The topic for this Current Events video is not necessarily a new topic or event, as this proposed legislation is a re-do of previously proposed legislation, but that does not make is any less important to talk about, especially since this shitty remix is currently playing right now. As we have discussed in previous Current Event articles, there are a plethora of willfully ignorant, do-nothing politicians masquerading as intelligent, problem solvers whose bright ideas are going to make everyone safer and it won’t cost you a thing, except for your some of your freedoms and rights, along with some money and maybe a few other things. The lead rocket surgeon with the bright idea for this article is Congressman David Beyer (D-VA). In August of this year (2023) he put forth H.R. 5135, which is a piece of legislation that would impose a 1,000% excise tax on the sale of large capacity ammunition devices, also known as magazines and semiautomatic “assault weapons”, which would most likely include rifles and pistols that fall into the “definition” of “assault weapon”. At the time of writing this article, August 12, 2023, the text for H.R. 5135 was not available. If history is any indication of the bill text, I would assume the bill will mirror or closely resemble H.R. 8051 from the 117thcongress. That bill, which was named Assault Weapon Excise Act was introduced in June of 2022 by nonother than Congressman David Beyer (D-VA). The intention of H.R. 8051 was to impose a 1,000 percent excise tax on Second Amendment protected items just like H.R. 5135 does. Although the text for H.R. 5135 is not available, the objective is the same as H.R. 8051 so I will use that as a gauge to what H.R. 5135 will most likely include. Anyway, H.R. 8051 sought to impose a 1,000% excise tax on “high capacity” magazines, which included most detachable magazines that had the capacity to hold 10 or more cartridges. To learn more about the deception behind “high capacity” magazines, I would recommend watching our Current Events Episode 5 video. H.R. 8051 also imposed a 1,000 percent excise tax on “assault weapons” (pistols and rifles) that are vagally defined using arbitrary feature and/or attachments. Remember, the politicians that create this legislation are not subject matter experts and the majority of the time, those same people are not intelligent individuals. You put those two factors together and you are sure to get an ignorant piece of legislation. If you want to read the text for H.R. 8051 to see the definitions, that link is available at the bottom of this article. One of the areas where an excise tax is applies is to harmful things or services, such as gambling, alcohol and tobacco. This is commonly referred to as a sin tax. One of the reasons behind an excise tax or sin tax is to compensate the government for the high social cost these harmful things or services might impose. The theory is, if it cost more, then people are less likely to do it or do more of it because of the financial burden they absorb, assuming they consume, use, or participate with that thing or service legally. Another example of excise taxes are fuel and some retirement/investment accounts. So again, this is not a new concept and unfortunately, there are already excise taxes applied to items protected by the Second Amendment. 1919 brought about the first excise tax on firearms and ammunition as part of the tax increase associated with World War I. Of course, even after the war ended, some of the taxes remained. Since then, excise taxes have been removed and re-imposed on firearms and ammunition. The current excise tax on firearms and ammunition is 10%, which in my opinion is 10% too much. H.R. 8051 and H.R. 5135 is legislation that 100…or should I say, 1,000 percent targets law abiding citizens, which tells me the politicians who drafted and proposed this legislation 1,000 percent think that law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their Second Amendment Right are viewed as a larger problem than the lawless criminals committing violent crimes using a firearm. If they did not think that, they would not be pushing legislation that will only apply to law abiding citizens who legally purchase a firearm. Last time I checked, when criminals buy an illegal firearm they do not pay taxes on it. Furthermore, if passed, this legislation will not start making them pay taxes on illegally purchased firearms. Therefore, this does not apply to or target lawless criminals. This will not act as a deterrent to lawless criminals. It will however act as a deterrent to law abiding citizens who wanted to purchase a firearm but cannot afford the 1,000% tax. Not only should these politicians be voted out of office, but they should be held criminally and civilly liable for their actions. With this proposal, they have penned their name to a document that shows specific intent, without due process or justification of action, to intentionally coerce or influence law abiding citizens from being able to exercise their Second Amendment Right using unjust and unreasonable taxation. This is the gray area that they are deceptively playing in. These politicians are not depriving law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment Right as they are not specifically banning the purchase of a firearm or Second Amendment protected items, they are targeting an individual’s financial ability to purchase a firearm or Second Amendment protected item. A law-abiding citizen can still purchase a Second Amendment protected item as long as they can afford it. Another way to say this is, a law-abiding citizen can still exercise their Second Amendment Right, assuming they have the money to afford the protection of this right. What they are essentially doing is penalizing law-abiding citizens for using or wanting to use a right. This penalty would be issued without a law-abiding citizen breaking any laws or demonstrating a reasonable fear or concern that any laws might be broken by them. Instead, the law-abiding citizen is forced to pay an unreasonable amount of money (tax) simply to use a right they already have. The politicians pushing this legislation say this is a necessary step to reduce gun violence. But again, how will charging law-abiding citizens a 1,000% tax discourage lawless criminals from using a firearm during the commission of a crime? If in fact their objective was to truly reduce gun violence, they would put forth legislation that would target lawless criminals. Since this legislation specifically targets law-abiding citizens, it is clear that the objective here is to impose a great financial burden through the form of punishment upon law-abiding citizens that will strongly discourage and in most cases, prevent a law-abiding citizen from exercising their Second Amendment Right. Now if you are anti-Second Amendment, you probably support this type of legislation. Remember though, the grass is always greener because they used more shit. Don’t think for a second these same politicians will not come for a right you support and use, or any of your other important rights. For instance, what if politicians propose a 1,000% tax on the protection the Fourth Amendment provides, which is unreasonable search and seizures by the government. This would be very difficult to do, but if it was for your safety, they could possibly pursed people to go along with it. For instance, if they said, “criminals use defense attorney’s to beat criminal charges, that is dangerous and detrimental to the wellbeing of society. So, by imposing a 1,000% excise tax on legal counsel, most criminals won’t be able to afford it.” Most people would probably think to themselves, “well yeah, that makes sense. Law abiding citizens don’t need defense attorney’s. I support this and gladly surender my right for the illusion of safety!” Then when the government undoubtedly abuses their power and starts searching and seizing everyone and everything, you are screwed. Once you offer up your freedoms and rights on a platter to the government, you don’t get them back. Anyway, this would not deprive you of your right, but if they imposed a 1,000% tax on any and all legal counsel there is a very high probably you would live with the repercussion of an unreasonable search and/or seizure by the government because representation from a $5,000 defense attorney would now be $50,000. What if the government charges you a 1,000% tax anytime you use your First Amendment Right? People say mean things all the time using their First Amendment Right. Given the right opportunity and social sentiment, they could justify a limitation to this right because of a high social cost these harmful words might impose. A reasonable person can assume if the government can tax an individual to use one right (the Second Amendment), they can also tax them to use all rights. When a right requires permission to use or a tax paid in order for use, that right is no longer a right, it is a privilege and a privilege can be revoked at any point for any reason by the issuer. Don’t say, “that’ll never happen” because that statement is only true until it does happen. History is filled with frightful moments that people never thought would happen. On top of the issues I have already mentioned, think about another aspect this proposed legislation brings about. If a 1,000% tax turns a $600 pistol before purchase into a $6,000 pistol after purchase, how many people can realistically afford that? Not that many. In the current environment, a lot of people already struggle to purchase a $600 pistol. People depend on firearms to provide effective means of self-defense. The people who live in high crime areas might need that protection more than those who live in low crime areas or those people who live behind tall walls or have security details. Typically, people who live in high crime areas also fall into the low-income category. If you fall into the low-income category, you probably can’t afford to pay a 1,000% tax on a firearm you desperately depend on to protect you and your family from violent criminals in your high crime area. I know Congressman David Beyer says that his proposal will make everyone the most safest anyone has ever been, but it actually sound like it creates unsafe environments and situations for low income individuals living in high-crime areas. To be fair, it will make criminals safer because law abiding citizens will not be able to afford to legally purchase a firearm to defend themselves against said criminals…so, there’s that. If this legislation is passed; at that point, the Second Amendment will no longer a right that everyone has access to, including low-income individuals, it will then become a privilege that only a few have access to. Whooo, that’s scary stuff. Just image if the government treated all rights the same way. You’d be living in an unsafe third-world shit hole, but hey, I’m sure that would never happen… My ConclusionThose are my observations and opinions. Although this video is specifically related to the Second Amendment, that does not mean the issue here is only limited to the Second Amendment, obviously. If they are willing to deprive people of certain freedoms and rights using lies, they are willing to do it about all freedoms and rights. The government doesn’t want just a little bit of power, they want is all. Think of the government as a gold-digger. They want your money, they want your time, they want your freedom, they want your possessions. What do you get in return? Even higher taxes, even higher costs of goods, limitations and restrictions on freedoms and rights through unconstitutional laws, and if they have time, they might turn a pothole into a speedbump because they can’t properly fix the roads. It is the job of government to protect our rights not limit them. Elected “leaders” act as though the Second Amendment is meant to limit what the people can and cannot do or what they can and cannot own, but in fact, the only limitation stated within the Second Amendment applies to government – “shall not be infringed”. Rational people understand this, emotional people disregard this and Congressman David Beyer is acting on emotions or just complete distain for your Second Amendment Right. Either way, it is a problem. Video Version of This ArticleRelated Articles
Sources
0 Comments
|
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
November 2024
|