Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Can't "ban" guns? Let's mandate INSURANCE - and tax it!

In 1993, NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed a graduated Federal tax ranging from 55% to 10,000% on ammunition.  This wasn't a fiscal measure; it was a punitative imposition on the Second Amendment.  Did it 'infringe' on your right to own a firearm?  No, it did not; only on your ability to buy ammunition.

It's a funny thing, how when the government becomes involved in the private lives of its citizens, the first thing that happens is that they RESTRICT your rights.  Have you noticed that all laws either deny your right to do something, or the government benefits financially from your exercise of your rights?  There's a reason, and it's not what you might immediately assume:

It's not about violence.  It's about money, control, and the growth of government.

Here is a good CURRENT example of that abuse of power:  proposed by a purported Gun Owner.
Let's remove all 'restrictions' from guns; but let's make gun owners buy "insurance" depending on how powerful the gun is, how many bullets it can hold, and a bunch of other things that maybe we haven't thought of yet.  Make gun owners pay through the nose for their noxious toys, and use the money to fund 'free' Mental Health.
Not a direct quote, but rather the gist of a June 14, 2014 editorial opinion article from a small-town newspaper in (surprise!) New York.  (See a quote and citation at the bottom of this page).   He wants gun owners to pay a mandatory 'insurance' for all guns and all magazines that he or she owns.  Presumably, with annual premiums

The author seems proud of himself for finding a way to get around the Second Amendment.   It doesn't "infringe" your rights; it just 'restricts" them, and oh it's not really a "restriction"; it's merely a requirement that you must buy 'insurance' to exercise your constitutional rights.
No, wait, it's not that either. It's just A Good Idea!  (Because he thought of it, and needed to write an article for his newspaper.)

Who will set the rates for insurance?  Why, Congress will, of course.  Our Dear Leader President has already established a precedent with his National Health Care Initiative, and it's only a short Camel's Nose Under the Tent step from buying a National insurance policy for personal 'wellness' to buying a National insurance policy against Gun Violence.

The good part is, we would be doing it for The Children.  You know, those victims of the 74 school shootings?  The 500 children killed every year in "School Children" shootings in Chicago?  Yeah, those children.

(Of course those children wouldn't buy the insurance; they won't even buy their guns ... they steal them!)

Since this would be a National Law, the Treasury Department (aka "The Revenoors", aka BATFE) would have to make sure everyone who had a gun paid his annual insurance premiums.   How can they do this?  Well, certainly they would need the ability to track gun ownership.  Can you think of a more efficient way than to register every firearm in America, and every exchange of ownership?

 That sounds expensive; okay, so let's tax firearms transfers; monitoring every firearm in the country is expensive, so there would have to be a tax on transfers.  Someone has to pay for all this paperwork, and who better than the former gun owner who benefits financially from the sale?

There would be another page in your annual Income tax form because ... sale of chattel would be income.  Besides, the IRS needs to know if the NEXT owner reports a subsequent transfer, and so on and so on.  Whew!  This is getting to be even more expensive.  Maybe we should tax the new gun owner, too.  We can do that, because HEY we already have the paperwork.

What if you default on your taxes?  First thing is, we take confiscate your guns.  All of them.  Lots of fines, how about we take your home and your cars, too.    We can do this.  We're The Government, we're here to restrict help.

Going back to Moynihan's tax on ammunition; this wasn't a fiscal measure; it was a punitative imposition on the Second Amendment.  Did it 'infringe' on your right to own a firearm?  No, it did not; only on your right to buy ammunition.

In fact, it didn't even address your right to buy ammunition; only on your ability.  If this bill (or one like it) were ever passed, then only the very rich could afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.    The rest of us, who are struggling to educate our children, pay off our mortgage, and care for our family and property ... we could not afford to defend our family.

Tingley is the 21st century reincarnation of Moynihan in this respect: he uses chicanery, the taxation powers of congress, and liberal pie-in-the-sky fanaticism to undermine your personal freedoms.

Worse; Moynihan didn't even claim that his "Modest Proposal" was a ligitimate bill.  He only presented it to make the point that he disagreed with the current understanding of the Second Amendment .. with which he disagreed.

Tingley the gun owner has a much more modest "modest proposal"; he calls it "insurance", not "'taxes".

It's not different; it's worse.

Time to remove restrictions on guns:

Considering the suicide rates, the damaged soldiers returning from overseas wars and the young people struggling to make it through adolescence, we need to beef up every aspect of mental health treatment, no matter the cost. So where do we get the money? By removing all restrictions on guns. If you want an automatic weapon with 200-round magazines, let’s put it in Wal-Mart. If you want an old Sherman tank out in the yard as insurance against a coming apocalypse, start bidding on eBay. If you want a Gatling gun guarding the perimeter to make you feel safe, you should be allowed to buy it.
 But here is the catch. You have to have mandatory training, pass a test to get a license to operate safely and carry mandatory liability insurance, just like any motor vehicle.

Author:  Ken Tingley, editor of the Post Star (Glenn Falls, NY)


Anonymous said...

Why not, everyone has to buy insurance on their bodies.

Unknown said...

It's possible to have a mandate for insurance to protect victims of gun violence without unduly burdening gun owners. We do it for other things like cars and it work quite well in states that are careful with the way it's required. There are lots of details on http://guninsuranceblog.com There are solutions to problems like covering intentional acts and criminals who wouldn't buy insurance and the cost would be surprisingly low.

Anonymous said...

It's good for the insurance companies and gives the state/federal government a chance to grow and increase regulation.