"Gun Control" Movement Unmasked

Who says there isn't an Elitist message in the Gun Control Movement?

Dem OK With Only Rich People Having Guns | The Daily Caller: (March 01, 2018):

Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny Davis says it is acceptable for only wealthy individuals having access firearms if a 50 percent federal tax on all guns and ammunition becomes law.

There's nothing new about Liberals using taxation to undermine your constitutional rights:

This is reminiscent of Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan's 1993 movement to impose a draconian tax on firearms and ammunition:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3— Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable.
The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.

So .. it's okay that you can have a GUN .. you just can't have AMMUNITION.

Factcheck.org offered  some expanded details on this theme in June of 1999:

We can’t say what might be proposed in the future. And in the past, there have been proposals to raise the tax on ammunition. In 1993, for example, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, proposed to raise the tax to 50 percent on most handgun ammunition, and to more than 10,000 percent on 9-millimeter hollow-tipped Black Talon cartridges, which were advertised as having a bullet that expanded "to expose razor-sharp reinforced jacket petals." However, his plan would not have raised taxes on .22-caliber ammunition, which is used for target shooting. He proposed these increases to help finance the health care plan then being proposed by President Clinton, but the proposal was ultimately rejected.

"They" weren't after the .22 caliber ammunition, so target shooting is okay?
And after all, the taxes on non-22 ammo went for a good cause. 

Which doesn't mean that, after we have digested this first step toward Gun Control, the (small increment), then the Second Step will not be more unconstitutional. 

And that's why we will not give an inch to those who would undermine our rights.

Here's how this incremental attack on your freedoms actually works:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

TRANSLATION:

First the came for the Full-Autos, and I did not speak out because I did have a machine gun.
Then they came for the semi-auto rifles, and I did not speak out because I did not have a semi-auto rifle.
Then the came for the high-capacity magazines, and I did not speak out because I did not have a high-capacity magazine.
Then they came for the large-caliber pistols, and I did not speak out because I did not have a large-caliber pistol.
Then they came for the "snub-nosed, concealable pistols" and I did not speak out because I did have a 'snubby".
Then they came for the magazine-fed large caliber rifles, and I did not speak out because I did not have a magazine fed rifle.
Then the came for the sniper rifles, and I had a bolt-action .223 varmint rifle with a 10 power scope, and there was no one left to speak out for me..

Tip of the Ice Berg

Open letter to the City of Seattle, Washington:

Dear Seattle;

(Image courtesy of CNS NEWS)

It’s common sense for Seattle to tax gun sales to study violence | The Seattle Times:

Washington’s law prohibits the regulation of firearms by local governments, but Seattle is within its authority to impose fees to pay for a public-health crisis caused by gun violence. A $25 tax on each firearm sold within the city is reasonable, as is a 2-cent- or 5-cent-per-round tax for various types of ammunition. The city is so serious about tackling this problem, it plans to pay for research and prevention even if the court sides with the gun-rights coalition. But the city shouldn’t have to. If Seattle gets this right, other cities should also pitch in to solve this public-health crisis.

(All emphasis added by me)

Reasonable.  By your standards, perhaps.
Unconstitutional, by the Second Amendment.


When your article inserts the word "but ...", it's a tacit acknowledgement that you're advocating a measure which undermines the civil rights of your readership.  And you know it.  You just think that your readers are so stupid, or so already-in-your-court, that you can say ANYTHING and your readers will accept it.   Because they trust you.

You are trading in the trust of your customers, undermining their rights, and you have such disdain for them that you assume they won't notice your goal ... which is to serve them up for the dinner which is your political masters.

There is nothing new in your plan to impose "reasonable, common sense measures"
(BZZZT! Bullshit Alert!) for benign administrative purposes.

New York Senator  Daniel Patrick Moynihan had the same idea in 1993 when he proposed a 10,000% tax on ammunition.

November 04, 1993|By John Fairhall | John Fairhall,Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- Demanding action to stop the country's epidemic of violence, a powerful Senate chairman declared yesterday that his panel would make handgun control an integral part of health care reform by drastically increasing the tax on bullets.
Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the panel would build into health reform legislation such a huge increase in ammunition taxes that the most destructive types of bullets would effectively be taxed "out of existence."
The New York Democrat introduced a measure yesterday -- which he would incorporate into a health care reform bill later on -- that would impose a 100-fold increase in the tax on certain bullets and a 50 percent tax on all other handgun ammunition, with the exception of .22 caliber rimfire bullets used in target shooting. The current tax is 11 percent of the manufacturers' ammunition price.


His legislation also would slap a $10,000 "occupational tax" on manufacturers and importers of handgun ammunition.

But Moynihan, then, was more honest than Seattle is now:

• Mr. Moynihan said he believed the new taxes could raise as much as $1 billion. The current federal tax on ammunition, combined with federal taxes on handguns, shotguns and rifles, generated $143 million in 1992, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

• But the senator said his major goal was not to raise revenue but to tax "out of existence" ammunition "which has the sole purpose destroying bodies."

... while you, Seattle, dodge the issue by suggesting that "... it's common sense to tax gun sales ..." for whatever transparent excuse you choose to employ.

In truth, Seattle Times, and Seattle Washington, you just want to tax ammunition (and firearms .. both of which are legal products) "out of existence".

This proposition for a tax on the Second Amendment is like putting a frog in a crock-pot; if the water is initially only 'warm', the frog won't notice that sooner or later it's being boiled.

Why do you advocate this?
Because you can!

Is it any wonder that Americans have increasingly demonstrated that they no longer trust their government, but fear it?  This happens when the Government which they have elected has turned against the best interests of their constituents ... or should we say "Subjects"? ... to further a Political Goal?