NY Dem Admits $100 Tax Intended to Make Guns Only for the Wealthy

gun

A few days ago we brought you the story of a New York Congresswoman who wants to impose a $100 tax on every firearm sold in the United States. Anyone with a respiration rate could see the true purpose of such a measure — it isn’t about funding programs to “combat gun violence,” it’s about pricing firearms out of the reach of average Americans, making them so expensive that no one can afford to exercise their constitutionally protected right. But if you’re dimmer than a CFL bulb or willfully obtuse about the left’s anti-gun motivations, we no longer have to connect the dots – the Congresswoman herself has admitted that’s the plan . . .

From AL.com:

Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-NY., said the measure would reduce the number of guns in circulation and providing needed funding for programs aimed at reducing violence. The legislation will be introduced in the U.S. House this week.

[…]

“If making guns more expensive means fewer end up in commerce, I’m happy with that result,” Velázquez said. “However, if guns are going to be sold, then those purchasing and selling them should pay for programs that can reduce the incidence of gun violence in our local communities.”

The idea that “keeping guns off the street” is the key to “reducing gun violence” is the cornerstone of modern American gun control, and this proposed legislation is aimed at doing precisely that. The Dem Congresscritter wants to limit ownership of firearms only to those who can afford to pay the ridiculous taxes. She doesn’t care about ensuring low income families and minorities  – those who are victimized the most by crime – have the ability to defend themselves. She prefers that they remain disarmed, and vulnerable.

This all comes as firearms ownership is at record levels, and the firearms related death rate plunges to historic lows. Logic dictates that guns aren’t the problem, but logic is beside the point for the civilian disarmament caucus.

Let’s try applying her logic to other Constitutionally protected activities and see if it still matches with the Democratic party platform.

“If making abortions more expensive means fewer take place, I’m happy with that result,” Velázquez said.

Nope, that doesn’t sound like something a Democrat would get behind. Let’s try another.

“If making voting more expensive means fewer people can participate in elections, I’m happy with that result,” Velázquez said.

How does that one work? One more for the road.

“If making gay marriage more expensive means fewer people end up getting married, I’m happy with that result,” Velázquez said.

Constitutionally protected rights aren’t something that the government should be in the business of restricting. I’m sure the honorable Rep. Velázquez wouldn’t support any of those straw proposals we set up and knocked down, so why would she be in favor of the equally elitist attitude towards guns, a constitutionally protected civil right? Oh, wait. It’s because guns are evil, gun owners are evil, and the NRA is the enemy.

comments

  1. avatar NineShooter says:

    What does she hate poor people?

    (said the media about a Democrat — NEVER!)

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Yes, she does. The whole progressive agenda punishes middle and low income people while convincing its supporters that they are helping and so can feel good about themselves.

      If raising the minimum wage means businesses can afford to hire fewer people, I’m ok with that.

      If raising taxes on business that are based in the US makes more jobs go over-seas, I’m ok with that.

      see how that works? These people would call the rising water on a sinking ship a pool installation right up until they all drowned.

      1. avatar Richard Staccone says:

        But the poor and the minorities just don’t get it. They continually vote for the Democrats. The brainwashing by their phony leaders as well as the propaganda from the media works well on them. I would think that after 40yrs. of being used they would see the light.

      2. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        As long as raising taxes on regular Joes to pay for subsidized Teslas, makes it cheaper for the progressive political class to drive solo in the carpool lane to work; what the heck do they care?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          And when the promised free Teslas don’t appear (they never do), we just blame it on the tightwad Republicans giving all the free money to the rich, and the morons buy it again, and will vote for more promises of free stuff next time.

  2. avatar Defens says:

    That pretty much fails any level of Constitutional scrutiny right there. First person that shows up to buy a gun for any valid reason and can’t afford the tax…..

    Of course, that’s the exact same reason why there’s a $200 tax on NFA items as well. When the NFA was enacted, a $200 tax was a huge levy – pay ATF $200 to buy a Thompson that retailed for what, $35?

    1. avatar Wee Liam says:

      But suggest a poll tax to her and see what happens.

      These (EXPLETIVE DELETED) have no sense of irony or shame!

    2. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

      At the time the law was passed, a 1921, 1927, or 1928 Thompson retailed for about $200-$225, depending upon configuration.

      1. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

        So effectively doubling the price. Ouch!

      2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        So, $200 in 1934 adjusted for inflation would be about $3,488.16 in buying power today. Nope… Not trying to price the average citizen out of the market. No sir…

        1. avatar int19h says:

          It’s even worse if you look at prices and salaries rather than inflation alone (people have gotten richer since then, on average). Average yearly income in 1934 was $1,600.00, so basically we’re talking 1.5x monthly income of an average resident for that tax stamp alone. Today, that would be almost $6k.

    3. avatar PeterC says:

      Thompson submachine guns sold for about $225 at that time, if I recall the old ads correctly.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        And Sears would probably ship it to your front door via the United States Post Office (over post roads authorized in the Constitution).

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      The tax was set to double the retail cost of automatic firearms, so the Thompson, which was a complex and difficult gun to manufacture, sold for around $200.

  3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Let’s rephrase:

    “If making votes more expensive means fewer end up in elections, I’m happy with that result,” Velázquez said. “However, if votes are going to be cast, then those casting them should pay for programs that can reduce the incidence of vote fraud in our local communities.”

    Also: why should I, a law-abiding person who has zero connection to “gun violence” in my local community or anywhere else, have to pay for programs that (ostensibly) can reduce the incidence of that “gun violence”, merely as a prerequisite to the lawful exercise of a natural, constitutionally protected right?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If you are involved in “gun violence”, you are not eligible to buy a gun/pay the tax. Clearly, we ought to tax CRIMINALS to fund anti violence programs! She should get her down to the hood and start collecting, like right now! Anybody with heavy drugs (she should search each banger) must be taxed, every time she catches them, and she should check several times a week for the rest of her life (only be a day or 2).

  4. avatar Capybara says:

    Sheeple really think like this. They will vote in tyrants like her, they will repeatedly re-elect her as well. It’s the Feinstein effect. Baaahhh. I don’t even get mad about evil politicians anymore, they are just the symptom. The sickness is in the fellow Americans who vote for this scum.

    1. avatar Wee Liam says:

      Aye, Cap’n.

    2. avatar Matt in Pa says:

      Wait till the mideast refugees arrive in NY,NJ,CONN,MASS,MD,CALIF. You know,all those gun right states.

    3. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      Yeah. Here in Texas the idiots keep sending Eddie Bernice Johnson back to the House. I found out that I had inadvertently rented an apartment in her district. I built a home on the other side of Fort Worth to get as far away as I could.

      1. avatar Bob Wall says:

        Should have voted for anyone but, then moved the day after election day.

        1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

          In the one year that I lived there no election occurred.

      2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Eddie Bernice Johnson was in the Texas Senate and was instrumental in the designing of the new 30th Congressional District; which was described by media pundits as a “nest of spiders” because of its configuration.

        Once it went into effect she ran for the newly created House seat; even though she was in the middle of her term; won, and has held the seat ever since.

        Back in 2010 she got caught illegally awarding Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to four of her relatives and to children of her top aides; but as usual for corrupt Democrats, nothing came of it. 😐

        And for the record, she is VERY anti-gun. I know this because she personally told me so when I discussed the issue with her in her Dallas office one day while I was a Texas Peace Officer. 🙁

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          I bet that discussion was an exercise in utter futility.

      3. avatar BDub says:

        I like that stone patio.

  5. avatar Hannibal says:

    The courts decided that the 2nd Amendment is an ‘individual’ right but have steadfastly failed to follow through with that logic by holding it in the same regard as, say, the 1st Amendment. So this stuff can still be floated.

  6. avatar Wee Liam says:

    Gee, they’re not coy about their elitism, are they?

    Marie Antoinette would be so proud.

  7. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Another politician that needs to be shot.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      Not a helpful comment. We should not advocate violence against someone, especially a member of the protected class of government. Advocating violence is what the anti’s do.

    2. avatar BDub says:

      I believe the preferred method for dealing with tyrants these days is the woodchipper —>http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/06/09/reason-magazine-subpoenaed-over-reader-comments-on-silk-road-judge/

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      In politics, historically, there often comes a time and place for violence. Advertising your position before that time is seldom a good idea.

      1. avatar Omer Baker says:

        I don’t hold SCOTUS justices in much regard. Just because they ruled you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Actually, there are few things that they’ve ruled on that I do agree with.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Yes, Omer, I agree with you, they have made some really stupid rulings. I realize that you meant relating to guns, and I agree, but to prove how stupid they are, they once “ruled” that tomatoes were vegetables. I realize that this sounds stupid, but I’m being serious, tomatoes are indeed are fruits, biologists testified they were fruits, and SCOTUS decided they were vegetables. There is no reasoning with people who already have their minds made up.

  8. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Not going that far butt-but this is a stone-cold be-otch…

  9. avatar jeremiah kindel says:

    I believe another group of democrats did the same thing. They also wore white sheet.

  10. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

    In some of the neighborhoods she represents you could buy a gun for $100.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      I can buy a highpoint (a usable home defense gun, shut up all you haters) for $100

  11. avatar Sammy^ says:

    These people in guberment are paid whaaaaaay too much.

  12. avatar JD says:

    So this congresswoman is an elitist racist? She uses code words for black and other minorities like “off the streets”? She thinks only people who have enough money to afford this tax should be able to buy firearms? The first gun laws were dreamed up by the KKK and governments looking to keep guns away from the black population. If not for the NRA they would still be denied. That is what the media needs to hear.

    1. avatar Tom in PA says:

      Spot on. She has no idea that gun control was birthed from racism. She doesn’t have a clue. She couldn’t buy a clue. She couldn’t even buy the game Clue. The reality is that it’s always about whose hands they’re in, and for libtards like her – it’s about another government program.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        ” She couldn’t even buy the game Clue.”

        That’s because of the $200 tax on clues implemented by the Democratic Party. So unfair.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        Elite-ism and State-ism trump racism every time.

      3. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        The Racist Roots of Gun Control
        http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

  13. “the honorable Rep. Velázquez”

    You spelled ‘honorless’ wrong.

  14. avatar Tom in PA says:

    I just cannot get past the complete flight from reality that is the term “gun violence”. The personification of objects by attributing human emotion and action is just lunacy. Are liberals actually mentally ill? Is being a liberal a psychosis in need of professional counsel? It’s sure starting to look that way. How about this – fewer criminals means less crime. Only someone who is nuts replaces reason with limitless apophenia. I suppose it’s too much to ask a liberal to look at the obvious factors that contribute to violence, such as mental illness, the absence of fathers and high school dropout rates. Nope – ignore the root causes and just focus on something easier to vilify so there is merely the appearance of doing something. They’re not about to tackle the issue by saying “Stay in school, remain gainfully employed, avoid fathering children with multiple women, and live in the same house with the mother of your children.”

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I looked up “apophenia” (it’s not often someone uses a word I don’t know), and I think you might be on to something. The liberal/progressive/left is afflicted with apophenia — not to the point of individual psychosis, but it has a similar group effect.

      When they obsess over guns as the source of evil, they endow a simple mechanical object with transcendent properties that simply aren’t there. Similarly, they have an unshakable belief in the power of their individual feelings to negate the immutable rules of cause and effect, let alone logic. The simple state of caring passionately about something that seems good is evidence of goodness itself — further, it makes them right and their opponents not merely wrong, but wrongheaded and evil.

      They believe that everything they do will work just because *they*, the people who care, are doing it. External realities are irrelevant to their solutions. The progressive/left ideology is a hermetically sealed loop.

      1. avatar Tom in PA says:

        Two things: I’m 48 and I just learned the word apophenia about a year ago (just so you know I’m not doing that “google smart” crap) and the moment I understood the definition it made me think of the world as the progressive left sees it. They perpetuate every logical fallacy available to them with zero perspective on the matter -while in that emotion induced “hermetically sealed loop” you mentioned (I love that by the way – I’m borrowing that with pride!) When you ascribe agency to inanimate objects, you have lost your damn mind. Second, your synopsis of the subject is simply excellent – I can’t imagine it being captured any better. Bravo, sir!

  15. avatar Joe R. says:

    ” But if you’re dimmer than a CFL bulb” . . . btw – As long as the evil blue house of (D) is trying to ramrod a cavity check for all U.S. Citizens (not here illegally) to ascertain their mental ‘health’ – I blame CFL bulbs for the nations mental health issues.

    FU(D) EPA
    FU (GE) – We know General Electric was behind Obamacare because they got the $ to build the computer repositories for your medical records – Thank you Hillary Rod ham Clinton for pushing so hard to steal our personal information and records.

    #FUBLINKYDIMBULBS

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I have heard that long-life incandescent bulbs of the type required for outdoor advertising signs are still legal and available. Just sayin’.

      1. avatar Meridia says:

        Not in CA they aren’t.

  16. avatar gsnyder says:

    Isn’t it great to live in a land of rainbows and unicorns? She is much like Obama in the way her suggestions overtly divide rather than unite. It seems these public servants have no idea what their job is.

  17. avatar Gunr says:

    Now, in Oregon we have to pay up to $60.00 depending what dealer you go to, to buy a $75.00 22 from your buddy, even though we both have a CCW permit.
    Oregon is not “gun friendly any more.

    1. avatar ButtHurtz says:

      Do not comply!

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Exactly. DO NOT COMPLY. You have to face the fact that they want you to make the hard choice between being subservient or being a criminal. It is the road that tyranny always takes. I believe there are some 250 year old writings explaining this situation…let me see. Ah yes…here we go:

        “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

        YMMV.

    2. avatar CRF says:

      If he’s a good buddy and you know he doesn’t blab, just hand him the cash and let him hand you the .22 . It’s not anybody’s business but ya’lls.

    3. avatar Myra Lucas says:

      All of this taxation to reduce ownership is an infringement, and the Constitution says the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed upon.” The Federalist Papers are an addendum to the Constitution, to make plain what some of the founders felt was too vague and left room for tyranny. Read Federalist # 28, 29 by Alexander Hamilton. They plainly state the full law about guns. Then read The Federalist # 46 by James Madison. It authorizes armed revolution, in fact demands it from the people when the government becomes a tyranny. Also, state law can’t be opposing to federal, so that fee may be anti-constitutional. Knowledge is a weapon, spread the word.

  18. avatar james says:

    need mo money fo dem programs

  19. avatar Noah says:

    More malware, guys. Redirected me to an “Adobe Flash Player May Be Out Of Date” website with a non-US, non-Adobe URL. I’ll record the address if I get it again, but my knee-jerk reaction to malware was to bail out of there ASAP.

  20. avatar BDub says:

    I’m not sure Trunk Guns Inc will be collecting the $100 tax from its gang-banger clientele…whadda you think?

  21. avatar Robert says:

    Hey politicians are responsible for the national debt. So with her ideology she should pay for it. Hooray, no more taxes!!!!

  22. avatar Paelorian says:

    “It’s because guns are evil, gun owners are evil, and the NRA is the enemy.” This is not an exaggeration of their beliefs.

    Rep. Velázquez: “However, if guns are going to be sold, then those purchasing and selling them should pay…”

    She’s implying she would ban all guns if she could. I have no doubt she would if she could. She states “keeping guns off the streets” as a goal. Of course, as we know from their actual proposals and legislation, they don’t literally mean guns on streets, like public open carry. They mean an entire city as a gun-free zone. Then a gun-free state, then a gun-free nation. Us gun owners are directly responsible for all victims of crime that occurs with a gun used as a tool. If she’s going to tax or fine us and say we deserve it for endangering others and causing harm, when is she going to say that we should be thrown in jail? It’s the next step, she’s already laid the moral and ideological framework. We’re to pay a penalty for exercising our rights. We’re not just being demonized and dehumanized, we’re actually being criminalized.

    Put this domestic public enemy on the list for if a revolution occurs in her lifetime.

    She’s my congressional representative. I wrote her last week to ask her to support the Hearing Protection Act to remove silencers/suppressors from the NFA. Yes, the only thing that will come of it is her possibly putting my name on some watchlist as a potential threat to the government just because I sent a polite letter asking for our rights to be legalized. I do not live in a free country. I vote in every election, and those who claim to represent me work tirelessly to oppress me.

    Unfortunately, the USA is the last bastion of freedom. If we fall, there’s nowhere else to go. Maybe a couple of millions of us could overwhelm some friendly country, free the people, and live there. But right now, the relatively free part of America is shrinking piece by piece. I fear in the future our lifestyle will be completely outlawed in this country.

    I believe people in New York who want to advocate for gun right should just leave. The high population numbers behind these elected officials just give them more influence. Yes, pro-gun New Yorkers are a thorn in Cuomo’s backside. But that’s all we are, an irritant. Even if we all left, the state government could not possibly be more anti-gun. But by moving to another state we could help some swing states go pro-gun or pro-gun states get more federal influence. I plan to leave in a few months.

  23. avatar Bob201 says:

    “the honorable Rep. Velázquez”

    Be careful about labeling her honorable. Even though these leftist lie all the time, it is not right for us to lie too.

  24. avatar Roymond says:

    Okay, the Democrats call the various voter I.D. laws Republicans have proposed racist because of their outsized impact on black communities. But the same argument will apply to this as well: if blacks can’t afford voter I.D., then how will they afford this tax?

    So she’s an anti-black racist, by Democrat reasoning — and it doesn’t matter if that reasoning is valid or not, because they endorse it.

  25. avatar Jeff says:

    How are the strict gun control laws working out in her home island of Puerto Rico?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email