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.