I agree, but what I mean is that raising the tax (or even limiting the number of rounds in the chamber, for that matter) would not break the "infringement" upon the "right" to bear arms - if that's what the amendment really says or means. It's a bit like in the film "Life of Brian", offering the right for men to give birth. The "right" is insured but due to the nature of things (or the cost of ownership) few will actually be able to use - or misuse - it.<quoted text>
On the contrary - it would also keep those same guns out of the hands of the lowly, destitute criminals.
Gun owners would then take better care of their weapons. Ensuring gun safes are locked and not prone to theft.
The black market would probably not dry up, but get unbelievably expensive - making it harder and harder for criminals to get "cheap" Saturday Night Specials. When drug dealers are hit hard by police stings and sweeps, heroin traffic doesn't stop - it does however get mighty thin.
It also would limit guns on the streets, since a lot of people would start collecting them for their value instead of chancing damage or theft on the street.
The idea of high-taxing weapons and/or ammunition is a sound one. It's fair, it would be lawful, and it would probably reduce the mischief that guns are often engaged in.
The only real hurdle (as I've said 6 million times) is that America's standards of education, unemployment, minimum wage, community positive action, and corruption is so bad that there will always be a large (and growing) percentage of the population that will be forced into a life of crime just "to make ends meet" so that diminished gun-related crimes will no doubt be expressed in crime by other means.
Gun control then, isn't a "one stop fix". Other measures of national concern must be implemented in conjunction with the reduction/control of personally owned weapons. As always it is the gap of wealth between the "filthy" rich and the "filthy" poor that is at the heart of the problem and I'm not necessarily talking about Communism or even Socialism.
If the lower end of the social scale has what it needs to live "fairly" then there's nothing wrong in someone being "stinking" rich but as long as there are such large numbers of destitute in any society then the community will never be upright and stable.