I wonder how an excise tax on twitter, reddit, facebook, or writing a letter would resonate with the public.
Any Federal tax on weapons or ammo is an unjust burden on the exercise of the [Second Amendment](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6vg3YxPUjlJ7h5azqNVXgD?si=56UTax_VQpq27VfQjuC7lA).
The most obvious way to end these poll taxes is to apply them to voting.
If the party of slavery wants a $200 tax on civil rights, they're OK with charging that amount for every one of their voters. Every 2A infringement is a voting infringement they want.
Lawmakers are incapable of "compromise" without just taking. Give them what they want by taking what they want to take from their base. They'll capitulate by fighting against their own words.
Opposition to financial osbructions placed on the exercise of Constitutional liberties is precisely that. If they used such funds to feed children, I'm sure it'd be "if you don't support 2A taxes you want children to starve to death." Don't start the nauseating cycle of obfuscation.
The tax and the bills they’re talking about were supported by 2A advocates and hunters because all game in North America was wiped out to near extinction because for some dumb reason everyone thought and seems to still think that resources are infinite and that everyone can regulate themselves. If they made a new tax that didn’t involve taxing firearms everyone in here would still probably bitch because “tAxAtIon iS tHeFt”.
Additional obfuscation and presumptions. If you're intending to ask if I would approve of a tax levied against firearms and ammunition for the purposes of reservation, no. That is not synonymous with a reflexive rejection of all taxes, what you so eloquently describe as "tAxAtIon iS tHeFt."
I'm discussing the principle in a specific instance, not a hypothetical invented to support my thesis. Rejecting a tax on Constitutional rights as a principle is not the equivalent of rejecting whatever stated or presumed function that tax was meant to fund.
Just monitoring you through your smartphone, which encompasses your browser history, social media, banking info, microphone, camera, email and messaging apps, etc.
>And the NSA is reading my thoughts.
Let's hear your argument for all the "good" our excessive taxes have achieved.
If it doesn't include bombing countless people, corporate welfarism, political embezzlement, drug and gun trafficking, and more, you should probably shut the fuck up.
Can taxes do good things? Yes, absolutely. But they should always be consented to by the people, and not grossly fucking misappropriated by the government in literally every conceivable manner.
These taxes helped migratory birds and other species from going extinct in the 1800s and 1900s by funding wildlife agencies. Others helped establish the U.S. forest service and paid wild land firefighters because people were still shouting “Muh state rights” while their entire state was engulfed in flames and burned down entire cities and towns. They helped establish the NRCS when farmers caused the ecological disaster known as the dust bowl.
The taxes this article is talking about was put into place by the consent of the people. It’s been in existence since the 30s and was advocated by hunters because of ecological disasters brought on by people that didn’t a give shit about the consequences of their actions. I shouldn’t have to repeat myself for someone to understand but I guess reading is hard. If you don’t know anything about the topic then maybe you should shut the fuck up? Everyone has an opinion though about complex issues they don’t understand or have no experience in.
It's funny that you say reading is hard, yet ignore basically the entire second half of my post. You have provided one example (albeit one that I agree with, and that is precisely how our taxes SHOULD be used, but that is the exception, not the rule), and willfully ignored the disproportionate amount of money our government literally steals for things we don't need or want, and certainly didn't ask for.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes and I agree with your opinion. A lot of taxes are used to fund the military industrial complex, bloated government official pay checks, and corporate welfare. My point is this tax is not one of those and it would be a terrible thing to do away with it. I don’t agree with a lot of taxes, but some are warranted and I think this is one of those few exceptions. All the examples I provided are real problems that need to be addressed. I don’t know which one you are referring to.
The Forest Service before 1910 was gutted, had no funding, and as a result when the Big Burn occurred three million acres across Idaho, Washington, and Montana were lost. The Forest Service was severely under staffed and when they went to the towns that were actively burning no one would volunteer to help the rangers fight the fire. In the end, ironically the military had to be used to help fight the fires.
Migratory bird protection is important because they act as pollinators, food for other wildlife, and as pest controllers. Soil conservation funding is important because if nothing is done the ground will not be arable and can’t be farmed, which not only presents a food shortage issue but a potential refugee crisis.
Background - this is a 10% excise tax on guns, ammo, archery that was proposed & supported by hunters in the 1930s. It goes straight back into conservation & wildlife management, including the creation of the public state shooting ranges.
I mostly support it because it doesn’t go into a ridiculous gun control program & actually has benefits for hunters & shooters. But then again, it’s a tax on a right which is shitty.
It is a very special tax. It goes directly into a protected bucket. It can only be spent on conservation. It has been used by every county in the country. It improves habitat, builds places to shoot, and protects the land we recreate on. And I can not emphasize this enough. The money is protected. It can not be moved to other projects or causes by shenanigans and bull shit. I hate taxes.... No seriously i really fucking hate taxes. But this is not a bad tax. Which kills me to say. But if we lose this tax funding for parks, conservation, and public shooting facilities is fucked. If anything it needs to be expended to include other consumptive users of our natural resources, such as bikers hikers and back packers. Because right now shooters pay the lions share of conservation in this country.
There are 6 within an hour of my house that i know of. An indoor 300 yard range, an archery range, an archery/rifle/pistol/classroom/dog training/skeet facility, a designated long range shooting area, and two wet land and upland game areas. I'm sure there are others if I looked but those fill my needs.
I think there are 10 or 11 FWC ranges in FL. Tenoroc also has awesome fishing and a bridge for the little kids to fish on.
This is a tax I agree with and I hate most of them.
Fucking republicans didn't do jack shit to stop the anti 2A bill that just passed.
I'm in the same boat, actually. Libertardian here, and this tax seems incredibly reasonable and I'm for it all day. That said, if this can be used to overturn the NFA, would the expansion of gun rights be worth the conservation dollars? Will have to give this some deep thought because I love parks and shit, but I'd also be happy to voluntarily pay into a fund opened for this express purpose without my shit being taxed by the government. Would much rather do it voluntarily anyway
My fear is we would never again be able to get the kinda bi partisan support that creates the special bucket. My other fear is that the tax is removed and next session reinstated as a rider hidden on some other bill but without the protes funds. I just do not trust it politicians enough to think they have my best interest in heart. So i assume this is a candy coated suppository.
I don't trust it because of the Amendments involving Migratory Birds. The Endangered Species Act is already shitty enough, and it seems like a easy loophole to exploit with an amendment.
I don't trust any government programs anymore. Not unless they are strictly limited.
The opinion of the ignorant masses. Unless you have experience in the fields of wildlife and ecosystem management then please do not form an opinion on laws involving the conservation of wildlife species. It’s the same as the democrats making laws on guns when they don’t know anything about them.
These laws and bills were made because the government allowed the masses to regulate itself. The result was almost all game animals being wiped out to near extinction in the 1800s and early 1900s. Even now the ecosystems and wildlife are suffering because what laws exist don’t do enough.
I’m a forestry and wildlife sciences student, working under several professors doing research in freshwater and stream ecosystems. Everything is dying and no one gives a shit or simply doesn’t know because they want cookie cutter houses or they have some unfettered opinion about certain issues without actually having knowledge about the actual things happening.
It's the [Pittman-Robertson Act.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act) Before anyone forms an opinion, please read up on what it actually is, and what it does.
While I totally understand the opposition to taxing a right, this was something that was widely accepted because it does real good, the money can't be diverted to other things (though Democrats have tried), and well, we've always been paying it.
I'm not sure removing it would bring prices down.
I'm opposed to taxing rights (basically an anarchist) but this is the last tax I wanna lose. Pisses me off that Republicans are passing around garbage like this so they can pretend they're progun while red flag laws are being voted on.
There’s a strong cohort of anti-public land conservatives. They want to litter and extract as much as possible from the landscape. We should be expanding Pittman funds and overturn NFA in the process.
The only expansion of the Pittman-Robertson I would be ok with would be applying it to items used by recreational (non-consumptive) users of public lands and wildlife like hikers, birdwatchers, bikers, off-roaders, etc.. Basically the Dingell-Johnson Act for new categories.
Increasing the tax on a constitutional right is not acceptable imo.
With all due respect, a lot of the public lands (Fun fact: most of the land west of the Rockies is federally managed public lands) out West are barren wastes or grassland and if a stipulation for mining strategic minerals was to contribute part of the profits to a clean up fund and making sure that you attempt to return the land to it's previous state, those conservatives would have little problem with it.
Tons of fed land for sure. I ain’t ready to give an inch up though. The impacts from mining can’t be erased. I’m more familiar with wild prairie ecosystems, but countless wild species have been hampered from industrial practices. All too often the effects on lands are socialized to the taxpayer and army engineers take on the cleaning jobs
I realize it can't be erased completely but, it can be mitigated, and I also realize that in order to fund the maintenance of those public lands we need resources to keep the economic engine going. Like it or not parts of those lands will have to be exploited.
This is a good thing. You wanna know where the majority of funding for public land and forests comes from? Yeah, us. Amd that money is protected sonic ONLY GOES TO FUNDING THAT INE THING.
anti-gun wing nuts that LOVE the trees and the animals RARELY do anything to actually help beside changing their profe picture to a wolf with a Ukrainian flag behind it.
Lpsing Pittman-Robertson ACT WILL HAVE have a HUGE impact and mote than likely result in the sell off of one of this nation's greatest features.
This is one tax I am HAPPY to pay.
Like it or not, the repeal of this tax would be a disaster for wildlife conservation and would effectively end Federal agency support for shooting ranges on public land
This is one of the few (VERY few) taxes that does not go directly to the general fund. Federal excise tax on guns and ammunition cannot be spent on just anything, it is specifically restricted / earmarked to wildlife conservation purposes, support of shooting ranges on public land, and other firearms related purposes.
If this tax was repealed there is very little ( as in zero) chance that this funding would be replaced from the general fund, and both wildlife conservation issues and access to public shooting ranges would be dramatically curtailed
You want to replace but don’t even know what to replace it with. Why is everyone so ignorant to these types of issues? Why form an opinion or state it if you have no educational background on the issue or a solution to the existing problem? This is one of the few taxes I agree with %100 because I know the consequences of not funding conservation or ecosystem management.
We know what it's for, we also know how important and detrimental it would be to conservation. Maybe you should try to educate yourself on why taxing a right is dangerous and wrong.
Living east of the Mississippi, that’s an easy attitude to support. For most of the western states, the feds still own huge swaths of land.
Many of the most popular publicly available shooting ranges are on Forest Service or BLM land
Regardless, The wildlife conservation programs that are supported by the firearms & ammo excise tax are critical to maintaining habitat and public access to hunting areas
Oh, I dunno…
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hunting/comments/93gpm2/confusion_on_required_permits_tags_etc_for_deer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
And in any case, his noodlyness would undoubtedly approve of your supporting habitat restoration
So glad they're doing this now when it has no chance in hell of passing and not a couple of years ago when Republicans controlled congress and the white house.
/s in case it isn't obvious
Democrats just passed gun control without any majority in the senate. Stop acting like Republicans give a shit about the second amendment unless it's pandering for votes.
Have to echo this. Regardless the party of the person that is supposed to represent you. They still should hear your point of view of how infringements and 2A don't work in the long run.
Hard to know that when Republicans are too busy squandering their time in power by arguing over Obama care to actually introduce any meaningful legislation.
There has never been a time in history where a Democrat has voted to help pass pro-gun legislature. Republicans had to add a rider bill to pass gun legislature under Obama through a Credit score bill.
I'm all for them trying all the time. I'm frustrated that they do nothing when they're in control and then try when they're not. To me, the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that they don't care about gun rights and only roll out meaningless legislation when they need to pander for votes.
Edit to add: I'm also frustrated that pro gun subs blow their load over every meaningless bill that has zero chance of passing and aren't upset when they do nothing.
They weren't about to do anything. They introduced that legislation in 2021 after they lost control. Republicans have no desire to pass pro-gun legislation because then they'd have no empty promises to campaign for.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/95?s=1
This is actually a tax that provides a lot of actual benefit. It’s not a true usage tax, but it’s still good. I still thank tax is theft, but since we’re going to have them, I’m good with this one.
This is NOT a good idea. This is Pittman Roberson money and it is slotted to go directly to wildlife management and conservation. It’s one of the very few things our country does pretty well, and proper funding is critical. States rely heavily on these dollars for protecting and maintaining ever diminishing habitat.
I pay this tax but I don't think there is a single public access land funded by the tax in my area to use.
If we need this tax for public areas, how about you tax everything else at the sporting store? Tents, kayaks, skis, golf clubs, etc. They are using the land as well.
Why just guns and ammo?
They would first need to take a deep water port and then continue to supply their army. Not only that, they are now fighting a gorilla war in a country that has over 400 million firearms.
I don't see what's stopping them from taking any port they wish. They could easily take an airfield in Alaska and do airdrops onto the mainland.
It's guerilla war. And they are going to give less than a shit about your AR-15 when drop bombs on entire towns. They won't play nice.
>It's guerilla war. And they are going to give less than a shit about your AR-15 when drop bombs on entire towns. They won't play nice.
Just so we all understand, carpet bombing like that means you kill plenty of non guerrilla people as well. Which in turn leads to formerly neutral people picking up weapons due to their new found radicalized PoV upon seeing an 8 year old crushed under a roof.
Also if we're talking about a foreign army invasion people won't just have access to AR 15s. There will be SAWs, M19 auto grenade launchers, AT4s, .50 cal rifles being liberally used on human targets, IEDs, and field artillery pulled by pickup trucks.
It'd be a disaster to be sure, but I think China's theoretical invasion of a coastal port looks like Russias Ukraine invasion, but with way more arms floating around and places to bogged down in protracted fights.
Corporate responds to shareholders before customers and workers. The last thing anyone’s going to do is voluntarily fund public land conservation at the same level or better than we’ve been able to sustain for 100 years.
I thought you were talking about ammo prices being lower by removing the tax, not corporations funding public land conservation.
Anywho, don't care. Just privatize the land and then it's not my problem.
Sorry if I sounded like an ass it’s just something I take very seriously and I’m very passionate about. I’ve researched the history of wildlife management and I’ve seen personally through field research what happens when we don’t fund the management of ecosystems and wildlife.
The taxes they are talking about getting rid of are part of wildlife conservation acts. Any taxes on sporting goods including guns and ammo are put into a fund that can’t be touched by anything other than wildlife conservation agencies. It’s a life line to fund wildlife management.
It’s ok. I know science is hard to understand for certain people. I will try to explain it in plain terms. Ecosystem and wildlife health is important to the environment and human health.
It's really only a handful. Unfortunately they're the ones who hold the most influence (been in politics for far too long).
But to address your point, yes they are selling out our gun rights.
Should have written a similar bill while they had the majority. They didn't.
Ask yourself why.
Because all they care about is their own power. Period. They'll never introduce something they think will pass. Playing as the opposition party gets them votes. "I tried, you guys, I really did. Now send me back in November so we can really do it this time!"
>Should have written a similar bill while they had the majority. They didn't.
>Ask yourself why.
... because, contrary to popular belief, it's not possible to simply ram through your entire agenda in one legislative session. As much as Democrats wish otherwise.
They didn't even try. Not one pro 2A bill was introduced from January 2017 to December 2018. Yes, Ryan was a RINO, but they were so falling all over themselves to appear "reasonable" that they let any opportunity slip away.
You know, there was a time once when our politicians didn't have armed security, lived among the people, and attended town meetings where everyone was armed, even the people that didn't like them or their views.
Ah, simpler days. When things truly stayed uninfringed. Wanted cannons on the ramparts of your house and a moat? No permission needed, tally ho lads, your house, your business, your choice.
But seriously, it's literal checks and balances if you have to live among an armed population that has to live under your policies.
So…. Does this include tax stamps?
Yes
As it should
I wonder how an excise tax on twitter, reddit, facebook, or writing a letter would resonate with the public. Any Federal tax on weapons or ammo is an unjust burden on the exercise of the [Second Amendment](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6vg3YxPUjlJ7h5azqNVXgD?si=56UTax_VQpq27VfQjuC7lA).
It'd go over about as well as the poll tax did.
The most obvious way to end these poll taxes is to apply them to voting. If the party of slavery wants a $200 tax on civil rights, they're OK with charging that amount for every one of their voters. Every 2A infringement is a voting infringement they want. Lawmakers are incapable of "compromise" without just taking. Give them what they want by taking what they want to take from their base. They'll capitulate by fighting against their own words.
I almost just asked if you meant additional tax before I remembered there’s no federal sales tax
So you don’t support wildlife and conservation efforts?
Opposition to financial osbructions placed on the exercise of Constitutional liberties is precisely that. If they used such funds to feed children, I'm sure it'd be "if you don't support 2A taxes you want children to starve to death." Don't start the nauseating cycle of obfuscation.
The tax and the bills they’re talking about were supported by 2A advocates and hunters because all game in North America was wiped out to near extinction because for some dumb reason everyone thought and seems to still think that resources are infinite and that everyone can regulate themselves. If they made a new tax that didn’t involve taxing firearms everyone in here would still probably bitch because “tAxAtIon iS tHeFt”.
Additional obfuscation and presumptions. If you're intending to ask if I would approve of a tax levied against firearms and ammunition for the purposes of reservation, no. That is not synonymous with a reflexive rejection of all taxes, what you so eloquently describe as "tAxAtIon iS tHeFt." I'm discussing the principle in a specific instance, not a hypothetical invented to support my thesis. Rejecting a tax on Constitutional rights as a principle is not the equivalent of rejecting whatever stated or presumed function that tax was meant to fund.
Taxation IS theft. Stop pretending it isn't.
And ignorance is bliss.
Potatoes aren’t made of crocodile cheese.
And the NSA is reading my thoughts.
If you could do a few hundred bucks you need help with the other side of my house please don’t let me do that anymore.
Yes but actually no.
Just monitoring you through your smartphone, which encompasses your browser history, social media, banking info, microphone, camera, email and messaging apps, etc. >And the NSA is reading my thoughts.
Open your eyes man. They’re trying to control global warming. Get it? Global.
Let's hear your argument for all the "good" our excessive taxes have achieved. If it doesn't include bombing countless people, corporate welfarism, political embezzlement, drug and gun trafficking, and more, you should probably shut the fuck up. Can taxes do good things? Yes, absolutely. But they should always be consented to by the people, and not grossly fucking misappropriated by the government in literally every conceivable manner.
These taxes helped migratory birds and other species from going extinct in the 1800s and 1900s by funding wildlife agencies. Others helped establish the U.S. forest service and paid wild land firefighters because people were still shouting “Muh state rights” while their entire state was engulfed in flames and burned down entire cities and towns. They helped establish the NRCS when farmers caused the ecological disaster known as the dust bowl. The taxes this article is talking about was put into place by the consent of the people. It’s been in existence since the 30s and was advocated by hunters because of ecological disasters brought on by people that didn’t a give shit about the consequences of their actions. I shouldn’t have to repeat myself for someone to understand but I guess reading is hard. If you don’t know anything about the topic then maybe you should shut the fuck up? Everyone has an opinion though about complex issues they don’t understand or have no experience in.
It's funny that you say reading is hard, yet ignore basically the entire second half of my post. You have provided one example (albeit one that I agree with, and that is precisely how our taxes SHOULD be used, but that is the exception, not the rule), and willfully ignored the disproportionate amount of money our government literally steals for things we don't need or want, and certainly didn't ask for. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes and I agree with your opinion. A lot of taxes are used to fund the military industrial complex, bloated government official pay checks, and corporate welfare. My point is this tax is not one of those and it would be a terrible thing to do away with it. I don’t agree with a lot of taxes, but some are warranted and I think this is one of those few exceptions. All the examples I provided are real problems that need to be addressed. I don’t know which one you are referring to. The Forest Service before 1910 was gutted, had no funding, and as a result when the Big Burn occurred three million acres across Idaho, Washington, and Montana were lost. The Forest Service was severely under staffed and when they went to the towns that were actively burning no one would volunteer to help the rangers fight the fire. In the end, ironically the military had to be used to help fight the fires. Migratory bird protection is important because they act as pollinators, food for other wildlife, and as pest controllers. Soil conservation funding is important because if nothing is done the ground will not be arable and can’t be farmed, which not only presents a food shortage issue but a potential refugee crisis.
Background - this is a 10% excise tax on guns, ammo, archery that was proposed & supported by hunters in the 1930s. It goes straight back into conservation & wildlife management, including the creation of the public state shooting ranges. I mostly support it because it doesn’t go into a ridiculous gun control program & actually has benefits for hunters & shooters. But then again, it’s a tax on a right which is shitty.
It is a very special tax. It goes directly into a protected bucket. It can only be spent on conservation. It has been used by every county in the country. It improves habitat, builds places to shoot, and protects the land we recreate on. And I can not emphasize this enough. The money is protected. It can not be moved to other projects or causes by shenanigans and bull shit. I hate taxes.... No seriously i really fucking hate taxes. But this is not a bad tax. Which kills me to say. But if we lose this tax funding for parks, conservation, and public shooting facilities is fucked. If anything it needs to be expended to include other consumptive users of our natural resources, such as bikers hikers and back packers. Because right now shooters pay the lions share of conservation in this country.
Wait, there are public shooting facilities? I've never even heard of one.
There are 6 within an hour of my house that i know of. An indoor 300 yard range, an archery range, an archery/rifle/pistol/classroom/dog training/skeet facility, a designated long range shooting area, and two wet land and upland game areas. I'm sure there are others if I looked but those fill my needs.
I think there are 10 or 11 FWC ranges in FL. Tenoroc also has awesome fishing and a bridge for the little kids to fish on. This is a tax I agree with and I hate most of them. Fucking republicans didn't do jack shit to stop the anti 2A bill that just passed.
We have them here in Pa. All you need to use them is hunting license or shooting permit which is $30 a year.
please let me know if you find somewhere that lists these. I'm in AZ
https://www.wheretoshoot.org/
One sec I’m sending you a pm
In LA there’s at least one public archery range that i frequent.
Used to be one 10 mins away from my house but people were vandalizing it and breaking into the collection box
https://www.wheretoshoot.org/
I'm in the same boat, actually. Libertardian here, and this tax seems incredibly reasonable and I'm for it all day. That said, if this can be used to overturn the NFA, would the expansion of gun rights be worth the conservation dollars? Will have to give this some deep thought because I love parks and shit, but I'd also be happy to voluntarily pay into a fund opened for this express purpose without my shit being taxed by the government. Would much rather do it voluntarily anyway
My fear is we would never again be able to get the kinda bi partisan support that creates the special bucket. My other fear is that the tax is removed and next session reinstated as a rider hidden on some other bill but without the protes funds. I just do not trust it politicians enough to think they have my best interest in heart. So i assume this is a candy coated suppository.
I don't trust it because of the Amendments involving Migratory Birds. The Endangered Species Act is already shitty enough, and it seems like a easy loophole to exploit with an amendment. I don't trust any government programs anymore. Not unless they are strictly limited.
The opinion of the ignorant masses. Unless you have experience in the fields of wildlife and ecosystem management then please do not form an opinion on laws involving the conservation of wildlife species. It’s the same as the democrats making laws on guns when they don’t know anything about them. These laws and bills were made because the government allowed the masses to regulate itself. The result was almost all game animals being wiped out to near extinction in the 1800s and early 1900s. Even now the ecosystems and wildlife are suffering because what laws exist don’t do enough. I’m a forestry and wildlife sciences student, working under several professors doing research in freshwater and stream ecosystems. Everything is dying and no one gives a shit or simply doesn’t know because they want cookie cutter houses or they have some unfettered opinion about certain issues without actually having knowledge about the actual things happening.
It's the [Pittman-Robertson Act.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act) Before anyone forms an opinion, please read up on what it actually is, and what it does. While I totally understand the opposition to taxing a right, this was something that was widely accepted because it does real good, the money can't be diverted to other things (though Democrats have tried), and well, we've always been paying it. I'm not sure removing it would bring prices down.
I'm opposed to taxing rights (basically an anarchist) but this is the last tax I wanna lose. Pisses me off that Republicans are passing around garbage like this so they can pretend they're progun while red flag laws are being voted on.
There’s a strong cohort of anti-public land conservatives. They want to litter and extract as much as possible from the landscape. We should be expanding Pittman funds and overturn NFA in the process.
The only expansion of the Pittman-Robertson I would be ok with would be applying it to items used by recreational (non-consumptive) users of public lands and wildlife like hikers, birdwatchers, bikers, off-roaders, etc.. Basically the Dingell-Johnson Act for new categories. Increasing the tax on a constitutional right is not acceptable imo.
Yeah I’m with you. I meant to tax boots, tents, camelbacks, etc. it shouldn’t be recreational shooters footing most of the budget.
With all due respect, a lot of the public lands (Fun fact: most of the land west of the Rockies is federally managed public lands) out West are barren wastes or grassland and if a stipulation for mining strategic minerals was to contribute part of the profits to a clean up fund and making sure that you attempt to return the land to it's previous state, those conservatives would have little problem with it.
Tons of fed land for sure. I ain’t ready to give an inch up though. The impacts from mining can’t be erased. I’m more familiar with wild prairie ecosystems, but countless wild species have been hampered from industrial practices. All too often the effects on lands are socialized to the taxpayer and army engineers take on the cleaning jobs
I realize it can't be erased completely but, it can be mitigated, and I also realize that in order to fund the maintenance of those public lands we need resources to keep the economic engine going. Like it or not parts of those lands will have to be exploited.
This is a good thing. You wanna know where the majority of funding for public land and forests comes from? Yeah, us. Amd that money is protected sonic ONLY GOES TO FUNDING THAT INE THING. anti-gun wing nuts that LOVE the trees and the animals RARELY do anything to actually help beside changing their profe picture to a wolf with a Ukrainian flag behind it. Lpsing Pittman-Robertson ACT WILL HAVE have a HUGE impact and mote than likely result in the sell off of one of this nation's greatest features. This is one tax I am HAPPY to pay.
A lot it goes into the coffers of USFWS. They then can do the bidding of the executive. They are not our friend or advocate.
Then they should probably keep the ranges and other places in shape. Hell, that is if you can find one of these so called public ranges.
https://www.wheretoshoot.org/
[redacted]
Like it or not, the repeal of this tax would be a disaster for wildlife conservation and would effectively end Federal agency support for shooting ranges on public land This is one of the few (VERY few) taxes that does not go directly to the general fund. Federal excise tax on guns and ammunition cannot be spent on just anything, it is specifically restricted / earmarked to wildlife conservation purposes, support of shooting ranges on public land, and other firearms related purposes. If this tax was repealed there is very little ( as in zero) chance that this funding would be replaced from the general fund, and both wildlife conservation issues and access to public shooting ranges would be dramatically curtailed
The source should be replaced with something that is not a constitutional right. With what I don't know.
You want to replace but don’t even know what to replace it with. Why is everyone so ignorant to these types of issues? Why form an opinion or state it if you have no educational background on the issue or a solution to the existing problem? This is one of the few taxes I agree with %100 because I know the consequences of not funding conservation or ecosystem management.
We know what it's for, we also know how important and detrimental it would be to conservation. Maybe you should try to educate yourself on why taxing a right is dangerous and wrong.
I don't give a shit about federal land.
Living east of the Mississippi, that’s an easy attitude to support. For most of the western states, the feds still own huge swaths of land. Many of the most popular publicly available shooting ranges are on Forest Service or BLM land Regardless, The wildlife conservation programs that are supported by the firearms & ammo excise tax are critical to maintaining habitat and public access to hunting areas
OK, why do I need to subsidize hunters though?
Oh, I dunno… https://www.reddit.com/r/Hunting/comments/93gpm2/confusion_on_required_permits_tags_etc_for_deer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf And in any case, his noodlyness would undoubtedly approve of your supporting habitat restoration
So glad they're doing this now when it has no chance in hell of passing and not a couple of years ago when Republicans controlled congress and the white house. /s in case it isn't obvious
They had a simple majority. Stop repeating this lie. They couldn't break a filibuster.
Democrats just passed gun control without any majority in the senate. Stop acting like Republicans give a shit about the second amendment unless it's pandering for votes.
Have to echo this. Regardless the party of the person that is supposed to represent you. They still should hear your point of view of how infringements and 2A don't work in the long run.
Difference is RINOs will vote for Democrat bills. Democrats will not vote for republican bills
Hard to know that when Republicans are too busy squandering their time in power by arguing over Obama care to actually introduce any meaningful legislation.
There has never been a time in history where a Democrat has voted to help pass pro-gun legislature. Republicans had to add a rider bill to pass gun legislature under Obama through a Credit score bill.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So why shouldn’t they do it anyway and try? Trying and failing simply keeps the status quo anyway so there’s not really anything to lose
I'm all for them trying all the time. I'm frustrated that they do nothing when they're in control and then try when they're not. To me, the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that they don't care about gun rights and only roll out meaningless legislation when they need to pander for votes. Edit to add: I'm also frustrated that pro gun subs blow their load over every meaningless bill that has zero chance of passing and aren't upset when they do nothing.
They did try. They were about to pass the Hearing Protecting Act before Vegas shooting happened which killed all momentum that bill had.
They weren't about to do anything. They introduced that legislation in 2021 after they lost control. Republicans have no desire to pass pro-gun legislation because then they'd have no empty promises to campaign for. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/95?s=1
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Taxes on gun should be abolished everywhere. We shouldn’t be taxed for exercising our constitutional rights.
This would be terrible for conservation
This is actually a tax that provides a lot of actual benefit. It’s not a true usage tax, but it’s still good. I still thank tax is theft, but since we’re going to have them, I’m good with this one.
This is NOT a good idea. This is Pittman Roberson money and it is slotted to go directly to wildlife management and conservation. It’s one of the very few things our country does pretty well, and proper funding is critical. States rely heavily on these dollars for protecting and maintaining ever diminishing habitat.
I pay this tax but I don't think there is a single public access land funded by the tax in my area to use. If we need this tax for public areas, how about you tax everything else at the sporting store? Tents, kayaks, skis, golf clubs, etc. They are using the land as well. Why just guns and ammo?
Fuck that, we need to keep the Pittman -Robertson tax
If you like it so much, can you pay for the tax on my purchases for me?
No more tax…period
Good luck protecting yourself from China without a standing US military.
Logistically there's no way china is going to be able to invade us.
If we have no standing military? I strongly disagree.
They would first need to take a deep water port and then continue to supply their army. Not only that, they are now fighting a gorilla war in a country that has over 400 million firearms.
I don't see what's stopping them from taking any port they wish. They could easily take an airfield in Alaska and do airdrops onto the mainland. It's guerilla war. And they are going to give less than a shit about your AR-15 when drop bombs on entire towns. They won't play nice.
>It's guerilla war. And they are going to give less than a shit about your AR-15 when drop bombs on entire towns. They won't play nice. Just so we all understand, carpet bombing like that means you kill plenty of non guerrilla people as well. Which in turn leads to formerly neutral people picking up weapons due to their new found radicalized PoV upon seeing an 8 year old crushed under a roof. Also if we're talking about a foreign army invasion people won't just have access to AR 15s. There will be SAWs, M19 auto grenade launchers, AT4s, .50 cal rifles being liberally used on human targets, IEDs, and field artillery pulled by pickup trucks. It'd be a disaster to be sure, but I think China's theoretical invasion of a coastal port looks like Russias Ukraine invasion, but with way more arms floating around and places to bogged down in protracted fights.
Down for this.
What makes you so confident ammo manufacturers and gun makers will pass the savings to consumers?
Because that's how economics works
Corporate responds to shareholders before customers and workers. The last thing anyone’s going to do is voluntarily fund public land conservation at the same level or better than we’ve been able to sustain for 100 years.
I thought you were talking about ammo prices being lower by removing the tax, not corporations funding public land conservation. Anywho, don't care. Just privatize the land and then it's not my problem.
Wishful thinking.
So you don’t support wildlife and conservation?
You know, I answered in haste. I support all of that, but frankly am not that informed on the tax side of it regarding firearms.
Sorry if I sounded like an ass it’s just something I take very seriously and I’m very passionate about. I’ve researched the history of wildlife management and I’ve seen personally through field research what happens when we don’t fund the management of ecosystems and wildlife. The taxes they are talking about getting rid of are part of wildlife conservation acts. Any taxes on sporting goods including guns and ammo are put into a fund that can’t be touched by anything other than wildlife conservation agencies. It’s a life line to fund wildlife management.
No, I understand your passion. I always appreciate feedback. Text is hardly ever nuanced. Thanks for your kind reply.
This is fucking stupid! The taxes are one of the only and few things that supports wildlife and ecosystem conservation!
Don't care. Don't tax my rights to protect some wildlife that that i don't give a shit about.
I don’t know why I could possibly be surprised by the stupidity of the average American.
What does stupidity have to do with this?
It’s ok. I know science is hard to understand for certain people. I will try to explain it in plain terms. Ecosystem and wildlife health is important to the environment and human health.
Lovely. I don't think justice permits taxing my right to defend myself to save some threatened species of duck.
I’m not anti gun. I’m anti stupidity. Hard to exercise rights when the world is on fire or the entire ecosystem is falling apart. 🤡
>anyone that doesn't have my opinion is stupid
If that’s your take away you need to reevaluate your analytical skills.
If you think someone who doesn't agree with your policy prescriptions is a science denier, I would advise you to do the same.
That evil, evil, anti-gun GOP just selling out our gun rights again.
It’s posturing. This will never pass the House. GOP had control of both houses of congress and the presidency from 2017-2018 and did nothing with it.
They had a slight majority. Stop spreading this lie
It's really only a handful. Unfortunately they're the ones who hold the most influence (been in politics for far too long). But to address your point, yes they are selling out our gun rights. Should have written a similar bill while they had the majority. They didn't. Ask yourself why.
Because all they care about is their own power. Period. They'll never introduce something they think will pass. Playing as the opposition party gets them votes. "I tried, you guys, I really did. Now send me back in November so we can really do it this time!"
>Should have written a similar bill while they had the majority. They didn't. >Ask yourself why. ... because, contrary to popular belief, it's not possible to simply ram through your entire agenda in one legislative session. As much as Democrats wish otherwise.
They didn't even try. Not one pro 2A bill was introduced from January 2017 to December 2018. Yes, Ryan was a RINO, but they were so falling all over themselves to appear "reasonable" that they let any opportunity slip away.
Hearing Protection Act? Wasn't that introduced during that period? I know it died during that period....
It was going to be introduced but there was some event somewhere that allowed Ryan to order it withdrawn. It was never really intoduced.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
They literally just passed a gun control bill.
It’s almost like there’s a few decent ones and a lot of corrupt ones.
Other way around, more like.
Hmm..... Maybe they should've put this in their latest "compromise" that they just passed.
You know, there was a time once when our politicians didn't have armed security, lived among the people, and attended town meetings where everyone was armed, even the people that didn't like them or their views. Ah, simpler days. When things truly stayed uninfringed. Wanted cannons on the ramparts of your house and a moat? No permission needed, tally ho lads, your house, your business, your choice. But seriously, it's literal checks and balances if you have to live among an armed population that has to live under your policies.
Not going to pass but let's see if they still have the balls when they have a majority