Monday, October 16, 2017

Yes, This is a Facile Point to Make


If by that you mean your treatise is "shallow" and "simplistic," finally, some common ground on which we can agree... [More]

After all, can there be a deeper and more comprehensive authority than Slate and their resident Boy Genius?

Did I miss where they're inviting comments, or don't they?

[Via Jess]

1 comment:

Pat H. said...

The (((boy))) makes an interesting point. He uses the tax imposed on NFA weapons to rationalize a tax on more than. two weapons.

"Let me put that another way: Why shouldn’t we require someone who wants to own more than two firearms, and who isn’t legally in the gun business, to file an application? Send some paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; submit fingerprints and a photo; and send in a $200 fee along with the make, model, and number of additional weapons you’d like to purchase (and eventually their serial numbers). You would agree to undergo a thorough criminal, domestic violence, and mental health background check, knowing that if a permit to purchase additional firearms were granted, such a background check would be performed every six months (to ensure the applicant hadn’t fallen into a prohibited category of gun owner). Finally, and most important, the reason for requesting additional firearms would be stated on the application."

I've been waiting on the shoe to drop about the tax on weapons and ammo that we "gun owners" approve of to fund the US Fish & Wildlife Service and other things we want. It will be used eventually to support taxing all firearms and ammo via the precedent rule.

It will be our fault.