You must log in or register to comment.

silasmoeckel t1_j9u5rrc wrote

3c a round is going to hurt some good places.

Local scout camp thats an additional 3 bucks or so every round on the firing range. A 22LR is about 7c a round now so this is nearly a 50% tax for the people trying to teach responsible gun safety and use.


Laurajw12 OP t1_j9u6s98 wrote

Great point. Thanks for bringing that up.


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9v88vd wrote

7c a round makes me want to yell at a cloud. I remember when a 500 box of Remington was $10 at Walmart. It was right before some dingleberry whipped out his pecker and announced on TV that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."


word_swashbuckler t1_j9vco27 wrote

Ooof, I wish I had enough time to chat about how the thinking is so backwards with gun safety/use training/education—but that would probably take the rest of my life. It’s so frustrating when the response to any gun-involved tragedy is seemingly devised by folks unfamiliar with guns as a hobby, and they’re unwittingly making it harder for the safest, most trained if not well-trained folks to engage with guns safely.

FWIW, I’ve begun shooting with family a couple times a month. Hadn’t fired a weapon in about twenty years until going to a gun range a few weeks ago with my father, and I’m really interested in obtaining my permit and such. Wish folks were more open minded about gun owners and ownership in general.


gwy2ct t1_j9y0t8e wrote

Not trolling you but what measures would you suggest to curb mass shootings? I’ve never fired a gun and have zero interest to. But obviously these whackos who do these mass shootings are able to obtain and use guns way too easily.


silasmoeckel t1_j9ymcjy wrote

Your base premiss is that the tool is the issue not the person. We have had to tool for a lot longer than the problem. It was pretty easy to find dynamite as a kid every farmer had a shack full way out on the back 40. But for the most part nothing bad happened related to this. Guns were far more available and commonly used, we grew up knowing what it was to take and animals life to feed ourselves. Learning to kill something gives you an appreciation of the act that I dont think people have anymore.

So you need to attack the issue from a different direction. For government thats harder as often thats looking as why systemic supports are not in place.


mrjharder11 t1_j9uy8m0 wrote

30% increases in cost. $30 per 1000 rounds.

Is it that much more per shooter? I mean, I'm not wild about it but takes me a while to squeeze off 1000 rounds. If its its going to education about firearm safety then isn't it a good application of tax dollars? I think there's a lot of data that shows that spending on prevention pays back a lot in outcomes. Like the Head Start program for preschool - every dollar spent pays off like 9 or 10 bucks down the road in dollars saved. It literally keeps teens and adults out of the welfare and criminal justice system. I'm for the same approach if that's the intent here for preventing gun deaths.


silasmoeckel t1_j9vgpw2 wrote

> 7c a round is allready crazy for a 22LR.

Were talking about a program thats already teaching firearms safety to more kids in the US that any other program by far. Ammo is the biggest cost to run the program. So yea a 30-50% increase in real costs is huge.


jredline7 t1_j9wjnuq wrote

The tax dollars would be used for public firearm safety training which should allow us to drop the need for pistol permits.

I still believe taxation is theft but I applaud the good intentions


TreeEleben t1_j9wm3xb wrote

Permits will never go away. They're used to deter gun ownership. Currently, the 2nd amendment only applies to those who hold a valid license, the state won't give up that power over the citizens.


mrjharder11 t1_j9yaet5 wrote

Are drivers licenses made to deter car ownership? Is the bar exam meant to deter people from becoming lawyers? You want hacks cutting your hair and applying pesticides to your residence? You do realize there are people who try to do these things without training or a license that wind up literally ruining lives, right?

I agree, they put up a barrier to access but isn't that the point? So some yahoo doesn't become the next deadly yahoo?

Still curious why the 2nd Amendment is so sacred while we allow power to assail the 1st, 4th and 5th until we have zero freedom and security.


mrjharder11 t1_j9y9pmk wrote

I forgot what I was replying to lol. Ok then make your own ammo. Problem solved.


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9v8hyt wrote

It's true enough that you're already blowing so much money on ammo that the folks who are still willing to do it at all won't be deterred too much by the tax.


rawdew2007 t1_j9u8s90 wrote

Maybe we should make ct a dry state so no more drunk drivers kill people


idontknowwhatever58 t1_j9tzr69 wrote

Sounds like im buying ammo out of state. Get fucked, CT


sgtpepper220 t1_j9vd79b wrote

Cry more


idontknowwhatever58 t1_j9vw5ff wrote

GuNs R baD!!1!1!

CT can cry more when everyone starts buying out of state and they lose all that sweet sweet sales tax


sgtpepper220 t1_j9vz5am wrote

Yeah, I mean as right wingers have said for ages. If you don't like it, get out.

Just go instead of throwing a tantrum online like a teenage girl on Twitter


idontknowwhatever58 t1_j9w00eb wrote

Gun control does nothing but inconvenience those who follow the law.

Im not a right winger.


sgtpepper220 t1_j9w0dp5 wrote

Mmhmm whatever your TV tells you. Bravo for knowing your lines.

When I said that bit about right wingers I was either generalizing you or comparing you to other idiots. I guess to take your pick lol makes no difference to me.


idontknowwhatever58 t1_j9w1b83 wrote

Knowing my lines? Its the truth.

Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity... CT and CA already have the most restrictive and insane laws in the country, and gun related crimes still happen in both places.

Clearly adding more rules and restrictions isnt solving the problem.


sgtpepper220 t1_j9w3joq wrote

It's a complicated issue that can't be solved by legislation alone.

My opinion on gun control and whiny fools on the internet are mutually exclusive. This is about gun nuts being easily triggered by mild taunting lol. There are plenty of people who are competent enough to own guns, but you don't seem like one of them based on the fact that you're talking about uprooting your life because you have to pay a few more cents for a bullet or drive somewhere else to get them.

Over dramatic, overgrown children owning guns is a huge problem, and people make it like a major part of your identity. These are deeply rooted mental health issues based on insecurity. But, big NRA likes to stroke your egos and make you feel ohhhh so smart when you parade your "truth" on the internet while you throw a hissy about a minor inconvenience.

Later loser


idontknowwhatever58 t1_j9w4zr4 wrote

Im not going to move because of an ammo tax lol. Never said that.

Nor is it a part of my identity. Its a hobby.

Im commenting my opinion on a forum about a stupid law that does fuck all to stop gun violence.


Spooky2000 t1_j9w75m0 wrote

It's a 12 year old account that is nothing more than douche trolling.. Ignore him.


Current-Photo2857 t1_j9u8syo wrote

Have to wonder why CT doesn’t want its poorer citizens to be able to defend themselves…


mrjharder11 t1_j9v08v9 wrote

So now CT is digging into the working poor's budget for ammunition? Man, they're always chiseling pennies away from the workers. Must be a huge burden on top of heating fuel and electrical costs this winter. They're probably leasing ammo from Aaron's Rent to Own


flatdanny t1_j9ucd7k wrote

American Thinker provides cover and a platform for whacko extremists. Its a garbage disinformation site.

>Faced with a lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, Lifson acknowledged that the site had relied upon "discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories"

>...the site had in 2014 published a complimentary piece on white nationalist Jared Taylor and in 2015 asserted that rainbow-colored Doritos are a "gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality

I will however, enjoy this thread.


Spooky2000 t1_j9w6tcq wrote

Better? They want to go to 35% tax on ammo.

>According to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Fiscal Analysis, it is estimated that $25 million in ammunition is sold in our state on an annual basis. Connecticut's 6.35 percent sales tax rate generated $1.6 million in sales tax revenue. When set at 35 percent, the state can generate more than $7 million for gun violence prevention and reduction efforts.


Hey-buuuddy t1_j9v12j5 wrote

Lol. I like how upper-middle class suburban folks in zero crime areas have a lot of opinions on this, but lower-income urban residents who actually could benefit from armed self-defense are not even considered. This taxes their budgets the most. Taxes on Second Amendment rights helps no one.


TreeEleben t1_j9wmagn wrote

Taxes on a constitutional right are illegal. End of discussion.


stengbeng t1_j9ybop9 wrote

Oh shit can you tell us which well regulated militia you’re part of?


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9ydkrs wrote

Nothing about ammunition in the constitution. Sorry. Also nothing against taxing constitutional rights.


Lcomotive t1_j9y2ymx wrote

Smart armed self defense looks like a shotgun in your home. Even carrying on your person for self defense doesn’t really require you to buy a bunch of rounds. The reality is once you start shooting you’ve most likely saved yourself whether you hit your target or not. Hobby shooting will hit the pocketbooks of people. I don’t have to buy shells for my home defense weapon weekly. Not that I agree with this tax either, though.


cocopalermo t1_j9yh9xn wrote

I think this is only going to affect the “Dont Tread on Me” crew. They’re the ones going to the range the most out of gun owners in this state.


pond_minnow t1_j9vczuv wrote

Each day I regret voting blue more tbh. These folks pass restriction after restriction, ban after ban, but is it enough? Hell no. Give an inch, another inch, a few more inches, but it is never enough. Now this proposal? Now it's time to punish the law-abiding lower-class folks by hitting their pockets? Color me shocked when the tax keeps going up and up and up. Color me further when they demand you purchase insurance. If we can't get rid of these darn murder toys, well, we'll just make it only a well-to-do man's right!

Great job Democrats. Keep up the shitty work. Keep chipping away at it.


Ftheyankeei t1_j9ua0ed wrote

Beyond the incredibly slanted and propagandistic platform on which it was published and the author's recent post history (I'm sure your app for the unvaccinated will go swimmingly, congratulations on your InfoWars appearance!) I'm sure this is a conversation that is worth having from sources that are worth trusting. Gun nuts, when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Either own that or shut the fuck up.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9ucfz5 wrote

I’m getting fleas because I have a lot of guns? Interesting, I didn’t realize that’s where they came from.


WedSpassky t1_j9ujilp wrote

You’re a fucking idiot. Imagine living in the world we do with EVERYTHING at your finger tips. You can learn an instrument, learn to cook/paint/play video games/garden etc. to the infinite.

And you choose to own a fuck ton of guns because they go boom. You’re a moron. Get a real hobby that requires more than just pulling a trigger and (maybe) killing innocent people.


IrishWithoutPotatoes t1_j9uopxv wrote

Someone doesn’t understand how complex guns can actually be.


WedSpassky t1_j9uvf5m wrote

Wow nuclear weapons - so complex! Lets give everyone a warhead!


WedSpassky t1_j9uuxso wrote

So complex and beautiful - just look at the AR-15 and all the children it killed! Wow, what a fucking work of art!


IrishWithoutPotatoes t1_j9uvz37 wrote

Never said killing anyone was beautiful or a work of art. I said guns were complex, which they are. No need to be a twat.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9up9ef wrote

I enjoy them for different reasons. Some of them are mechanical works of art, others have historical value, and some are for protection. You should try shooting, it’s fun!


WedSpassky t1_j9uuqm9 wrote

Na I’m good got books to read and music to play, don’t need to spend my short time on this earth around weapons that blow children’s brains out ✌️


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uv752 wrote

I’m just finishing up Gulag by Anne Applebaum. Good read, highly recommend. It’s possible to have more than one hobby. 🤷‍♀️


WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9um5l4 wrote

“Vote blue no matter who” - Statist bootlickers


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vcr11 wrote

You're opening a can of worms there.

For example, what deconverted me from being a gun nut myself was noticing that nobody actually supported 2A rights for black people: in effect they supported them for "everybody," by which they meant "law abiding" people, but whichever black person was in the news at the moment was somehow never "one of the good ones." I rubbed elbows with open-carry types who never spared a moment's thought for the fact that a black man open carrying was enormously likely to be shot on sight by police, and when that actually happened all these OC types would jump on the line that "he was no angel."

All that to say, it's perfectly rational to refuse to vote for the party that consistently supports policies with racist outcomes.

The catch is that the alternative is a party that's at best all talk and no action. Our current president is literally to the right of Ronald Reagan. So voting blue is a bit like screaming into a hurricane.


MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j9u7do5 wrote

Could one of you ammosexuals please explain to me how this is a violation of 2nd amendment rights but the fact that books are taxed isn't a violation of 1st amendment rights?


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ua7cz wrote

books are normal 6.35% tax guns and ammo 6.35% + 11% already, without the bill.


MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j9ubcx5 wrote

I've never seen police respond to someone bringing a book into a school.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ucmc2 wrote

what?😂 we’re talking of law abiding citizens forced to pay ADDITIONAL unlawful taxes on the guns they use responsibly to fund programs to prevent your little brother from walking into school shooting kids in the face. thats like adding taxes to alcohol because a minor got caught drinking at a party. so because he drank as a minor and broke the law we should pay additional taxes to fund a D.A.R.E program?

geez talking with connecticut far left dems is like trying to teach a brick wall to play basketball. some of you guys in here have no problem making yourselves sound brainless all on your own!😂


MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j9udozz wrote

> thats like adding taxes to alcohol because a minor got caught drinking at a party.

Uhhh, we already do that? There are taxes on alcohol above and beyond the 6.35% specifically to deal with harm alcohol causes.

geez talking with connecticut alt-reich cons is like trying to teach a incontinent golden retriever to play basketball.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ue3rk wrote

and uhhhhh theres already 17% guns and ammo tax. you’re goin in circles dude dont get dizzy now🤪


WedSpassky t1_j9uj0bx wrote

Tax guns/ammo more. They kill people and cause irreparable harm to countless innocent Americans every year.


WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9umazv wrote

Gangs do this but you’re not ready for that conversation


WedSpassky t1_j9umiz1 wrote

Really? Gangs shoot up schools? Japan has gangs - why aren’t there more shootings in Japan. Like I said - you’re a fucking nitwit. Go play with your guns dumbass - too stupid to do anything else.


WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9un2yw wrote

No but there’s more gang related violence than there are school shootings in this state.

Stick your head further up your ass so your head comes back out of your mouth. There’s more legal gun owners in the suburbs but hardly any crime. All the gang shootings are in the cities.


Viceversa10 t1_j9v8htk wrote

Ban abortions. They kill thousands of babies a year. Ban cars. They kill thousands of people a year. Ban breathing. It causes cancer and you die. Ban smoking cigarettes and weed. They cause cancer and kill you. Ban walking. You can fall and die. Ban knives forks and spoons they are weapons that can kill others.

Shall I keep going?


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uclyp wrote

What if the government decided to put a tax on everything you posted to social media?


SnooMemesjellies7469 t1_j9wb0ba wrote

"Ammosexual.". Funny. Not original, but funny.

I'm not aware of any specific "book" tax. If you mean sales tax, ammunition is already subject to that.

Grow up and move out of your mom's basement. Shower off and get the stink of mildew off you, first.


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9v9wum wrote

It's obviously not an infringement of the 2A. Folks who get outraged about this are reacting not so much to the tax itself as to what they perceive as the legislators' motives. If hypothetically they'd set the tax at $5 per round, I think it would be easy to see their viewpoint.

For comparison, machine guns are still legal to own in most of the US. The National Firearms Act of 1934 decided to tax them instead of banning them. The tax, $400, is negligible today, but at the time it was the equivalent of over $4K in present-day dollars. It was ample to keep poor and minorities from owning these guns, while it was barely an inconvenience to the wealthy.

* And they went the taxation route because they believed at the time that a ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional. They were explicitly trying to reduce ownership of machine guns without ever resorting to a ban.

** What really cut down their availability was the 1986 ban on manufacture or importation of machine guns for civilian use. All machine guns in circulation today were manufactured pre-1986.


TreeEleben t1_j9wn6iq wrote

The government has capped the number of legal machine guns, the cheapest is over $10k. They're banned from anyone who isn't rich. Taxing ammo beyond normal sales tax is solely intended to make practice and recreational shooting too expensive for most people.


gewehr44 t1_j9vl461 wrote

An onerous tax would 'obviously' be an infringement. The question is where that line is? After Bruen, these taxes might be struck down.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yehpt wrote

Doesn’t infringe on anything. You still are able to keep and bear arms. Can’t afford the bullets? Oh, well. You could always make your own.


gewehr44 t1_ja1ul72 wrote

Could the govt tax newspapers so that every copy cost $100?


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja2hjxq wrote

Yeah, if they so chose.


gewehr44 t1_ja5i709 wrote

Disagree. Under Murdock v pa the state cannot tax a right. Taxing something that is a right to make it unaffordable would be unconstitutional. See also poll taxes.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja5mfn2 wrote

Touché. Fortunately ammunition isn’t a right.


gewehr44 t1_ja6vjmo wrote

I forgot someone else wrote about this:

The idea that ammunition isn't included is laughable. There are a number of court cases that should be decided this year that will shed some more light on this topic


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7nind wrote

Why would ammunition be a right? Not mentioned at all. I fear you will be disappointed with the results of those court cases.


gewehr44 t1_ja7phfv wrote

The right to keep and bear arms is not just about guns. It also includes knives & other implements useful for self defense. In Caetano v Massachusetts, stun guns were deemed to be protected by the 2nd. Claiming that the people can own arms but not the means to make them useful is a 'too clever by half' interpretation.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7q5q2 wrote

But not ammunition.


gewehr44 t1_jaa3n5p wrote


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_jachrce wrote

Another article full of likely. But no decision.


gewehr44 t1_jadr2x3 wrote

If it's so obvious then, why hasn't any state passed legislation banning ammunition? I don't think it's even been proposed.


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vth2v wrote

Agreed. 3c doesn't seem like much if you're shooting rifle calibers, but since I normally shoot .22, and I remember when the round itself cost 2c, I'd find it outrageous enough to do all my shopping out of state.


interiorcrocodemon t1_j9v7m0r wrote

It doesn't matter, it doesn't fix anything. It's meaningless fake action.

It's kinda funny 2a people are even upset because of how insignificant it is.

But it's dumb. Have some balls to do something that actually makes a difference. Mass shootings statically went way down with the last assault weapon ban. The majority are done with ar15s.

I don't care why it works but it does so let's do it again.

If you want a gun so bad get a Pistol or shotgun or something not used to mass eliminate people on the regular.


GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vbsbj wrote

>It's kinda funny 2a people are even upset because of how insignificant it is.

In that sense it's a bit like pat-downs in the airport: it's kind of infuriating to know that not only is this chungus feeling me up, but also that it's doing absolutely nothing to make anyone even a little bit safer.


interiorcrocodemon t1_j9velma wrote

Agreed but it's just proof democrats won't actually enact gun control. They'll just make political gestures so they can say 'look, we tried, donate to our next campaign and maybe then?'


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u5mrl wrote

bullshit bill, solid article tho. if you’re for defunding the police and unarming citizens, give this one a read too😉


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ujtpv wrote

Please friend, don’t use that source to form any opinions. When you see “defund” think “re-allocate”. When you see “build the wall” think “arrest the employers who exploit desperate people”. When you see “woke” think “aware”.

I’m sure your military duty showed you how much can be accomplished when “the people” work together. We have to stop fighting amongst ourselves. If you lose your job and they come and take everything you worked for away ……. You’re part of the working class.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yfexn wrote

If you mean reallocate say reallocate, not defund, which is what is exactly what they mean.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9yghom wrote

Care to elaborate?


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9ygng2 wrote

No, it is clear as day. Say the words you mean. Then people won’t misinterpret it.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9yhfwj wrote

I’m going to hazard a guess you’re not a member of the Algonquin Roundtable.

In any event it means to, for example, provide funds for mental health professionals to deal with people who have mental health problems. And to provide the same care for law enforcement personnel.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yhq6r wrote

So why is it so difficult to say reallocate police funding? It would be far more effective in getting your goals realized.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9yiuym wrote

So I was raised to learn something new everyday and do one nice thing everyday.

I learned something from you and you did one nice thing. Both our days are half complete. :).


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u632m wrote

Why should the societal cost of gun ownership fall on the shoulders of the general tax payer?

We have gasoline taxes so people who operate a vehicle can fund the roads they drive on.

Why shouldn’t gun owners pay taxes on their ammunition to help fund government operations to protect people from gun owners?


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ucu0l wrote

Hear Hear!!! Well we already have the added tax on ammunition. Hmmm. Let’s tax those well-healed EV owners for the roads they use. Let’s get those roads safe and stop exploiting the poors and their fossil fueled death machines.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ud1j3 wrote

I’m down with charging EV’s a road tax for recharging at gas stations.


Laurajw12 OP t1_j9u6jum wrote

This is a secondary tax. We do pay tax on ammunition. And gun owners aren't the ones killing people. Criminals are. Gun owners and criminals aren't the same. Hence the article. I think we are all sick of being lobbed together.


AdHistorical7107 t1_j9u6yut wrote

Who killed those bristol cops? Hint, he was a gun owner. Turned criminal.

Make the connection.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u6yc4 wrote

Those dastardly criminals… throwing bullets at children to death…

You are fucking ridiculous. Being a gun owner doesn’t make you a responsible or law abiding person. It just means you have a tool designed to kill. Someone with a gun is just as likely to be a criminal as any other section of the population, but the gun enables them to do far more damage whether it be via malice or negligence.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u7iwf wrote

not owning a gun doesn’t make you a law abiding citizen either. your standing grounds are shattering.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u7ybk wrote

It doesn’t. It just makes you far less capable of killing many people in a short period of time, through malice or negligence. An unarmed criminal is far less of a threat to those around them than an irresponsible gun owner.

Guns are a weapon. They serve only one purpose.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u9lw9 wrote

there plenty of people that are just as capable of killing people without a gun. anyway, back to the taxes. regular sales tax is applied to guns and ammo aswell as another 11%. if this isn’t enough to fund these programs, maybe ask yourself where this 17% markup is going in the first place. surely 17% of taxes paid on guns and ammo in ct should be boatloads of money already. wheres this money at?


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ucqjl wrote

It’s not that much money. It’s like 7 million dollars annually across the state. How much money do you think a single gun trafficking or shooting investigation costs?


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ud552 wrote

you guys are all over the place lol. we aren’t talking of funding investigations. we’re talking of funding gun violence programs. 7 milli should be plenty!😄


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9udh67 wrote

You think 7 million is a lot of money on a state level to serve the needs of 3.5 million people?


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9uduis wrote

7 MILLION dollars should be enough to host some events and teach a bunch of classes across the state a couple times a year actually, yes. just stop while you’re ahead buddy.😂


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ue6vj wrote

And if the only thing we want is a performance to pretend we are doing something that’s probably just fine.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u78n5 wrote

i dont own one yet but hopefully will soon. im just now starting to educate myself on the laws and purchasing in the state, but as far as i know ammunition is already taxed to hell. use these taxes that are already being paid for these programs maybe? punishing law abiding responsible gun owners to fund the programs that are put up in response to the irresponsible unlawful owners of guns doesn’t seem to make too much sense to me lol.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u7po3 wrote

Taxes aren’t punishments. When you pay a gasoline or a tobacco tax or an alcohol tax it isn’t a punishment. Why should the general tax payer be punished with additional taxes to cover the costs of dealing with the fall out coming from gun owners actions? Why shouldn’t those costs fall on the shoulders of those who actually have a weapon?


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ud664 wrote

Agree 100%. Let’s get the EV drivers to pay their fair share.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9udatx wrote

Sure. Not sure what point your trying to make here pivoting to EVs though.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ufoq4 wrote

It’s an easy whataboutism. The fact is gun ownership is a complex issue. They provide recreation on skeet fields for the (generally speaking) affluent. They provide a tool for hunting for the ( generally speaking) working class.

In rural areas they provide a means of self-protection. I don’t have much use for ammunition but it seems like a particular demographic is targeted and made a scape goat.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uk0uc wrote

They didn’t propose arresting people for buying bullets. They proposed a modest tax on bullets. It’s hardly a scapegoat.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ul8ph wrote

In fairness it’s a relentless chipping away of gun owner’s rights.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9um3ns wrote

Why do you think that the second amendment exempts gun owners from tax liability?


404freedom14liberty t1_j9unfvx wrote

I don’t think that. Sorry if I implied that.

The issue is it seems that citizens have the right to possess firearms. At the very least they are a tool for rural nutmeggers.

Ammunition is already taxed above sales tax. This tax is being applied to a distinct demographic. We can assume this tax is part of a social program to depress gun ownership. As a stated it’s a relentless taking.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u8ezw wrote

“taxes aren’t punishments” and then you follow up with “why should the general taxpayer be punished with additional taxes..” doesn’t make sense. so gun owners shouldn’t look at this as a punishment but the general tax payer should? as i said in a previous comment, use the extraordinary taxes they ALREADY accumulate from guns and ammunition and use that for the programs.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ueia3 wrote

It’s a responsibility, and those who are responsible for the problem should be responsible for the solution. That’s a principle gun owners tend to agree with until they personally can be held responsible.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9uepdb wrote

im done entertaining this clown in particular at this point he seems to be broken.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uezxe wrote

I know you understand what I said, so your refusal to respond means you don’t have a way to actually defend your position.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ufg54 wrote

um no actually. you’re being incoherent and don’t seem understand that law abiding gun owners are not responsible for those that misuse their guns. just like you, a lawful purchaser of alcohol aren’t responsible for those that kill entire families in car accidents while under the influence. i hope i was able to dumb this down enough for you man. im truly sorry youre like this💀


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uju43 wrote

Law abiding gun owners are responsible for every person injured or killed with their gun, even when the owner wasn’t the one operating the gun. The gun community should be responsible for the costs associated with deterring, investigating, prosecuting and compensating those harmed by gun violence. Why shouldn’t the firearm community bear the burden instead of the general population?

And btw: CT drinkers already pay an excise tax to the state because they drink.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ul46x wrote

youre simply going in circles at this point lol.

and btw: ct gun owners already pay an excise in tax to the state because they bought the guns.

get over the fact that your logic simply does not make sense nor do u have any backbone to any of your misconceptions. hope u have a better day than this homie.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ulyfh wrote

Simply saying “your logic makes no sense,” is a denial, not an argument.

When you buy a car you pay a tax on your car. When you buy gasoline you pay a tax on that gasoline.

Similarly there is no conflict between paying taxes on your initial purchase of your firearm and paying taxes on the purchase of ammo


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9um8k1 wrote

theres no denial here. you’ve seemed to have forgotten about the already 17% tax on guns and ammo. you’re speaking as though its not taxed at all. its got sales tax plus an additional 11%. it enough taxes. trust me.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yf3js wrote

Sin taxes are indeed punishment. That’s why they’re called sin taxes.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9yg1te wrote

All those poor car owners… punished by being forced to help pay for the upkeep of the highway system via gasoline taxes…


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yg5kr wrote

Gas tax isn’t a sin tax, genius.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ygw1q wrote

Gas tax is an excise tax, just like alcohol and tobacco.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yh48k wrote

Yes, and two of those are referred to as sin taxes. Hint: it’s not gas.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9yil05 wrote

Excise taxes are referred to as sin taxes by anti-tax advocates, and gasoline is subject to excise taxes


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja01ge8 wrote

Sin taxes are called as such because they are designed to curtail the use of that which is being taxes. The gas tax isn’t to discourage the purchase of gas. It’s to pay for the roads that the gas is being used on.


gewehr44 t1_j9vltvt wrote

You make the false assumption that guns are only a negative value. They are used more often in self defense than to commit crimes.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9vmfl9 wrote

Lol. Did you read this article. It defines the weapon not being used but simply being present as “defensive use”.


Ornery-Confusion-920 t1_j9xmztb wrote

I’ve started buying everything out of state . And having stuff delivered to my camp in NH . At some point I’m just gonna move myself out of this ridiculous state . I feel like all this taxing isn’t even legal.


Laurajw12 OP t1_j9y7eus wrote

Can I come with you?😊 I agree. I order everything online.


Spectro_Boy t1_j9uni3r wrote

American Stinker!?!?!?!?!




sgtpepper220 t1_j9vg3we wrote

Nothing activates a right winger's victim complex like tiny inconveniences


Inthect t1_j9ugocn wrote

Muh rights are done being abridged!


sjsmac t1_j9ty7ng wrote

Hey Laura, fuck you.


Just_Jer t1_j9u3pgi wrote

Why Laura? She isn't the author of the bill, she wrote an article telling US about it...


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u5nuk wrote

I’m tired of the general population having to spend all this extra money because an extreme minority can’t responsibly own, store or operate their weaponry. If society has to bend over and accept more danger to accommodate gun owners then let it be gun owners who bear the costs.


Just_Jer t1_j9u8eml wrote

As said in the article, this only affects law abiding gun owners. We buy our ammo legally, the people causing most of the issue aren't eligible to carry the firearms in the first place, let alone purchase ammunition.

Why punish both kids if that little bastard, Johnny, is the one who broke the vase?


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ub48z wrote

Are you telling me you think the criminal element is making their own bullets in their garage?


Just_Jer t1_j9ubmu6 wrote

I'm thinking they're obtaining them using other means than legal. I have to present my permit to buy ammunition in CT.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ucul2 wrote

When criminals obtain ammo through illegal means, it means they illegally bought the ammunition from someone who bought it legally. No one is making their own bullets


Just_Jer t1_j9udtfs wrote

I mean that isn't true, either. People DO reload their own ammunition.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ue33g wrote

Sure, in the same way that people do really build their own homes from logs they felled themselves, but let’s not pretend like the criminal element is primarily building their own guns or making their own ammo. They are buying it from straw buyers and dishonest gun dealers.


Just_Jer t1_j9ueck3 wrote

If you say so, seems like a good way to lose your permit, FFL, and get a bonus prison stay


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uekau wrote

That’s true of literally every crime, yet people still commit crime.


WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9umksh wrote

So you’re saying additional laws or taxes won’t stop this? Glad we’re clear on that.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9unbc0 wrote

If we had no laws there would be no crime, but that’s a terrible argument in favor of anarchy.

Taxes help fund the governments efforts to reduce gun violence. If anyone should bear the costs for those programs it’s the gun owning community.


WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9uni31 wrote

Gonna need to see some data to back up the claim that “taxes help reduce gun violence” We pay a pretty hefty tax already and gun violence is still effecting the same people in the same areas.

poke around these comments on my other post people are getting sick of the lack of response from law enforcement. If they won’t enforce the current laws, law abiding citizens will inevitably take it into their own hands.

Law abiding citizens continue to be punished for the actions of some thugs. The evidence is in this tax bill.


ruffdaddysmooth t1_j9u1eh9 wrote

It's a start... Banning guns all together is still a decade away but we will get there.. All the gun nuts will be so mad 😂


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9u1q0x wrote

So interesting that you’re cheering about losing rights.


gamerongames t1_j9u85hy wrote

What are you smoking? Seriously? What right are you losing, the right to forgive eating a whopper after the firing range ?


ThePermafrost t1_j9u6r91 wrote

Sacrificing the right to guns, to gain the right to safety is a small price to pay.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uca6m wrote

This is a very shortsighted opinion that isn’t even supported by basic facts.


ThePermafrost t1_j9udrcp wrote

Are you saying that it’s safer for a non gun owner to be surrounded by people with guns, as opposed to being surrounded by people without guns?


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uey69 wrote

The data says yes. Gun ownership is at all time highs and gun violence is far lower than it was even a few decades ago.


ThePermafrost t1_j9umic1 wrote

Correlation does not equal causation.

Would you feel safer entering an armed confrontation, unarmed?


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9upi5c wrote

I think understanding the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership is a cornerstone of this country and being a good citizen.


ThePermafrost t1_j9upr6r wrote

So would you feel safer as an unarmed person going up against an armed, or unarmed assailant?


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uqtjc wrote

What is this grand point you’re trying to make? The individual is the person most responsible for their own safety and a firearm is the best choice to defend yourself.


ThePermafrost t1_j9uth71 wrote

So you’re saying I’m forced to carry a gun, to protect myself against people who choose to carry a gun, just to be on equal footing in a confrontation, all because some people refuse to pass laws to limit access to guns?

Why is my right to be safe without a firearm being taken away?


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uukwy wrote

Again, we’re at the highest level of gun ownership in the history of the country yet also have almost generational lows in violent crime. I think you’re going to be ok.


ThePermafrost t1_j9vgzh5 wrote

You keep deflecting the actual question.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9vtrek wrote

What question am I deflecting?


ThePermafrost t1_j9w2mpm wrote

Why my right to be safe without a firearm is trumped by your right to a firearm.

Why I need to carry a firearm to avoid being disadvantaged by an assailant with easy access to firearms due to relaxed firearm regulations.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9wb6vm wrote

You’re asking for the right to a utopia, which does not exist. No where in the world is crime free and you are the person most responsible for your safety and health.

CT has some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country and yet Hartford experienced near record homicides last year. More laws won’t prevent criminals from using guns, so you need to do what you feel is necessary to minimize your chances of being a victim.

In a world in which guns are banned, the only people who will have guns are the government and the criminals. That’s not a world I’d want to live in.


ThePermafrost t1_j9wlfoz wrote

I’m not asking for a Utopia - I’m asking for what countries like the UK or Australia have accomplished - having a reasonable assumption that it’s nearly impossible to find yourself in an armed conflict with another citizen.

It doesn’t matter how strict CT’s laws are if guns can easily be transported over the state border.

When guns are banned ordinary criminals can’t get access to them. Nobody is going to pull a gun on you in a road rage incident, or a domestic dispute, or an altercation out in public, or a local mugging, or robbery, or impulse school shooting. Sure, I’ll concede that extremely organized crime will be able to smuggle guns into the country, but I’m not concerned about encountering an organized crime ring in CT - and even if I did, I highly doubt whatever guns I would carry around with me daily would match the guns they would have at their disposal.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9x0qco wrote

The uk and Australia are islands so it’s much easier to interdict illegal items. Even there drugs are rampant. You don’t think with the huge borders of Mexico and Canada that illegal guns will still be easily transported? And what about the legal guns here, are you planning to confiscate them and turn millions of law abiding citizens today into felons tomorrow? Your idea is utopian and doesn’t take into account hard realities.


ThePermafrost t1_j9x52y8 wrote

Again, it’s not going to be easy for the average criminal to obtain illegal guns that cross the border.

And no, we could do a gun return program over the period of three months. And yes, anyone who willfully breaks the law would be committing a felony. It’s similar to when slavery ended. Yes, all of a sudden it was federally against the law to own people and that would have been a felony to continue owning people.


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9yff3t wrote

If it’s so difficult to get things across the border, why do we have such a problem with drugs and illegal immigration? Why would you want to live in a society where only the government and criminals have guns? I’m a cop and I can tell you I’m not going door to door confiscating what were previously legal firearms.


ThePermafrost t1_j9z0du0 wrote

Wouldn’t it make your job as a cop safer knowing that it would be less likely a civilian would have access to a firearm during a routine traffic stop, domestic altercation, or any response call?

I’m not arguing that illegal items can pass over the border, but that’s not an argument to not ban something. Should we just give up fighting illegal immigration and fully open our borders because some people get through illegally?

Yet I imagine you had no problem confiscating marijuana when it was illegal? 🤔


Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9z4sn2 wrote

The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are not people I’m afraid about. In the world you you’re suggesting, the illegal guns would still be out there. Nothing would have changed it that regard.

As for weed, I very rarely made strictly marijuana possession arrests. The right to marijuana also isn’t in the bill of rights. Weed was always an easy way to search a car looking for something else like illegal guns. Personally, I think most drugs should be legal, but that’s a different discussion.


ruffdaddysmooth t1_j9u63ka wrote

I’m cheering that YOU will lose rights.


Downtown_Feedback665 t1_j9uedwp wrote

Banning guns altogether in the United States is a laughable proposition. They might regulate it out of the general populace’s hands, but guns will remain. This coming from someone who’s pro gun control.

I mean people in this argument tend to not see gun owners as simple hobbyists, but the vast majority are just that - hobbyists. It’s largely not even for “protection”. Sure it’s a hobby that has lethal ramifications, but it’s a hobby nonetheless. Most people have guns simply because they like guns.

When looked at as a hobby it can be compared to other things people do for fun. Something that’s not as dangerous but still has regulations. For instance, it’s illegal to fly Fpv drones without a part 107 FAA license, a HAM amateur radio license, and a spotter to see line of site at all times.

People end up flying these drones without any licenses or spotters, sometimes crashing into cars, breaking windows, causing damage, etc. The regulations didn’t kill the hobby, people partake anyway (even with more regulations on the way)

Now imagine everyone and their moms has a drone, then the government says “we’re outright banning all drones” the idea that you could get all the drones off the street would prove to be futile. Especially if there are more drones(guns) than people in the nation. Now imagine the right to own and operate drones are an inalienable right that is bestowed on the people via the constitution.

The hobby will survive regardless of regulation.

Now taxing bullets? I’m all for. Guns should be treated with the same sin taxes as tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, etc imo. Just to pay for the damage gun owners do within this country annually. The same reason tobacco has a sin tax justified because someone needs to pay for the extra care per smoking patient on the backend.

Gun sin taxes should go to families of victims, to fixing damages of public property, to fixing the temperature of some of these inner cities to not have so many regular gun fights.