I know the antigun types are a bit dramatic at times, but for crying out loud. Talk about steering into the skid.

http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p ... 2+Campaign

Whether or not you are violent, if you live in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) you are set to be the subject of a new “Violence Tax.” Cook County Board President, Toni Preckwinkle, recently floated the proposal for a Violence Tax. This new and unwarranted tax seeks to target the sale of guns and ammunition sold in the City of Chicago and its suburbs.

Preckwinkle refuses to deliver any details other than guns and ammo would cost more. The reported purpose of the tax is to help plug the county’s $115 million budget gap.

Preckwinkle’s chief of staff, Kurt Summers, reportedly stated that the aim of the proposal was to curb the number of guns in circulation citing a report from last summer, which stated nearly one-third of the guns recovered on the Chicago’s streets were purchased in suburban gun shops.

I'm sure they'll claim it's to impact the usage of guns in violent crimes...which is bull since more than enough of people who commit crimes with a gun obtained them through somewhat illegal channels. Doubt it'll fly anyways if they're trying to plug that big of a gap, I highly doubt the tax revenue on ammunition will fill it.

If Obama wins next month expect sales of guns and ammunition to soar.

themadscientist wrote:If Obama wins next month expect sales of guns and ammunition to soar.

Did I just timewarp to 2008?

TMS, since Obama got elected, gun and ammo sales have already skyrocketed. And, this "repeal" thing of the 2nd amendment that people are so damned afraid of just isn't going to happen.

Meh. We'll just keep our traffic cameras focused on who is going ot Indiana for cheap ammo ....

Marenta wrote:TMS, since Obama got elected, gun and ammo sales have already skyrocketed. And, this "repeal" thing of the 2nd amendment that people are so damned afraid of just isn't going to happen.

You will forgive me if i don't share your certainty.
You don't have to repeal the second to undermine the legal ownership of firearms.

2nd Amendment will be bullied by the Arms Treaty that dear ruler is just waiting for more "wiggle room" to sign.

If I were surrounding counties, Id be pushing for that tax, folks will just buy there jank elsewhere.

stebo0728 wrote:2nd Amendment will be bullied by the Arms Treaty that dear ruler is just waiting for more "wiggle room" to sign.

Oh. Is that still making the talk circuit?

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/state ... -gun-regi/

Won't and can't impede on our 2nd amendment. The run for the hills rumor has been that Clinton and Obama will sign our 2nd Amendment rights away with a treaty like that, but it a) isn't the case and b) couldn't happen if they wanted to.

I think Obama would have done this "banning of the 2nd amendment" by now....

You don't have to ban it. You just keep stacking regulation after regulation until it becomes so complicated and brings such insane levels of invasion of your privacy that you get the result on the back end.

This legislation sounds eerily similar to what they did awhile back in NJ with cigarettes. They added more tax to a pack of cigarettes to not only raise tax revenue, but to persuade people to smoke less. The politicians proclaimed victory as their records showed fewer people buying those evil cigarettes in NJ and concluded they're smoking less. What they didn't notice was the dozens of cigarette stores that opened up in the border towns in PA selling the cigarettes to the same NJ residents for a lot less, resulting in PA swiping the tax revenue. Thank you, NJ. Your legislation worked great.

Although, I've said for a while, focusing of the firearm itself was a bit of a misdirect, that targeting the ammunition was the way to go. What if I could own any gun in the world for nostalgic reasons, but had no ammo? I don't mind a higher tax on ammo, I dont like hearing it called a "violence tax", thats absurd. You could entertain only having the tax imposed in urban areas. People who hunt could buy their ammo closer to their hunting land, where the tax would be waived, and hunting ammo could be cheaper. I realized thugs could just go outta their way to get ammo cheaper this way, and maybe that makes the tax irrelevant? You could see operations, legally mind you, of folks going to buy ammo tax free, and resaling it on the streets. Of course the wouldn't do it for free, there would be a mark up, would that mark up equal the tax, so therefore negating the incentive to do the resale? Lots of intricately woven issues there.

I don't mind the idea of taxing things to limit their use. I think its been working well with cigarettes, tell someone they'll likely die 10 years early, meh who cares, thats 40 years from now. Tell them its either food and gas, or smokes, and they start to think twice. I'm even for taxing gasoline to the extent that it creates a demand in the market for more energy efficient cars, or more clean, efficient forms of energy. If that model can be shown to work that is. My point is, taxing, if it can be shown to work for the purpose intended, can be a good thing. I don't know that its the right fit for the issue here, maybe, but its it an issue of liberty if its taxed? You're still free to buy it, if you can afford it. I think the only caveat is making sure that the the tax isn't so steep that a black market ammo ring rises that makes money while selling cheaper than the tax.

Higher ammo prices lead to more GSW's - fewer warning shots.