, and a blogger and lifetime shooter. He lives with his family in Southwest Georgia. https://bearingarms.com/author/tomknighton/





LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page