Vern Evans
Colorado has joined California in taxing Americans’ Second Amendment rights with its new voter-approved gun initiative. While proposals for similar taxes have ignorantly claimed they mean to reduce gun violence, this new Centennial State measure is unique in that it confesses upfront to being a revenue-generating scheme, using victim services as an “ends justify the means” argument.
A 6.5% tax on guns, gun parts and ammunition will apply to dealers and manufacturers that make at least $20,000 annually, excluding sales to law enforcement and active-duty military. The tax is expected to generate $39 million in revenue, which the state says it will spend on programs to support domestic violence victims and mental health services, with a small portion to fund school security measures.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Colorado has approximately 2,200 firearms and ammunition dealers, pawnbrokers and manufacturers operating within the state. Frank Sadvar of Northwest Outfitters says that while the “way it was worded on the ballots, it looked really good,” he suspects the initiative will fall short of its estimated revenue promises, much like most scams from the left.
“We’ve already got people saying, ‘Well, we can run over to Utah or Wyoming instead,’” says Sadvar.
Economists call this “Pigouvian,” a tax on a purchase that creates an additional cost for individuals not directly involved in the original transaction. In other words, when Americans purchase guns, we inherently create societal costs associated with the damage caused by owning firearms. Rosanna Smart, a senior economist at RAND, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, and affiliate faculty of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, likens this to gasoline taxes used to support infrastructure such as road repairs and initiatives to reduce pollution.
“It’s not because you’re a bad driver that we’re taxing gasoline. It’s because we need this money to be able to improve our infrastructure in ways that allow people to continue to use that product,” says Smart.
Unshockingly, Rosanna is not as “smart” as her name might suggest. The analogy fails for several reasons. First, every vehicle that uses gasoline to travel public roadways contributes to the wear and tear associated with keeping up the infrastructure. Can you imagine if this was the case with the estimated 400 million privately owned firearms in the United States? Trust me when I say we would know in a very severe way if it was. Only an infinitesimal percentage are used to commit violent crimes, and this has nothing to do with the gun itself and everything to do with its criminal use. Of course, we’ve become accustomed to the left shifting blame to inanimate objects in support of their disarming agenda, while being seemingly impervious to the crime flooding through our borders and going unchecked in cities across America.
The second gaping hole in this nitwit argument is that it conveniently sets aside the fact that the right to “keep and bear arms” is codified in the Bill of Rights, not some bill of privileges. It is a Constitutionally protected liberty that “shall not be infringed.” Let me spell this out for the subversive and treasonous left. Shall not be taxed. Shall not be regulated. Shall not be restricted. Shall not be banned.
You know what, though, I’ll play along. If Democrats don’t see these measures as a violation of the Second Amendment, they certainly won’t see them as a violation of the First, right? I find it disturbing and destructive to speak of mutilating children in support of the trans agenda. Whoever discusses these matters, medical personnel, the media, or the average citizen, should do so with the utmost care and accountability. Red (American) states, listen up. Let’s have them apply for a tax stamp. Pay around $200 per conversation, wait for approval, and then you may speak on the matter on the specified occasion. If you are caught having one of these conversations without a tax stamp, then you will face fines and imprisonment. Revenue from the tax could be used for mental health services for those with gender dysphoria.
Let’s ban talk of socialism and other conversations contradictory to the founding principles of the United States, or at least find a way to regulate or restrict them. Perhaps any conversation or publication containing more than ten sentences or any assembly involving more than ten people should be forbidden to regulate the capacity of such speech. Wasn’t it the left who argued that words could be violence in the first place? And let’s address publication. When the Constitution was drafted, the founders could not have foreseen film, television, still photography, radio, telephones, or the internet. It’s time to dust off those Gutenberg-style presses if you want to disseminate certain types of communication.
I could do this all day, but you get the point. Until we can restore the rights promised to all Americans by the Constitution, I say conservative states should stop bringing toothpicks to a gunfight. Fight them back using their own rules. Surely, the left can not cry infringement of the First Amendment upon the same measures they enthusiastically and unashamedly apply to the Second Amendment. Expose them for the parasitic conspirators and treasonous subversives they are.
Read the full article here