Elizabeth Warren Wants to Tax Guns Out of the Reach of the Poor

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

Beto may have gotten all of the ink for proposing to confiscate assaulty-looking rifles, but there are other ways to disarm Americans that don’t involve grabbing guns. After some time in the statist sweat lodge, Princess Lieawatha’s big brainstorm is to increase the taxes on guns and ammo to confiscatory levels.

That, of course, would price a lot of low and moderate income people out of the the market for tools of armed self defense.

Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has devised a way to disarm the poor — a steep national gun tax of 30 percent and an ammunition tax of 50 percent.

Her plan would triple the federal excise tax from its current 10 percent (for handguns) and 11 percent (for shotguns and rifles) and nearly quintuple the ammunition tax from its current 11 percent.

The burden of the tax will fall on the people, not the manufacturer.

Under the Warren gun tax plan, parents seeking a typical $400 shotgun to protect their family would have to come up with $520.

Who would be unable to buy guns because of the Warren gun tax? Certainly not the oft-mentioned “millionaires and billionaires” she claims to want to stick it to. Many poor households will be unable to afford a gun to protect their home.

– Emmanuel Sessegnon in How Elizabeth Warren’s gun tax will disarm the poor

via GIPHY

comments

  1. avatar Cory C. says:

    Ah, yes. Make it so that the people most likely to be victims of crime are unable to defend themselves. How typically Democratic of her.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      Independent people don’t vote for Democrats. Democrats work hard to keep people dependent, which makes their statist policies (i.e. “power grabs”) seem necessary and good. Dependence comes in many forms: dependence on handouts and income assistance for those with limited means, dependence on the state for self-protection for those who are afraid to protect themselves, dependence even on mundane things like state-mandated car insurance, health insurance, schools, etc. They key thing is to convince people that they NEED the state to be powerful, because ONLY the state can provide the things they need.

      It’s a lie. There are LOTS of ways to help others (and ourselves) that don’t require an all-powerful state. There are lots of ways to accomplish the things we want (and like, and need) without making ourselves dependent on the left. The people that point this out are very dangerous to the left’s aspiration to power, which is why opposition voices are decried as heartless bigots, racists, and would-be murderers as soon as they get loud enough.

      Elizabeth Warren is a leftist. She would do anything to convince people of limited means that they can rely on her more than they can rely on themselves. This is her path to power, and this tax proposal is just one more way of widening that path.

      1. avatar David Farrell says:

        Very accurate and well said and explained.

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      More particularly, how very limousine leftist of her.

      1. avatar Diana Kueker says:

        Warren is out of her mind but she fits in perfectly with the Democrats because they are all mentally ill!

        1. avatar R.S. says:

          Time to initiate a Red Flag on all there leftist politicians.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yep.
      Once again, white Democrat policians trying to keep poor black people from buying guns.
      The party of Jim Crow alive and well.

    4. avatar frankspeak says:

      well,..it worked once…(NFA)……

    5. avatar mspidge says:

      It’s a good thing that morons llke this keep finding ways to make asses out of themselves, keep it up warren you’re doing good, you will never see the presidency with azzhole remarks like this

  2. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Just like a typical socialist. Make the “99%” all equally poor and then the 1% of the elite ruling inner circle get to hoard all the wealth. Socialism is truthfully just a perfected aristocracy.

    1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      “Socialism is truthfully just a perfected aristocracy.”

      Nice! May I “appropriate” your words?

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        Most certainly.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Agree, very well stated. Leftists call themselves “progressive,” but what they are actually working toward is a return to what we’ve had throughout most of human history: rule of powerful individuals instead of rule of law. Back to the bad old days when the little people had no control over their lives.

        1. avatar Diana Kueker says:

          Going backwards is what these Democrats are all about, I am beginning to think they want us to be like Terrorist groups where people are oppressed and the evil take over.

    2. avatar Veteran says:

      Actually it’s not so much perfected aristocracy, but perfected medieval feudalism. An aristocratic tittle in itself doesn’t mean anything; feudal lords owned their serfs and those serfs had no say in it, that is Warren’s ultimate goal. Ever wonder why Democrats want to restrict public access to federal land and parks so bad? Why they advocate against anyone but themselves owning beach houses, or in their case beach compounds, i.e. Kerry, Obama, Gore, the Kennedy clan, …? It has nothing to do with ecology, or environmental protection, they simply want those areas reserved to themselves for their future hunting estates and resorts, it hearkens back to when serfs were not allowed to travel past a certain radius, or hunt the “King’s deer”. Warren does not represent the poor masses as she claims but the interests of those meaning to lord over the masses, in that point is where the Dems mask comes off and the “progressives” reveal themselves to be regressive. If you want true progress in the affairs of mankind read the U.S. Constitution, and the writings of the founders, the Democrats ideas coupled with their hot steaming embrace of everything dictatorial and Marxist are about as anti, and un-American as it gets..

      1. avatar Dave G says:

        @Veteran:
        “…it hearkens back to when serfs were not allowed to travel past a certain radius, or hunt the “King’s deer”…”

        You are absolutely correct. I’ve thought the same thing for a long time. Duke Michael of Blomberg comes to mind…

    3. avatar Diana Kueker says:

      Yes and they say conservatives cater to rich I think the Parties have switched in values but not in name.

  3. avatar Baldwin says:

    Duh…Somebody has got to pay for all the “free” stuff.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Somebody has got to pay for all the “free” stuff.”

      Ptttttpt. Just the people struggling to make an honest living…

      1. avatar Diana Kueker says:

        Exactly!!!!!

  4. avatar TommyGNR says:

    Her idea would spawn a massive illegal gun trade. The same idea was tried in a number of southern states after prohibition was repealed. States like North Carolina put exorbitant taxes on liquor. The result was moon-shining and bootlegging so you could buy a drink for a reasonable price.
    The woman is a idiot.

    1. avatar Neil says:

      I am an engineer in manufacturing. The easy guns to make at home are AK-47s and MAC-10s. Think a minute how simple the guns are. I was shocked how many of my coworkers had almost made such guns. As in ready, not fully assembled. Most added a purchased trigger kit and sear for feel. But they made everything.

      Think about the Browning designed 1911, 1918, and 1919. Not exactly difficult to manufacture.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Probably the most complex machinery needed would be a sheet metal brake.

        I suppose a home-brew CNC plasma cutter to mass-produce the receiver flats would be handy…

      2. avatar frankspeak says:

        an open-bolt automatic weapon is one of the easiest to make…it’s even been done in prison workshops….

  5. avatar Major Cal I Ber says:

    That’s how she can be a racist without being a racist. Or can native Americans even be a racist with all their oppression and yada yada yada…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Warren is whiter than printer paper.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Old one but Warren 1/2020

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to pwrserge
        (smile)

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Being (at least) 1/4 Tatar, I’m officially more of a “person of color” than she is.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Being (at least) 1/4 Tatar,…”

          It wouldn’t surprise me. You do look like you have some Asian blood in you…

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        She is at least as POC as Ali G.

      4. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        And they called me “the little dark one” as a child.

        Elizabeth Warren

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.”
    – R.B. Long

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    That would be nothing more than a poll tax on a right. Errr try again Commies.
    Little Fauxahontas wants,Commies want,people in hell want ice water.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That would be nothing more than a poll tax on a right.”

      She is not creating a new tax, but raising the rate on an existing tax. So, yeah, she and congress could do that.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        She *could*, and we’d fight it tooth, nail, and a gaggle of lawyers. 🙂

        (Or would that be a flock? Like a crow, a murder?)

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…and a gaggle of lawyers. ”

          I believe the correct term is “a shiver”.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’m always confronted by democrats up here who want to institute a payroll and a sales tax.
    They try to sell it as a measure to reduce the property taxes.
    Of course all these dems own 6,000 square foot “camps” on the lake.
    When I point out they’re effectively asking the government to compel by force people poorer than themselves to pay their property taxes for them they become quite incredulous. Puts a smile on my face every time.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      The democrats here in Chicago/Cook county gave us a “bullet tax”. Who does it hurt? The poor who don’t have a car. Everyone else drives and buys elsewhere. Where’s Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Media hypocrites.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Has anyone challenged that bullet tax?

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Property taxes are unconstitutional to begin with. They, in effect, are an unconstitutional taking.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Property taxes are unconstitutional to begin with. They, in effect, are an unconstitutional taking.”

        Now, there’s a novel theory. Need to get a constitutional law firm to take that case on contingency basis, all the way to the SC. Include recompense for all the property taxes levied since property tax was invented (kinda like “reparations”).

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nice sarcasm. But in effect, all your real estate is on loan from the government. They let you keep it so long as you pay your rent. That’s a problem and constitutionally questionable.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I actually understand what you imply. The example was used in one of my law courses long ago: false premise. The idea is that because government can tax your property, and should you fail to pay taxes, government can confiscate your property, then the result is that you “own” that property only so long as you pay “rent” (property taxes).

          The breakdown in the premise is that there is an equitable alternative to failure to pay taxes (not arguing whether any tax is morally legitimate, only that taxes by government upon goods, property and income are considered legal under the constitution). The levy of taxes requires some sort of value surrender to the taxing authority. One measure of value is money (in whatever legal tender exists). Another measure of value is barter, trading something other than legal tender in payment of taxes. If neither of these representations of value are available, how are taxes to be settled?

          The truth does remain that the power to tax is the power to destroy. However, government does not have the power to tax or confiscate except that the sovereign people vote to allow such, or do not vote to end such. If the people (majority of voters) implement taxation through government agencies, then the people agree that the taxes may be assessed, and that the people have the obligation to pay those taxes. Failure to pay taxes either has a deterrence/punishment power, or the people frustrate themselves by allowing payment of taxes to be optional.

          Deterrent or punishment power does not actually place the legal owner of property (including money) in tenancy to a capricious government, but establishes equity between the government and the taxpayer: government tax law embodies a contract between the willing public to accept an obligation to pay taxes, and the equitable recovery of value due under the contract. If the people do not wish to be obligated to pay taxes, the people may refuse taxes, or repeal existing taxes. What the people agree to surrender to the community cannot be “a taking” because the people voluntarily established the tax in the first place. By creating taxes, the government acquires no power to simply declare further taxes without bounds. The federal income tax is a good example. Prior to the 16th Amendment, the federal government had power to tax many activities, but not personal income. The government had no power to convene itself and decide that more revenue was needed, thus a new tax would be created without consulting the people. If such power did exist under the constitution, the 16th Amendment (fraud though it was) would have been completely unnecessary. Without the 16th, government would indeed have been required to declare that income inherently belonged to government (the owner of income), and government could do with income as it saw fit (create income taxes). In such a condition, individuals would truly be temporary occupants, receivers of income belonging to government.

        3. avatar Joseph Malone says:

          Reparations is either a Democratic Party bribe to subdue poor people or a Black Republican (tom club) thievery. Banks bad. They bankrupt country and cause inflation and lower education and manufacturing. You are confusing restitution with reparations.

          They have no way to repay taxes already paid. That is why you should fight this taxation without representation. The government has to listen to you. You are all cops and ex military. You ARE the ones with all the guns after all. I think deep down you are soft government loving on the fence wishy washees.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Like the UK’s poll-tax, er, community charge.

    3. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Why not all three works great here in NY (our wealthy often have their cabins out of state for some strange reason)

      1. avatar Diana Kueker says:

        I live in NY and believe me the taxes are ridiculous and the laws they already passed like abortion up to birth and after, not to mention, the fact that I live among the Democrats which within itself is a nightmare!!!!

  9. avatar Hippi says:

    yup the good old we cant pass a law so we’ll just tax you as punishment

  10. avatar bryan1980 says:

    There’s some back-door racism for ya’!

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Yes, by their own standard of disparate impact.

      1. avatar Rusty - Die Ruthie Die - Chains says:

        That’s a good point, call it a modern day poll tax and point out the Democrat Party is up to it’s old Jim Crow tricks again!

  11. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Looks like Fauxcahontas uses way too much peyote in the sweat lodge.

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    They(dems) all have different variations on how to screw the American people…

  13. avatar MaddMaxx says:

    What tax rate will she recommend for the dicks that go out and steal other peoples shit? Lets see, one stolen AR plus 30% that’s 0 + 0% = ummmmm take the 0 and carry the 0 plus 0 that comes to??? That would be 0.00.. Then said dick uses the stolen TAX FREE AR to steal boxes or cases of ammo again paying 0% Federal tax so while I continue to upgrade my collection of firearms at a 30% increase (will not deter my mission) and practice at a 50% increase in cost my friendly local neighborhood criminal will continue to enjoy a tax holiday (unless he/she/it has a temporary lapse in judgement and attempts to steal my stuff which would result in immediate retirement) Go get em Lyin’ Liz (my #1 choice for the Dem nominee).. lets see what sounds better Warren/Abrams or Warren/Clinton will it matter? They’re all losers…

  14. avatar daveinwyo says:

    Lieawatha needs to go to the time out corner and sit on her ax.

  15. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

    Remember the current “excise tax” is touted by the NSSF as a wonderful thing. The gun owners of America have seeded their civil rights to stupid groups like the NSSF and gun makers. They deserve everything they get. Go for it Liz baby…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Pittman–Robertson Act excise tax revenues go to the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund and used for wildlife restoration and for hunter safety and education purposes. So yeah, it’s a good idea.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So yeah, it’s a good idea.”

        Did you intend to imply that taxing your enumerated rights are acceptable if the tax is for a good cause?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          No, hunter education and opening new lands for hunters are good things, so stop being an @ss. I think you’re better than that, but I could be wrong.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No, hunter education and opening new lands for hunters are good things,…”

          If you re-read your original comment, “Pittman–Robertson Act excise tax revenues go to the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund and used for wildlife restoration and for hunter safety and education purposes. So yeah, it’s a good idea”., do you see where you directly wrote that an excise tax on guns and ammo (infringing on your Second Amendment protected RTKBA) is a good thing because proceeds support something you favor”? If excise taxes on constitutionally protected rights are unconstitutional, are they not unconstitutional regardless of whether the taxes benefit us?

          My question is serious because we too often wail about how our 2A is being eroded by this or that government action, but when that government restriction pleases us, we are accepting of the infringement. We are all inconsistent about some things, maybe all things. However, my consistent stance is that we must recognize and resolve our inconsistencies, lest we just present full-fledged hypocrisy to the public, and especially the anti-gun mob.

          We are fond of promoting ourselves as righteous and staunch defenders of our beliefs, decrying the hypocrisy of the anti-gun mafia. Yet we announce inconsistent positions, while saying we are different from the mob. Our worst is a claim that 2A (or any right) is absolute, then proceed to carve out exceptions that we favor/promote as being common sense. So….my question about whether you recognized the inconsistent position on excise taxes on guns and ammo.

      2. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

        So Liz thinks taking guns away from Americans is a “good idea”. Guess that is too deep a concept for you.

      3. avatar Mark H says:

        Good or Bad Idea has nothing to do with constitutionality. A tax on the means of exercising an enumerated right is unconstitutional, seem Star Tribune v Commissioner.

  16. avatar fteter says:

    “We won’t infringe on your constitutional right to bear arms. We’ll just tax it until you can’t afford to exercise that right.” That’s a pretty slick way to get around the 2A.

    Stunning how creative the left is getting in limiting our rights.

  17. avatar TFred says:

    “the federal excise tax from its current 10 percent (for handguns) and 11 percent (for shotguns and rifles) and nearly quintuple the ammunition tax from its current 11 percent.”

    How is this any different from the long-ago scorned poll tax? How has this not yet been overturned by SCOTUS?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “How has this not yet been overturned by SCOTUS?”

      First use of excise tax in the US was in 1791, a tax on whiskey. A result was the famous “Whiskey Rebellion”.

      The constitution specifically authorizes congress to, “… lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,…”. There are no constitutional restrictions on that which an excise tax may not be imposed. Excise taxes are “event” taxes, not general, or “state of being” taxes.

      Haven’t been able to turn up an SC case specifically declaring that no tax whatever shall be applied to the exercise of a constitutional right, except the prohibition of denying persons the right to vote due to the failure to pay a poll tax.

      1. avatar TFred says:

        Thanks, you simply restated my question. Why has there been no challenge to this excise tax using the same reasoning as the scorned poll tax?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Why has there been no challenge to this excise tax”

          The poll tax was not an excise tax, simply put, it was a simple tax, like a sales tax. The US constitution specifically allows Congress to establish federal excise taxes (which is what Warren is targeting).

          Congress did not establish poll taxes. Poll taxes were state taxes, and not all states employed poll taxes. Although Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) tangentially addresses license taxes on what is called a “privilege” conferred by the US Constitution, the case involves a license tax created by an individual state (and forbids such), but does not touch congressional power to do so.

          We cannot conclude that today (this decade) is the first questioning of federal tax of a constitutionally-protected individual right. Either the issue has been settled by the SC (and we just cannot find the specific ruling), or the universal understanding is that the likelihood of overturning such taxes is so remote, expending valuable resources in futility is simply wasteful.

        2. avatar TFred says:

          Thanks. Reminds me of a quote from Alan Gura at the time he argued McDonald v. City of Chicago, which successfully incorporated the Second Amendment protections to State and local governments.

          He said, paraphrased, of course, even if Congress can’t take your gun away, but the Governor, or the Mayor can take your gun away, you still don’t have a gun.

          Even if it’s not a tax levied by congress, it’s still a tax, and it still infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…it still infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.”

          So does keeping guns away from people in prison and after release. Eventually, even POTG come down to “Shall not be infringed, except for…..”

          In the end, as noted, all constitutional protections are inferior to “compelling government interest”, and “three-tiered” judicial review.

        4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “The US constitution specifically allows Congress to establish federal excise taxes (which is what Warren is targeting).”

          OK, we fight it by having some conservative-run states draw up and introduce a law for an excise tax on voting.

          When the Leftists (rightly) pitch a fit, ask them why they have a problem with taxing one civil right, and not another?

          One of them (in a fit of typical Leftist *rage*) will proclaim guns aren’t a civil right. Then, we *educate*, on live TV, preferably… 🙂

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Then, we *educate*…”

          No one has ever successfully educated a box of rocks.

      2. avatar Southerner says:

        Yes, special* taxes, at any level or stage of production on a constitutionally protected venue are unconstitutional. See: Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983). This case struck down special taxes on newsprint paper and inks as a violation of the First Amendment.

        Here is a brief:
        https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/freedom-of-the-press/minneapolis-star-and-tribune-co-v-minnesota-commissioner-of-revenue/

        So why have special excise taxes on firearms and ammunition not been challenged. Well, you’ve probably heard of the “Pittman Robertson Act” formally known as:
        The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i; 50 Stat. 917) of September 2, 1937.
        https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FAWILD.HTML

        The Pittman Robertson Act benefits both the hunter constituency and widely praised as the way hunters and fishermen pay for wildlife conservation efforts. It is, none the less, a special tax placed on a constitutionally protected venue. Which should be unconstitutional on its face.

        *As opposed to general taxes applied to all products across the board.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).”

          This is a state matter, entirely. The US congress imposed no excise tax, and from what I could see, the state did not attempt to use “excise tax” as the justification.While some consideration is given the First Amendment as a freedom, the issue is actually regarding specific taxes targeting a small segment of an industry (within a state). There is room in the ruling for permitting taxes on exercise of the First Amendment, if it can be shown that a state has a compelling interest (other than only raising revenue) that can be satisfied no other way.

          The bulk of the ruling is not about burdening the First Amendment, but the impermissible targeting a specific subset of a category of news service. “Minnesota’s ink and paper tax violates the First Amendment not only because it singles out the press, but also because it targets a small group of newspapers. The effect of the $100,000 exemption is that only a handful of publishers in the State pay any tax at all, and even fewer pay any significant amount of tax. To recognize a power in the State not only to single out the press, but also to tailor the tax so that it singles out a few members of the press, presents such a potential for abuse that no interest suggested by Minnesota can justify the scheme. Pp. 460 U. S. 591-592.” (note that the opinion does not entirely close the door on a justified “burden” on the First Amendment, only that in the case under review, the state did not put forth sufficient justification. That means that there must exist a sufficient justification, a justification not yet presented.

          The implication of The Pittman Robertson Act is that the excise tax, while it may be unconstitutional, serves a purpose favored by gun owners, so it is best left unchallenged. If that is indeed the reason a challenge to the tax has not been mounted…then gun owners are admitting to situational adherence to the constitution.

  18. avatar NH Guy says:

    So….son of poll tax? What could possibly be wrong with that? Socialist Democrats don’t have a problem with using the government to limit your individual, Constitutionally enumerated rights through taxation because they believe: 1) you are inherently bad and untrustworthy, 2) your rights are granted to you by the government (ie. them). Warren and her ilk see themselves as the Vanguard of the Proletariat. The rest of us should be happy to be guided by their wisdom.

    1. avatar Country Boy says:

      I’ll be happy when all these socialist dems are dead and buried.

  19. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Even if the goal is to punish the rich when they buy guns, not that it would do much because they are rich and all… But are the rich such a threat for so called gun violence? Other than being able to afford yucky, scary guns, what is the logic in that? Oh yeah, the less scary yucky guns, the better, just because.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      When prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, the prohibition on the substance was repealed, but *not* the heavy taxation alcohol has been burdened with since early in the Republic.

      So, that might prove problematic…

  20. avatar Anymouse says:

    If this were to happen, look for a bull market of 80% receivers/frames and handloading. Since manufacturers aren’t taxed, people would become their own manufacturers.

  21. avatar Reno1947 says:

    Put a tiny mustache on her and she looks like that anti gunner hitler

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Warren would take away our guns but she’d keep her hands off our bows, arrows and tomahawks.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Admit it, Ralph. You’d still like to give her a ‘Mohawk’ in a certain area, wouldn’t you? 😉

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Yuck. YUCK.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Stock up folks…I’m not a high-volume shooter so it isn’t that hard to horde. Pukeahontas needs to have her hired guns unemployed😏

  24. avatar Uphers says:

    2 words only:

    Worthless twunt.

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The state of tennessee hand a law on the books stating only the Navy revolver could be sold in that state. It was the most expensive handgun at the time. And newly freed blacks couldn’t afford one. Which was very convenient for the KKK which was founded in that state.

    I know many people don’t like the Hi Point. But it will kill you dead if you are shot with one.

    The Ultimate Hi-Point Yeet Cannon 15 minutes long

  26. avatar possum says:

    Yes more taxes, tax the gunms, tax the streets tax the shoes on your feet, tax the booze, tax a weed, it’s more taxes that we need.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Nicely done.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Lots of wisdom with the Marsupial One… 😉

  27. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Somehow a case has to get in front of SCOTUS that requires a confirmation of the definitions of the words “shall”, “not”, and “Infringe”. The definition of INFRINGE seems to have gotten misplaced. Ask anybody whether or not a tax is an infringement. Or constriction.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Somehow a case has to get in front of SCOTUS that requires a confirmation of the definitions of the words “shall”, “not”, and “Infringe”. ”

      Everything in the constitution is subject to: “compelling government interest” and “three tier level of scrutiny”. Additionally, federal courts (maybe all courts) review a case from the bottom up. If anywhere along the line the case can be decided before reaching the top level (the actual wording of the constitution), that is the end of review. The SC specifically does not like taking a provision of the constitution and comparing the constitution to the law/regulation. If that were so, think of how many laws would not stand up to “Congress shall make no law…”, and “Shall not be infringed”.

    1. avatar Rocketman says:

      Author L. Neil Smith of “The Probability Broach” had a couple of great lines in it. “Government is a disease masquerading as it’s own cure.” and “Government would like to break your leg, hand you a crutch and tell you that without them you wouldn’t be able to walk.”

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Government is a RICO conspiracy that will never be prosecuted.

  28. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Just proves the prime consensus.. All the bullshit being pushed by the serious contenders on the left is about more money to pay for more free stuff….

  29. avatar Will Drider says:

    Yeah, and after dems make you register firearms/magazines and pay a Fee, they won’t just add skyrocketing Taxes to them and ammo: they will charge a annual Taxes like vehicle registrations EVERY YEAR. That’s a lot of incentives to NOT Register you firearms!

    Warren has never seen a tax rate she didnt want to increase. Take the tax rate increase she she wants now and know she will double it every few years.

    You will also note that she didn’t say where all that extra Tax Revenue would go! Nobody in their right mind would think it would go into the same coffers as the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act reguires.

  30. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Warren rewrites tax laws on guns and ammo BUT The Church of Sweden has taken it upon themselves to rewrite the bible and name Greta Thunberg as THE ‘Successor’ of Jesus, SO does that mean that a not too bright, mentally challenged, brainwashed child who doesn’t know an original thought (unless it’s someone else’s on paper in front of her) will be leading the armies of God across the plains of Armageddon to take on Satan and his Hoard.. Do you think they consulted with God before they made that decision? Do you think he was wildly enthusiastic about putting HIS kid on the sideline for the big one? Looks a lot like the last episode of PREACHER…

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Hey, no spoilers. I’m yet to finish the series.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Sorry, My Badddd….

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      What do you expect from heretics?

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Exactly my point…

  31. avatar Country Boy says:

    I think we need a 78% excise tax on politician’s total income that even mention a word about gun control or taxes on thereof.

    maybe we could ‘spread the $$ around” like they keep talking about.

  32. avatar The SGM says:

    Anyone who is bent on protecting himself and his family will get the implements necessary to accomplish his task. She has no plan to get the illegal guns off the streets, she has no plans to have the prosecution and imprisonment of criminals forceful and long term, She only has plans to make it harder on the honest people. She has no plans to step up the necessary and required prosecution of those who fail background check for lying in the form. She has no plan other than to make noise and follow the Democratic/Liberal/Socialist ideals of bigger government, tax and spend.

  33. avatar Country Boy says:

    BTW/FWIW….isn’t Fauxahontas culturally appropriating when she puts her clench fist in the air as in the photo? That was a “Black Power” symbol in the 1960s and 1970s.

    Oh, I forgot…she’s a fn hypocrite.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I think she’s advocating fisting.

  34. avatar Chris Morton says:

    “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Tax Guns Out of the Reach of Black people”.

    There, fixed that for you.

    The history of racially invidious gun controls in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a “safe working environment”.

    Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.

  35. avatar Alan says:

    Someone, anyone please explain the following to me. How on earth did this woman ever manage to be elected to the United States Senate? Did she cheat?

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      It’s pretty easy when the electorate are stupid, uneducated and want “free” stuff paid for by other people.

      Apparently you’re totally unaware of the electoral history of Chicago, never mind her electoral environment.

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        Yes…she lied and, thereby, cheated the college selection process, same for law school…Warren has played heavily on her bogus “Native American” heritage for her entire school, legal and congressional career.

        She wants to be the first Madam Tzarina of the USA.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        “you’re totally unaware of the electoral history of Chicago”

        I’m not sure of your point, since she’s the Senator from Massachusetts.

        And yes, my state is full of Massh0les.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          Which is why I referenced “her electoral environment”.

          Chicago is the classic example of stupid, greedy voters being exploited by lying sociopaths. Mass only follows in Chicago’s footsteps.

    2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      Elizabeth Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate because, “Massachusetts”

  36. avatar MaddMaxx says:

    Want to get money to pay for free stuff for Illegal Aliens? (it’s okay I still live in the AMERICAN part of the U.S.) How about placing a use tax on film makers? Say you charge $25000.00 for each gun used in a film and $5000.00 for each time a gun is shown/used during a movie and $1000.00 for each shot fired… You could also throw in another $1000.00 for each person murdered or otherwise killed by any means (shooting, stabbing, beating, strangling, poisoning, blown up, thrown from a rooftop/airplane/helicopter/speeding car, being skinned alive, tied to active rail road tracks, heavily bled and thrown in shark/alligator/crocodile/piranha infested waters, box full of starved rats placed over someones head?) and for each non-conventional weapon used (garrote, scissors, baseball bat, statue, paperweight, letter opener, nail file, car/truck/motorcycle, spider venom, Brussels Sprouts, 2×4, crow bar, fireplace poker, spear gun, use of any animal wild or domesticated, any manufactured Space Alien using any futuristic type weapon or just physically dismembering or biting off ones head or various explosives) I know there are thousands of ways and hundreds of weapons but I can’t cover them all here… Anyway, hey Liz (or whomever) please feel free to use my suggestion but I would appreciate a 10 to 15% kickback for using my INTELLECTUAL? property, look forward to hearing from you, I have a list of shit even Hollywood has never thought of….

  37. avatar Richard D Cutie says:

    Not that I watch much of the news any more as it makes me sick. I keep hearing that this assclown Warren is the one most likely to be the Democratic nominee. If that’s true then we are in for some seriously crazy bullshit coming at us if she wins the election!!!! Elizabeth Warren is a delusional person who will come after our 2nd Amendment rights hard. Make no mistake she doesn’t like people from the middle of the USA who think for themselves and take up for themselves. She’s dangerous and vindictive and she will never forget what Trump did to her exposing her lies about not being a Native American. God help all of us if she wins !!

  38. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Elizabeth Warren Wants to Tax Guns Out of the Reach of the Poor…

    Then subsidize them with “affordable gun grants.”

  39. avatar The SGM says:

    The problem is with the voters/supporters who rally around her every word and believe her every proposal. They are so wound up they fail to see or understand that everything she proposes requires more taxation; taxes which will come from their earnings. Warren, Sanders and other hopefuls have put forward different proposals concerning income inequality with the proposal to ‘tax the rich’ as a fix but all it actually is is a confiscation of earned income and investments. Isn’t the problem they are proposing to fix just what all Americans attempt to achieve , that being prosperity? Their socialistic driven ideas have failed before and will fail again

  40. avatar James Bogers says:

    Incredible! I grew up in a Democratic oriented family, however, I am seeing such a swing toward Socialism that, for me (and I hope many more Americans), this type of party is NOT what America needs. NOT FOR ME!

    1. avatar Dave G. says:

      @James Bogers:
      A lot of Americans grew up in Democratically oriented families, including yours truly. That was because our parents suffered through the Great Depression and thought of Franklin Roosevelt as some sort of public hero. (My father-in-law always claimed that GOP meant “Government Opposition Party.”) However, I have long since had time to rethink that scenario in the light of more recently revealed events, like: FDR’s allying with organized crime to control labor unions in NYC during WWII, The Clintons, and Barak Obama. And, there was more than a little socialism in FDR’s makeup as well. So, maybe, FDR wasn’t that much of a hero after all.

      Personally, I liked Harry S Truman better myself, though my father didn’t think much of him. But in more recent times I have had to rethink that one too. With HST honesty was important, but party loyalty was paramount. I think Harry had it backwards.

      For instance, for the good of the (Democratic) Party Harry appointed NYC Mayor, William O’Dwyer, Ambassador to Mexico to get him out of town and take the heat off the New York City political machine in an election year (because of O’Dwyer’s alleged connection to organized crime). I have a really hard time trying to forgive Harry for that one.

      But I ramble, and you are right. Today’s Democrats really suck. Now, don’t even get me started on tricky Dick…

  41. avatar D GRAHAM says:

    DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS ARM WAVING, SCATTERED BRAIN, DIPSH*T HAS A SNOWBALL’S CHANCE IN HELL OF BECOMING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT. THERE IS NO ONE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC “SIDE OF THE ISLE” THAT IS EVEN WORTHY OF BEING A CONGRESS PERSON, LET ALONE, A PRESIDENT. THIS INCLUDES JOE BIDEN THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LOST SITE OF WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO AND EVERYONE OF THEM ARE TOTALLY WORTHLESS PIECES OF SH*T !!!!!!!

  42. avatar cjg says:

    you stupid ass democrats!!!! criminals will have guns no matter what laws you pass they dont give a shit about your stupid law. and guess what if and when you try to do that to me i will become one
    and i really dont give a shit about you liberal whinnie democrats

  43. Squaw Warren not too Smart: More like box of rocks.

  44. a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth

    Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 666 (1966)

    I fail to see how this principle does not apply with equal force to firearms.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I fail to see how this principle does not apply with equal force to firearms.”

      The 14th changed the relationship between the States and the central government; inverted it. However, there has been a long history of cases where SC ruled that this or that provision of the constitution was incorporated to the states (little “s” intentional) via the 14th (not too long ago, one of the supremes questioned the apparent lack of incorporation of the 8th amendment under the 14th.

      Additionally, there is SC uncertainty over whether 2A is a fundamental right, due “strict scrutiny”. As if somehow, the framers stratified the constitution, and BOR.

  45. avatar Tommy Gunn says:

    Thanks to out-of-state money from anti-gun billionaires like Bloomberg, an initiative which grossly distorted the facts was voted unto law in Washington State. It used paid signature solicitors in high traffic locations. The single-page petition which people were asked to sign reduced 30 pages of “claims and conditions” onto a single page page 4 point font, according to a local judge who reviewed it. For all practical purposes, the new law places so many hurdles, requirements, conditions, fees and mandates on buying and keeping a gun as to discourage the effort for all but the most determined people, with the necessary money and facilities for storage of their guns. You can bet that other states will be targeted for the same tactics.

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