First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Crazy ideas sometimes win

Owensboro, KY

#1 Jan 16, 2013
Gun control is illegal, but bullet taxes aren't. There should be a tax, in addition to prosecution, for unjustly shooting anyone. The tax should be $1 million for each bullet that hits a person. If the victim is under age 21, the tax should increase by an additional $1 million for each year under 21. If the shooter can't pay the tax, the retailer who sold the gun should be liable for it. If the retailer can't pay the tax, the gun manufacturer should be liable for it. If the manufacturer can't pay it, they're out of business.

Why that would work is that the retailer would be more careful who he sells guns to, and the manufacturer would be more careful who he chooses as retailers. Adam Lanza's mother would never have been able to buy her guns, because a retailer wouldn't want the risk of selling guns to a person whose teenager had a mental illness.

So the government would not have all the expense and bureaucracy of gun control. Instead, the burden would be on those who sell guns. And it wouldn't be unconstitutional, because it would just be a bullet tax.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Owensboro, KY

#2 Jan 16, 2013
Crazy ideas sometimes win wrote:
Gun control is illegal, but bullet taxes aren't. There should be a tax, in addition to prosecution, for unjustly shooting anyone. The tax should be $1 million for each bullet that hits a person. If the victim is under age 21, the tax should increase by an additional $1 million for each year under 21. If the shooter can't pay the tax, the retailer who sold the gun should be liable for it. If the retailer can't pay the tax, the gun manufacturer should be liable for it. If the manufacturer can't pay it, they're out of business.

Why that would work is that the retailer would be more careful who he sells guns to, and the manufacturer would be more careful who he chooses as retailers. Adam Lanza's mother would never have been able to buy her guns, because a retailer wouldn't want the risk of selling guns to a person whose teenager had a mental illness.

So the government would not have all the expense and bureaucracy of gun control. Instead, the burden would be on those who sell guns. And it wouldn't be unconstitutional, because it would just be a bullet tax.
So should we charge a tax to the manufacturers of cars when someone drives one of their model cars and kills someone? And what if they drank some Smirnoff Vodka and were drunk? Do we charge Smirnoff as well?

Judged:

12

11

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
lex luther

Lawrenceville, GA

#3 Jan 16, 2013
Crazy ideas sometimes win wrote:
Gun control is illegal, but bullet taxes aren't. There should be a tax, in addition to prosecution, for unjustly shooting anyone. The tax should be $1 million for each bullet that hits a person. If the victim is under age 21, the tax should increase by an additional $1 million for each year under 21. If the shooter can't pay the tax, the retailer who sold the gun should be liable for it. If the retailer can't pay the tax, the gun manufacturer should be liable for it. If the manufacturer can't pay it, they're out of business.
Why that would work is that the retailer would be more careful who he sells guns to, and the manufacturer would be more careful who he chooses as retailers. Adam Lanza's mother would never have been able to buy her guns, because a retailer wouldn't want the risk of selling guns to a person whose teenager had a mental illness.
So the government would not have all the expense and bureaucracy of gun control. Instead, the burden would be on those who sell guns. And it wouldn't be unconstitutional, because it would just be a bullet tax.
There should also be a special assessment for the NRA, 50% of the total tax or fine should be paid by them and if the shooter is an NRA member 100% of the tax or fine should be paid by the NRA.
Nutty Ella

Owensboro, KY

#4 Jan 16, 2013
This is a problem unlike any we've faced before. Therefore, we need unique solutions that apply only to this, not across the board to liquor or other things. A bullet tax with NRA involvement sounds interesting. It just might work by forcing accountability.
Jesse

Cadiz, KY

#5 Jan 16, 2013
We need regulations, we need Al Sharpton to be the regulator, we need Jesse Jackson to impanel a committee, we need the libs to take care of us, we need the dems to make sure we do right, we need a government program...

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

United States

#6 Jan 16, 2013
Jesse wrote:
We need regulations, we need Al Sharpton to be the regulator, we need Jesse Jackson to impanel a committee, we need the libs to take care of us, we need the dems to make sure we do right, we need a government program...
Al Sharpton? Lol. Jesse Jackson? Lol. The last thing we need is another government program. Quit drinking the kool-aid.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Owensboro, KY

#8 Jan 16, 2013
you are an idiot wrote:
<quoted text>It's a troll, you gullible neo-con kool-aid drinking dipshit. Jessie's posts are almost as predicable as your Fox News inspired and stalker accusing posts.
Can you, maybe, just one day, try to go a full 24 hours without name calling? People might take you a little more seriously then.
Lol

Owensboro, KY

#9 Jan 16, 2013
TheRealOldSchool wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you, maybe, just one day, try to go a full 24 hours without name calling? People might take you a little more seriously then.
Lol! So I guess you really do think everyone that disagrees with you is one stalker...and then you tell others how to be taken seriously....ok then.
Crazy ideas sometimes win

Owensboro, KY

#10 Jan 17, 2013
It shouldn't involve the NRA because then it would have almost no chance of ever getting passed and becoming law. It should only be a simple bullet tax on bullets that hit people unjustly.

To get it passed, we could start with a limited version of it, that only applies when the victims are elementary school children. Then, once that's in effect, we can start working towards getting it expanded to cover all victims.

That would have more chance of getting it passed and becoming law, because not even a Republican would vote in favor of shooting little kids.
i love my guns

United States

#11 Jan 17, 2013
Fine people for shooting people that's the dumbest shit I've herd lol. But they have increased the sales tax on ammo if that makes u wimpy non gun lovers happy

Sks 30 round mag
Colt 45 extrnded mag
Ar-15 40 round mag
9mm extended 15 round mag
40 Cal carbine extended mag
Only to list a few
Crazy ideas sometimes win

Owensboro, KY

#12 Jan 17, 2013
i love my guns wrote:
Fine people for shooting people that's the dumbest shit I've herd lol. But they have increased the sales tax on ammo if that makes u wimpy non gun lovers happy
Sks 30 round mag
Colt 45 extrnded mag
Ar-15 40 round mag
9mm extended 15 round mag
40 Cal carbine extended mag
Only to list a few
Read it several times till you understand it. A tax on bullets hitting people unjustly is not a fine. It's not to be paid only by the shooter. If the shooter can't pay it, the retailer who sold the gun has to pay it. The whole idea is to make them check more carefully to make sure they aren't selling a gun to someone likely to shoot people unjustly. A tax can become law a lot more easily than a complicated regulation. And there is no need for a bureaucracy to administer it. The IRS or BAF or some such agency that already exists, could easily add it to their routine paperwork.
Crazy ideas sometimes win

Owensboro, KY

#13 Jan 17, 2013
i love my guns wrote:
Fine people for shooting people that's the dumbest shit I've herd lol. But they have increased the sales tax on ammo if that makes u wimpy non gun lovers happy
Sks 30 round mag
Colt 45 extrnded mag
Ar-15 40 round mag
9mm extended 15 round mag
40 Cal carbine extended mag
Only to list a few
And don't call us wimpy. Those who need a gun for protection, need it because they're too wimpy to defend themselves without one.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Tucker, GA

#14 Jan 17, 2013
Crazy ideas sometimes win wrote:
<quoted text>And don't call us wimpy. Those who need a gun for protection, need it because they're too wimpy to defend themselves without one.
Those who need them, need them because they can't defend themselves against other guns.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Tucker, GA

#15 Jan 17, 2013
Crazy ideas sometimes win wrote:
<quoted text>And don't call us wimpy. Those who need a gun for protection, need it because they're too wimpy to defend themselves without one.
Did you know in 1994 there were an estimated 194 million guns in the US. Now there are an estimated 310 million guns. The murder rate and violent crime rate have both dropped 49% since 2002. Guns are not the problem. The mental health of our citizens is the problem.
wow

Owensboro, KY

#17 Jan 17, 2013
the murder rate hasnt been this low since 1963. gotta love media scare tactics.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Owensboro, KY

#18 Jan 17, 2013
wow wrote:
the murder rate hasnt been this low since 1963. gotta love media scare tactics.
The Democrats are very good with scare tactics. The Republicans do the same but to a lesser degree. The huge difference lies in the fact that over 3/4ths of the media is slanted to the left.
TTP

United States

#19 Jan 17, 2013
TheRealOldSchool wrote:
<quoted text>
The Democrats are very good with scare tactics. The Republicans do the same but to a lesser degree. The huge difference lies in the fact that over 3/4ths of the media is slanted to the left.
You are always acting like Democrats are the only politicians that use scare tactics. Your refusal to address the same faults in your own party is the reason most of your posts sound like Republican bumper stickers.
Silly Arguments

Owensboro, KY

#20 Jan 17, 2013
wow wrote:
the murder rate hasnt been this low since 1963. gotta love media scare tactics.
On average, how many first graders are shot per year?
Silly Arguments

Owensboro, KY

#21 Jan 17, 2013
wow wrote:
the murder rate hasnt been this low since 1963. gotta love media scare tactics.
Is that why you need so many guns to defend yourself from murderers?
Silly Arguments

Owensboro, KY

#22 Jan 17, 2013
NY Times today:

State gun laws matter. Of the 10 states with the most restrictive laws, seven also have the lowest gun death rates, according to a study by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Similarly, lax gun laws correlate to a high level of gun deaths.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Owensboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Heather Howard 4 min truth 4
Brooke Moss 29 min Happy days 16
Ed dowdy 36 min Real hubby 7
Larrywayne Husk 41 min karen 13
Tiffany Johnson 42 min Real hubby 5
Apology 45 min Real hubby 2
Crystal mclamore 53 min newly single 30

Owensboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Owensboro Mortgages