[imawlBoli]

In its ruling on ObamaCare, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. However, it affirmed the federal government's ability to tax anything it wishes to tax. Therefore, the Government can do anything that would be otherwise unconstitutional, if it is structured as a tax, not a prohibition or a mandate.

Take gun control. There are forces within the government that would like to outlaw guns. At a time when they are in the majority, they could impose a "gun tax", to be reported with income tax. People would report the number of guns they have, and pay a nominal or not-so-nominal tax per gun. Then, if the government were ransacking a house for some other legitimate government purpose, or on an "anonymous tip", or with a warrant on suspicion of tax evasion, they could confiscate any unreported guns.

As of today, the old term "unconstitutional" has no meaning whatsoever.

[orison]

In its ruling on ObamaCare, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. However, it affirmed the federal government's ability to tax anything it wishes to tax. Therefore, the Government can do anything that would be otherwise unconstitutional, if it is structured as a tax, not a prohibition or a mandate.

Take gun control. There are forces within the government that would like to outlaw guns. At a time when they are in the majority, they could impose a "gun tax", to be reported with income tax. People would report the number of guns they have, and pay a nominal or not-so-nominal tax per gun. Then, if the government were ransacking a house for some other legitimate government purpose, or on an "anonymous tip", or with a warrant on suspicion of tax evasion, they could confiscate any unreported guns.

As of today, the old term "unconstitutional" has no meaning whatsoever.

Not the way I take it. They would have to force everyone to own a gun. If they didn't want to, then they would have to pay the tax.

[zawhmqswly]

it's easy:

liability insurance for owning a gun, in case it "accidently goes off and shoots somebody." $10,000 a firearm. if you don't pay it, $5,000 fine. don't pay that, felony and you can't own guns.

gun control nirvana.

[pXss8cyx]

They've already been taxing firearms since what? 1935? There's another messed up SCROTUM decision.

[avaissema]

it's easy:

liability insurance for owning a gun, in case it "accidently goes off and shoots somebody." $10,000 a firearm. if you don't pay it, $5,000 fine. don't pay that, felony and you can't own guns.

gun control nirvana.

I could see something like that passing as a result of Obamacare's forced purchase of health insurance - this would be an easy leap for them

F'n scary concept !!

[zawhmqswly]

I could see something like that passing as a result of Obamacare's forced purchase of health insurance - this would be an easy leap for them

F'n scary concept !!

what should really scare you is that i didn't come up with that idea, sarah brady did.

[avaissema]

what should really scare you is that i didn't come up with that idea, sarah brady did.

Fantastic...I think I'm going to wind up living in a tent in the woods - and I honestly think I'll be happier. On second thought, maybe a pop-up trailer - anything mobile

[AutoCadPhotoSHOP]

It's the slow and steady progression of these laws that bugs me the most. Right now, today, all the implications of the health care ruling such as being able to tax people for not doing what the gov't says, seem minor. I mean, who really thinks that today or tomorrow they'll pass a law to tax you if you don't eat right, or tax you if you don't purchase liability insurance for your firearms, but 10, 20 years from now (assuming we make it that far), this sort of thing will slowly become the norm, as the gov't exerts total control over you, taxing you for every little thing you do that deviates from the government's perfect plan for your life.

[ArrereGarhync]

It's the slow and steady progression of these laws that bugs me the most. Right now, today, all the implications of the health care ruling such as being able to tax people for not doing what the gov't says, seem minor. I mean, who really thinks that today or tomorrow they'll pass a law to tax you if you don't eat right, or tax you if you don't purchase liability insurance for your firearms, but 10, 20 years from now (assuming we make it that far), this sort of thing will slowly become the norm, as the gov't exerts total control over you, taxing you for every little thing you do that deviates from the government's perfect plan for your life.

Franks

It is called 'Death by a thousand cuts' and done so slowly that freedom is gone and people will wake up too late to do anything about it.

[bumxumer]

In the spirit of the individual mandate, why not tax those who don't purchase guns. I mean, national security is ultimately the responsibility of every citizen, so if you don't participate, you have to pay for those who do.

[orison]

it's easy:

liability insurance for owning a gun, in case it "accidently goes off and shoots somebody." $10,000 a firearm. if you don't pay it, $5,000 fine. don't pay that, felony and you can't own guns.

gun control nirvana.

Your angle is the most realistic. That is fucking disturbing too.

[mesZibeds]

liability insurance for owning a gun

Insurance is a maritime law concept. Insurance doesn't exist in common law. If you have any form of insurance you are at sea.

[avaissema]

It's the slow and steady progression of these laws that bugs me the most. Right now, today, all the implications of the health care ruling such as being able to tax people for not doing what the gov't says, seem minor. I mean, who really thinks that today or tomorrow they'll pass a law to tax you if you don't eat right, or tax you if you don't purchase liability insurance for your firearms, but 10, 20 years from now (assuming we make it that far), this sort of thing will slowly become the norm, as the gov't exerts total control over you, taxing you for every little thing you do that deviates from the government's perfect plan for your life.

You're so right ! the first thing that comes to mind is the mandatory seat belt law. First it was introduced that the police wouldn't pull you over for not wearing one but they could give you a ticket if you were pulled over for another offense. A lot of people didn't agree with the law because it was government intrusion into your personal space such as your home. People went along with it because it wasn't made into a huge issue and they thought police wouldn't aggressively ticket for the offense. Look at where we are today - the result of endless public service announcements, sign boards, teevee commercials all paid off. Where I live they actually have "seat belt enforcement" police squads. there will be a guy wearing plain clothes leaning against a light pole with a radio - telling the cops down the road which cars to pull over. THIS is now the new norm and if you talk with people about the unconstitutionality of it or the ridiculousness of being ticketed for not protecting yourself - people don't understand why you're making a fuss. It's amazing how people don't really value freedom - I have to attribute it to media brainwashing and probably fluoride in the water - who knows?

[Jackson]

This IS an F'n scary thread, because it's so damn true. The M.O. works for them without fail. The gun insurance tax will be their coup de grâce on the 2nd Amendment.

Never forget, the entire "War on Drugs" began as a tax stamp.

[elektikakass]

It's a pity that I lost all my guns and silver in a horrible boating accident.

[Carfanate]

Its easier to work on ammo.


They can tax the sheet out of it and they can claim enviromental damage because of lead and metal casings.


Either way those that own guns are going to have a really dam hard set of desicions to make........... sooner rather then later

[Flerdourdyged]

Our only hope to avoid all this is for the dollar to collapse. With no money, there won't be enough manpower to enforce all these laws.

The only problem is, what will it become after that point?