General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI call for a federal tax of $10 per grain on gun powder.
I've heard thoughts about taxing bullets.
Fuck that, tax gunpowder so you affect those who reload bullets, too!
$10/grain would be between $40 and $70 per average .45 caliber bullet depending upon the the weight of the bullet.
One pound of gun powder would cost an extra $70,000.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)and adults, and animals, and the planet...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)Great idea.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)We need all sorts of good ones like this- thank you!
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Those people who love THIS gun:
Would pay an extra $230 minimum per round.
These are the weapons that mass murderers use high capacity massacre magazines in.
So, for just a thirty round magazine, that's a cost of $6900 just in gunpowder tax minimum for one thirty round magazine. If they go for what the Aurora shooter used, that's $23,000 in gunpowder taxes alone for a full load.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)Thanks!!!!!
Now we have to figure out how to implement it. I think this is the time to start.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Chris Rock's idea is still a good one
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Tax gunpowder is the answer. Expensive gunpowder = expensive bullets even if you reload.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)You can't dig it out to reload. But whatever stops mass murder is fine by me.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Taxing lead wouldn't help much because it's used in lots of things.
Gunpowder is used in one thing, bullet cartridges.
Tax gunpodwer and you increase the cost of every round in every gun regardless of how you get to that round.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)I have no expertise on the matter
dmallind
(10,437 posts)It's not like it's a super-secret high-tech recipe.
You want to make fertilizers, fungicides, food presevers etc economically impossible?
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)let alone some of the more exotic forms of gunpowder available these days.
Plus, the manufacture of gun powder is heavily regulated.
doc03
(35,324 posts)Kirk vs. Gorn
petronius
(26,602 posts)Consider this: if it would not be permissible to ban a given item or activity*, do you think any court would stand for an 'end-around' strategy (whether through taxation, or prohibiting a necessary precursor, or something else) that effectively banned the protected thing?
(* And in the case of firearms, as long as the Second Amendment exists this if is no if.)
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)It was a completely legal product, but was taxed out of legality and that tax was upheld by the SCOTUS.
The precedent for such taxation is long and strong. Congress has ultimate taxation authority.
petronius
(26,602 posts)Congress has authority to tax, but like everything Congress does that power is subject to Constitutional limits. Using tax to effectively ban something that Congress is otherwise forbidden to infringe would not fly...
(And according to Wiki, the Marijuana Tax Act was ultimately deemed unconstitutional, albeit not for reasons that would be relevant to firearms.)
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Congress taxes tobacco, alcohol, and tons of other products.
The authority is there.
And it does nothing to stop you from buying guns. It doesn't even stop you from buying ammunition. It simply taxes that ammunition to pay for the consequences of things like what happened today.
Also, the problem with the marihuana tax act was that it required producers to have a stamp, then the government never issued the stamp. Doesn't apply here. You are free to buy and own gunpowder, you just have to pay the tax.
petronius
(26,602 posts)Legislatures, or any other government body, to be able to blow past the BoR simply by slapping a prohibitive tax on whatever the governmental agency happens not to like?
You're confusing two things here: yes, Congress can levy taxes. But no, Congress can not use exorbitant taxes to effectively ban things that Congress could not otherwise ban.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Gun nuts have this stupid idea that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are inviolate. Times change. You can have as many fucking muskets as you want. That was the ORIGINAL intent of the 2nd amendment.
Other than muskets, ban guns. PERIOD.
petronius
(26,602 posts)the case of guns?
justanidea
(291 posts)If you want to ban gun ownership, just come out and say it.
This wannabe sneaky crap is a waste of bandwidth.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)If you want gunpowder, pay an extra $10/grain.
Congress has absolute authority to tax gun powder at any level they choose under Article 1 of the constitution. The SCOTUS has upheld this power on numerous occasions.
justanidea
(291 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)On top of that, poll taxes are not taxes on products.
We tax tobacco, alcohol, and numerous other items.
Gunpowder is just another product ripe for taxation.
$10/grain. It'll solve a lot of problems.
justanidea
(291 posts)The court would rule a tax that massive a defacto ban.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)It's not a ban. A ban prohibits an item. A tax that is ruled a ban is a tax that provides conditions that cannot be upheld and becomes a de facto ban.
A tax of $10/grain on gunpowder does not prohibit gunpowder. Pay the tax, own the gun powder. No problem.
The taxes on other items are also high. Gasoline, petroleum products, tobacco (incredibly high) alcohol (also incredibly high) are all taxes on products and are 100% within th realm of the Congress.
$10/grain is simply a tax on a product. Want the product, pay the tax. It's that simple. No ban. No prohibition. simply a tax.
justanidea
(291 posts)that filling your tank or getting drunk requires you to remortgage your house. Comparing the gasoline tax to your proposed gun powder tax is absolutely absurd. If your proposed tax was a few dollars per box of ammo, then you might have an argument.
A 50 round box of 9mm ammo is about $12. Assuming an average 9mm round has 6 grains of powder (certain powders are hotter than others, and thus less powder is used per round, in case you didn't know) that would mean a box of 9mm would now cost $3,012.
That is a tax rate of 25,000%.
Find me another product with a tax rate that high.
Hell for me to go to the range once a month to practice (like I and most gun owners do) would cost me $180,000 per year.
Of course I dont even know why I'm bothering to debate all this, since this is obviously a troll post.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)I want the tax, so I will be pushing it with Congress. With any luck, people who want to see an end to the shit that happened today will join me.
Regardless, ownership of guns is about to be severely altered. There's no stopping it now.
justanidea
(291 posts)To be honest your time would be better spent trying to convert the moon into a giant gold nugget using nothing but psychic powers. That would probably have a better chance of success than a 25,000% tax on ammunition.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Next you'll fight it.
Then I win.
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)Not as in it's going to cause some, but you forgot gunpowder is also used in them. The fireworks lobbyist would kill it before it goes anywhere.
There are certain nails you "shoot" into concrete which also need gunpowder.
Keep thinking outside the box, though. That's how things get done in the world.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Fuck it. Tax that shit, too.
Marinedem
(373 posts)Trolling meant something.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)At Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Back in my day,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1987435
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Troll accusation
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:14 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: On the one hand, the post does suggest the OP is a troll. On the other hand, the OP does not really come across as a troll. Suggest the alerter just let it go and move on...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: rotflmao
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well, the OP is trolling.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Troll accusation and I don't think the OP is actually trolling.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.