|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Shoot down a 50 percent tax increase on ammunition
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Legislating a 50 percent tax on ammunition to decrease gun deaths in America is like forcing McDonald’s to double the price of a Whopper to prevent obesity.
While it’s admirable that State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-Conn., wants to decrease gun deaths in America, she has sponsored a bill that, if passed, would have just that effect.
Gilchrest tweeted that “if increasing the tax on ammunition can prevent just one death, it's worth it.” |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/8/2019)
|
| Just more feeble attempts of elected servants trying to justify their jobs on the backs of the law abiding citizen. Disgraceful... |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/8/2019)
|
This is the third article with the misleading caption of a 50 percent tax increase.
It is not a 50 percent tax increase. It is a 50 percent tax. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/8/2019)
|
"A bill like this, which might keep low-income gun owners from purchasing the ammunition..."
Not MIGHT, but WILL. I understand the intent to be generous, but in this case it is not necessary. This law would, DE FACTO, keep low-income gun owners from purchasing ammunition. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
