Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: A $20,000 AR-15-style rifle?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    19,378

    Default A $20,000 AR-15-style rifle?

    June 6, 2022

    A $20,000 AR-15-style rifle?

    By Andrea Widburg

    Because Democrats do not have the political strength or capital to do away with the Second Amendment via the Constitution’s intentionally onerous amendment processes, they’re constantly looking for clever little ways to make it impossible for Americans to own guns without actually banning them outright. The latest idea, from Rep. Donald Beyer, a Virginia Democrat, is to impose a 1,000% excise tax on AR-15-style rifles.

    A decade ago, Chris Rock came out with a comedy sketch that envisioned a way to undercut the Second Amendment: bullet control. “I think all bullets should cost $5,000,” he proclaimed to audience applause and laughter. “If a bullet costs $5,000,” he added, “there’ll be no more innocent bystanders.” Here’s the entire sketch (language warning):


    The sketch is funny because of the way Rock takes the idea and runs with it. At a practical level, of course, it’s ridiculous because the Second Amendment loses meaning if people are allowed to have guns but are unable to use them, as would be the case if bullets ceased being affordable. In any event, it’s doubtful if even that would deter criminals. During the Great Ammo Shortage of 2020, when 100 rounds of practice 9 mm ammo could run $150, the gangbangers in America’s streets were still using them on each other and innocent bystanders with amazing profligacy.

    Still, a handful of leftist states have managed to pass laws imposing background check requirements, not just on gun purchases, but on ammo purchases too—and the purchaser must pay for the check. So far, none of these laws have reached the Supreme Court, so it’s not yet clear whether they constitute an impermissible burden on people’s right to bear arms.

    Currently, Congress isn’t eyeing ammo taxes, a la Chris Rock. But what happens when Congress tries to pass a 1,000% federal tax on AR-15-style rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds? For weapons that range in price from $500 to $2,000 dollars, that would bring the total cost to $5,000 to $20,000, an insane increase—yet that’s what Rep. Donald Beyer hopes to have happen:
    “What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen.... We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation.”
    With the usual muddiness that characterizes all these proposed laws, the type of weapon the proposed law would cover is completely arbitrary. The price goes up if the weapon has “at least one military characteristic like a pistol grip or a forward grip.” Those characteristics make the weapon a bit easier to hold but they do nothing to make it more lethal than long “guns used for hunting and other recreational purposes”—but the latter weapons wouldn’t be taxed.

    The government, of course, wouldn’t pay this tax for its military-style long guns, further cementing the fact that Democrats aren’t opposed to guns. They’re just opposed to you having guns.

    Even the hard-left Business Insider isn’t sanguine about the tax, noting that similar (although less extravagant) tax plans have failed, that Democrats are afraid it will feed into their tax-and-spend reputation, and that there’s no proof the taxes would make any difference to violent crime. (And I’m betting they won’t make a difference because criminals either don’t feel constrained by laws or, like the barely employed Uvalde shooter, they’re willing to dedicate staggering sums of money to their violent activities.)

    Business Insider, with some residual hope, points to sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and sodas, which are constitutional and are intended to discourage purchases. However, guns aren’t a sin; they’re an inherent right that the Constitution explicitly protects.

    And that, of course, is why a huge tax intended solely to deter people from purchasing guns or to make it impossible for poorer people (especially minorities) to do so, cannot possibly pass constitutional muster. What the government cannot do directly (seize guns) it also cannot do indirectly (make gun ownership prohibitively expensive).

    Beyer’s plan should be dead in the water but it’s a reminder that the Democrats will never stop looking at ways to undermine your constitutional rights. Now that they have political power, they don’t want you to have free speech, publish news that contradicts their narrative, practice your faith and bring your values to the public square, or have the guns, the very existence of which ensures that the American government stays within its constitutional parameters.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...le_rifle_.html
    ”The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - Margaret Thatcher

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    7,704

    Default

    GOP senators surprisingly bullish on prospects for a bipartisan gun deal

    The lawmakers at the core of the negotiations met again Monday evening.

    By BURGESS EVERETT and MARIANNE LEVINE

    06/06/2022

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...talks-00037426

    Republican leaders are seriously weighing whether to cut a bipartisan deal on gun safety as bipartisan negotiations pick up momentum in the Senate.

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a leading negotiator on gun safety, briefed GOP leaders Monday afternoon on the state of the talks, first meeting with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and then a broader group of senior Republicans. Cornyn delivered the outlines of what he discussed with a handful of other senators over last week’s recess, according to people familiar with the meeting. He then met with Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for two hours Monday evening to continue the negotiations.

    Democrats are largely deferring to the bipartisan negotiators, unwilling to dismiss a potential agreement until they see what Republicans accept. And after their leadership meeting on Monday afternoon, Republicans seemed surprisingly bullish on the prospects for legislation in response to mass shootings across the country that continue unabated.

    “There’s a desire to find a place where you can find 60 members willing to do something. But I think the ‘something’ is the hard part,” said Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the No. 4 GOP leader.

    Murphy, Cornyn, Sinema and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) are focused on a package that would reform background checks, encourage state red flag laws, enhance school safety and provide new mental health programs, according to multiple people familiar with the talks.

    Blunt said he intended to prompt a full discussion among Senate Republicans on Tuesday afternoon, but even then it may take days to gauge where the votes lie. There’s no set deadline to act on gun safety, but both Murphy and Cornyn said they weren’t interested in long-running negotiations after a shooter killed 19 children and two teachers in Texas two weeks ago.

    “My goal is to get agreement this week. But I don’t feel any deadlines being put upon me in these negotiations. We’re going to pay a price with the American public if we don’t come up with a deal soon. The pressure I feel is from the people that I represent,” Murphy said on Monday.

    After meeting with Cornyn and Sinema, Murphy said the negotiators “continue to make progress” but added: “We have work to do with our colleagues this week to make sure what we’re talking about can get 60 votes.”

    Nine years after Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) struck an agreement to expand background checks that most Republicans rejected on the Senate floor, the current bipartisan group is focused on significant yet more modest reforms that can win 60 votes in the chamber. One proposal under discussion is changing background checks for people younger than 21 — by opening up their juvenile records to more scrutiny or enacting a waiting period for their firearm purchases — according to one person with direct knowledge of the talks.

    Cornyn confirmed that the proposal is being discussed but said it’s just one of many options. “It seems to me that if … you have mental health problems, if that happened when you’re a juvenile … maybe there’s some way to get access to that information to inform the background check system.”

    The small-group talks are fluid, and no final decision has been made. But if successful, such an idea would amount to the most substantive reforms to the background checks system in decades. In the evenly divided Senate, any such proposal would need the support of at least 10 Republican senators, a high bar that members in the gun safety group still think could be achievable.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is close to Cornyn and on Monday continued to encourage the talks, meeting with the Texan one-on-one in the afternoon. McConnell said “I hope so” when asked about the prospects of an agreement this week.

    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Monday stressed the importance of a deadline on the negotiations, referencing the still-stalled talks on Democrats’ signature climate-and-jobs bill. He said “the failure to have a real finite deadline led us on and on and on month after month and we ended up empty handed.”

    “I’m trying not to be cynical about it,” Durbin added of ongoing negotiations. “The problem is so overwhelming, I’m afraid we are going to fall short of what I believe we should do. But I don’t want to give up on any step forward to reduce gun violence.”

    The group is also looking at providing states with more resources to set up so-called red flag laws that allow law enforcement to temporarily confiscate firearms from any individual deemed a threat to himself or others. Lawmakers are also discussing how much money to provide for new mental health programs and to increase school security.

    Cornyn said the idea of raising the age for buying firearms to from 18 to 21 is “controversial, but that’s being discussed.”

    There are other senators involved in the talks. In addition to Murphy, Sinema, Manchin and Toomey, a larger group includes Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Murphy suggested that the larger group will get together “in the next day or two.”

    The Democratic caucus and Republican conference will hold larger discussions on the topic starting on Tuesday.

    Some Republicans might be able to stomach portions of a gun package, though perhaps not all of it. In a recent interview, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that he could support expanding threat assessments, making it easier for states to pass their own red flag laws and making permanent federal guidelines for safe schools.

    But he dismissed the impact of expanded background checks and said raising the age to buy some firearms to 21 could prompt constitutional questions: “We don’t even know if this is constitutional, it can be struck down. So I don’t think there’s any single proposal that solves all of this.”

    Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), meanwhile, expressed reluctance to change background checks for people under the age of 21, saying: “I don’t think it’s going to make this any safer.” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “That’s a decision that’s probably better made at the state level.”

    One Republican senator, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said it may take several discussions over multiple days among GOP conference members to figure out which proposal can actually win over a significant chunk of them. Urgency to act often subsides on Capitol Hill as memories fade over recent shootings, and it’s been nearly two weeks since the Uvalde shooting.

    Cornyn on Monday warned against setting an “arbitrary” timeline. Democrats are worried that Republicans will want to hold negotiations open longer than Democrats believe is necessary to clinch a deal. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said last month that he would give senators some room to work out a compromise, but also said the Senate will eventually vote on gun safety legislation.

    “Time is their biggest enemy, because there are so many other issues that the public is concerned about,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a recent interview. “There’s the onrush of the fall elections, there’s the natural difficulty passing any compromise legislation in the Senate and there’s the distraction of lots of other issues.”







  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jefferson Republic
    Posts
    5,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    GOP senators surprisingly bullish on prospects for a bipartisan gun deal

    The lawmakers at the core of the negotiations met again Monday evening.

    By BURGESS EVERETT and MARIANNE LEVINE

    06/06/2022

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...talks-00037426

    Republican leaders are seriously weighing whether to cut a bipartisan deal on gun safety as bipartisan negotiations pick up momentum in the Senate.

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a leading negotiator on gun safety, briefed GOP leaders Monday afternoon on the state of the talks, first meeting with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and then a broader group of senior Republicans. Cornyn delivered the outlines of what he discussed with a handful of other senators over last week’s recess, according to people familiar with the meeting. He then met with Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for two hours Monday evening to continue the negotiations.

    Democrats are largely deferring to the bipartisan negotiators, unwilling to dismiss a potential agreement until they see what Republicans accept. And after their leadership meeting on Monday afternoon, Republicans seemed surprisingly bullish on the prospects for legislation in response to mass shootings across the country that continue unabated.

    “There’s a desire to find a place where you can find 60 members willing to do something. But I think the ‘something’ is the hard part,” said Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the No. 4 GOP leader.

    Murphy, Cornyn, Sinema and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) are focused on a package that would reform background checks, encourage state red flag laws, enhance school safety and provide new mental health programs, according to multiple people familiar with the talks.

    Blunt said he intended to prompt a full discussion among Senate Republicans on Tuesday afternoon, but even then it may take days to gauge where the votes lie. There’s no set deadline to act on gun safety, but both Murphy and Cornyn said they weren’t interested in long-running negotiations after a shooter killed 19 children and two teachers in Texas two weeks ago.

    “My goal is to get agreement this week. But I don’t feel any deadlines being put upon me in these negotiations. We’re going to pay a price with the American public if we don’t come up with a deal soon. The pressure I feel is from the people that I represent,” Murphy said on Monday.

    After meeting with Cornyn and Sinema, Murphy said the negotiators “continue to make progress” but added: “We have work to do with our colleagues this week to make sure what we’re talking about can get 60 votes.”

    Nine years after Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) struck an agreement to expand background checks that most Republicans rejected on the Senate floor, the current bipartisan group is focused on significant yet more modest reforms that can win 60 votes in the chamber. One proposal under discussion is changing background checks for people younger than 21 — by opening up their juvenile records to more scrutiny or enacting a waiting period for their firearm purchases — according to one person with direct knowledge of the talks.

    Cornyn confirmed that the proposal is being discussed but said it’s just one of many options. “It seems to me that if … you have mental health problems, if that happened when you’re a juvenile … maybe there’s some way to get access to that information to inform the background check system.”

    The small-group talks are fluid, and no final decision has been made. But if successful, such an idea would amount to the most substantive reforms to the background checks system in decades. In the evenly divided Senate, any such proposal would need the support of at least 10 Republican senators, a high bar that members in the gun safety group still think could be achievable.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is close to Cornyn and on Monday continued to encourage the talks, meeting with the Texan one-on-one in the afternoon. McConnell said “I hope so” when asked about the prospects of an agreement this week.

    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Monday stressed the importance of a deadline on the negotiations, referencing the still-stalled talks on Democrats’ signature climate-and-jobs bill. He said “the failure to have a real finite deadline led us on and on and on month after month and we ended up empty handed.”

    “I’m trying not to be cynical about it,” Durbin added of ongoing negotiations. “The problem is so overwhelming, I’m afraid we are going to fall short of what I believe we should do. But I don’t want to give up on any step forward to reduce gun violence.”

    The group is also looking at providing states with more resources to set up so-called red flag laws that allow law enforcement to temporarily confiscate firearms from any individual deemed a threat to himself or others. Lawmakers are also discussing how much money to provide for new mental health programs and to increase school security.

    Cornyn said the idea of raising the age for buying firearms to from 18 to 21 is “controversial, but that’s being discussed.”

    There are other senators involved in the talks. In addition to Murphy, Sinema, Manchin and Toomey, a larger group includes Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Murphy suggested that the larger group will get together “in the next day or two.”

    The Democratic caucus and Republican conference will hold larger discussions on the topic starting on Tuesday.

    Some Republicans might be able to stomach portions of a gun package, though perhaps not all of it. In a recent interview, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that he could support expanding threat assessments, making it easier for states to pass their own red flag laws and making permanent federal guidelines for safe schools.

    But he dismissed the impact of expanded background checks and said raising the age to buy some firearms to 21 could prompt constitutional questions: “We don’t even know if this is constitutional, it can be struck down. So I don’t think there’s any single proposal that solves all of this.”

    Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), meanwhile, expressed reluctance to change background checks for people under the age of 21, saying: “I don’t think it’s going to make this any safer.” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “That’s a decision that’s probably better made at the state level.”

    One Republican senator, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said it may take several discussions over multiple days among GOP conference members to figure out which proposal can actually win over a significant chunk of them. Urgency to act often subsides on Capitol Hill as memories fade over recent shootings, and it’s been nearly two weeks since the Uvalde shooting.

    Cornyn on Monday warned against setting an “arbitrary” timeline. Democrats are worried that Republicans will want to hold negotiations open longer than Democrats believe is necessary to clinch a deal. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said last month that he would give senators some room to work out a compromise, but also said the Senate will eventually vote on gun safety legislation.

    “Time is their biggest enemy, because there are so many other issues that the public is concerned about,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a recent interview. “There’s the onrush of the fall elections, there’s the natural difficulty passing any compromise legislation in the Senate and there’s the distraction of lots of other issues.”







    Any REPUBLICAT that votes for "GUN CONTROL" will be fell in elections!!!

    Watch DEMOCATS waffle on "YES" votes!!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lonewolfinoregon View Post
    Any REPUBLICAT that votes for "GUN CONTROL" will be fell in elections!!!

    Watch DEMOCATS waffle on "YES" votes!!!
    many republicans want to vote with the democrats on several issues but they want to keep their offices so they look for political cover to try to "justify" voting with schumer

    they are gutless
    The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspapers."
    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jefferson Republic
    Posts
    5,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    many republicans want to vote with the democrats on several issues but they want to keep their offices so they look for political cover to try to "justify" voting with schumer

    they are gutless
    They don't have Manchin!!!

    Meaning they will need 11 Senate Republicats, they won't get it.

    But I expect the number of Democats that will vote Yes will start to go down in the next weeks!!

    Eight Republicans are not up for election in Nov!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    10,565

    Default

    A 1000 percent tax on guns and ammo? McConnell, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, etc. won't vote for anything over 700 percent.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Fly-over country
    Posts
    7,704

    Default

    An age limit of 21 is probably more politically achievable than any additional taxes on AR purchases.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,550

    Default

    “There are no sides.”
    “There’s no Sunnis and Shiites.”
    “There’s no Democrats and Republicans.”
    "Just haves and have nots."


    It is all a “Big Show” and there is no Deep State but just “The State.“
    ​HAVE A PLAN TO KILL EVERY COMMUNIST/FASCIST/SATANIST YOU MEET
    You can thank me later








  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jefferson Republic
    Posts
    5,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Man View Post
    An age limit of 21 is probably more politically achievable than any additional taxes on AR purchases.
    How is it working for "DRINKING" and "SMOKING"!!!!

    There is going to be a lot of "GIFTS"!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •