Here is an intelligent proposal about guns

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
A reasonable fee to pay for a background tax does not ....at all...equate to a tax on components.
Money is used to help mental health issues and pay for overused CBI background checks they now charge nothing for.
It's logical and fair.
Whats your bright idea to deal with mental health issues?

edit on 3-1-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

Not at all. The "cost" of those checks is typing a few things into a data-base that we the taxpayers have already over-paid for by a factor of at least ten. The store clerk does the "work". The only cost to a state would be for personnel that are make-work jobs. Then they cleverly attempt to link in people's minds, that simply having a gun is a "mental health" issue. I guess all the Che-eeldruns are busy being used as an excuse to take more of your money elsewhere.

Most people have not considered that the new "standard" for mental health was just published, the DSM V. In it, virtually anyone can be classified as having a "mental disorder" for just about any normal human condition or behavior. Ever get sad? You have Depression! Ever get mad? You have Oppositional Behavior Disorder! Etc.

TPTB know that people will fight against having our guns removed forcibly. So now the game is to convince people that it's alright if they are "Mentally Ill." Once they have enough people in the pipeline, then they can disarm us as a medical issue. They play a very long game. There is good evidence that this current spate of mass shootings has been being planned and trained for for more than twenty years. I'm a First Responder. I've been in several Mass Casualty exercises, which are essential, so that it all looks good on TV. You gotta have lots of cops and firefighters and medics in the shots, as well as convincing people to play victims, families etc. I'll post a couple examples, but there are so many things that don't add up to these incidents being what they are intended to seem. You'll have to read a few other threads or do your own research probably, to gather enough to be personally convinced. The scope of it is astounding and beggars belief in the average normal person. However, as I said, I have been participating personally as a First Responder for a decade now. And there is no shortage of money to be had for making these events "realistic". The thing to ask yourself, is "If my kid was just maybe killed, what would my body language be like? What would my state of mind be? Would I be standing around counting "choppers"? Would I be hitting the talking points that support the narrative? Would my kid just be happily standing around near me? Or would I be holding/hugging/visibly relieved them and barely coherent?" I've been at thousands of real emergencies. People in minor car wrecks, are far more affected than the parents and kid in this first link are.

Shill Family

I don't necessarily agree with every bit of this guy's analysis, but there is plenty of stuff in his piece and it's companion video that make no sense from an Actual First Responder point of view. Interestingly, this one does not appear in my subscription list on Youtube. I just subscribed to it for the third time in finding this link, which I would not have been able to find had I not preserved it elsewhere.

sandy hook compilation

At any rate....they are going with the metal health narrative, because that is what has seemed to gain some traction with the public. But it's just one piece of a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle, they are building to create the picture they want us to see. And when you begin to notice any particular piece that doesn't seem to fit well, you have to start questioning if all the pieces they are filing off and shaping to fit, really go together into the real picture, or just one they are building in your mind. Be well.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Once you open that door to "fees" and "taxation" then where does it stop? $25 background check fee, $100 mental health fee, $200 transfer tax, $500 anti-crime tax.....what does "Infringement" mean to you?

edit on 4-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

Dude! It's just a termite! One lousy little termite!!!! What harm could it possibly do? You're being an alarmist! ;o)

Stay well.

I am aware of these ( I am a bill Cooper fan) I have been into conspiracies since the 70s and know what you are saying. But this drop in the bucket would be a step in the right direction.
I KNOW about slippery slopes and how the left operates .I also see the immovable right which I don't agree with as well but with whom I have more in common.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


What part of "Shall not be infringed upon" is so hard to understand???


No, no further taxes are needed, wanted, lawful or required for a US Citizen to purchase a Firearm.
The laws already in place infringe upon the 2nd Amendment and are unlawful.

reply to post by cavtrooper7

what responsibility is it of gun owners specifically ?
since when do we single out specific groups of ppl to pay for the ills of others ?

it is extremely intrusive and particularly bothersome that you disagree.

apparently you don't own any guns or you would realize there is already a fee for 'background' checks it is rolled into other 'fees' already paid to exercise the same 'right'.

just for kicks, why aren't you supporting a similar tax on those who wish to consume recreational illicit enjoyment ?
shouldn't that demand a greater use of 'mental' health care ?

since when do gun owners influence the actions of lunatics ?
and why would you punish gun owners for the actions of lunatics ?

i offered numerous suggestions, so don't even go there.
sadly, my suggestions are doable, yesterday, favored by many and wouldn't cost anyone additional funds. why else do you think they are deemed 'unacceptable' ?

how does this even begin to "help those who can't help themselves?"
do tell, how does creating an additional fee, which elevates access and availability away from those who can't help themselves, really help them at all ??

reply to post by Honor93

Then do so here.It is a resposability it is an effort to help.Are we all so greedy that a small fee is too much?
I still just see rebukes not answers.
No infringement just a small fee so no rights violation.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Would you agree with a fee in order to vote?

This thread is hilarious.

Everybody ranting about why should you pay a fee to run a background check when the "government" already does it for "free"...

Doesn't anybody understand how a taxation system works ?

Just whom do you think the "government" is ??

Your tax dollars are already paying for these so-called "free" background checks... or do you think the government pulls the funds out of thin air to pay for the department and administration operations of said background checks ?

[insert slap forehead here]

Wow, just friggin' wow...

reply to post by cavtrooper7

the 'small fee' IS a violation of our rights to which we have previously conceded to no avail.

repeating what we already know doesn't work is what ??

you want answers ... here ya go, again.
eliminate ALL gun free zones.
allow permitted teachers to carry on premises

leave the 'mental health' to the professionals who deal with it ... not the anti-gun lobbyists who desire to exploit it.
why do you believe ANY further legislation is necessary ?

reply to post by CranialSponge


Um.........No.

There is a $7.50 fee for a background check, if you are not a CCW holder.

reply to post by NavyDoc


No,few enough vote as it is and they would just kick up the fee so you couldn't vote.
So do nothing,give nothing and attack anyone who disagrees are your only recourse?
My local government is FULL of progressives I will grant you that,but this state won't vote for funds in the way of new taxation. This IS reasonable and that is what I agree with,not adding more(which would require a vote so it wouldn't happen )
Not any other hair brained assault on Gun ownership or rights ,just a modest fee for the background check.
Crap are you guys politically shell shocked or what?A small amount of money no to change grow or be used for any other purpose.That is all.
I'm not in favor of gun control. This isn't control, it's support.

reply to post by macman


Like I said: IF your government is already running background checks whenever somebody is purchasing a firearm, then you're already paying for it, aren't you ? If they're not running background checks, then my point is moot, isn't it ?

But you've got people ranting about "free government" background checks in this thread, therefore why should they "pay for a right"...

Hence my point.

reply to post by Honor93


The "professionals" have abandoned people here.
I want to help them as I can.CBI is getting nuked with checks as we speak.
The left is as immovable as you.I prefer thinking around such locked debates and hit them sideways.
Gun free zones aren't going anywhere either.
Legislation is coming down on magazines, military style guns and God knows what else.I see they are going after knives in England.
I see people who don't understand that are scared sh##less when they see these guns anywhere.
Loss of our community and family structure has destroyed America because we don't connect any more.
Now TPTB are exploiting this to attack these firearms by using crazies, so stop the crazies as you can.

reply to post by macman

and what's worse, in my state, that is a per-purchase fee.
it doesn't matter if i buy 6 units over the course of 6 months ... all in the same year ... each purchase requires a pre-paid, non-refundable, background fee.

and if, for any reason the purchase is denied, i can then be charged an additional re-stocking fee. it's absolutely an infringement, of the highest order.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Imposing a new or greater fee for the lawful purchase of a firearm is a restriction, regardless how you look at it.

No, it is not the burden of the firearm owner or purchaser to fund mental health concerns or pet projects, anymore then to require me to pay an additional fee to purchase my vehicle to fund cancer research.

reply to post by cavtrooper7

The "professionals" have abandoned people here.

if you mean the mental-health professionals, how then does that become any responsibility of the gun owners ?

I want to help them as I can.

great, get off the computer and do something.
volunteer, pick up someone's tab, contribute to a charity that focuses on mental health but leave the tax paying gun owners out of it.

CBI is getting nuked with checks as we speak.

and, they can thank Obama for that and be XXXXXXXX grateful that they have 'job security'

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by macman

 

Like I said: IF your government is already running background checks whenever somebody is purchasing a firearm, then you're already paying for it, aren't you ? If they're not running background checks, then my point is moot, isn't it ?

But you've got people ranting about "free government" background checks in this thread, therefore why should they "pay for a right"...

Hence my point.

The purchaser is paying the fee, which is unlawful to begin with.
And yes, it is a right, that we are being taxed on.

So let me see if I understan this..

We used to be able to own firearms
we created a government.
We pay taxes to support government.
government decides to regulate our firearm ownership
This is a fee to suport regulation they decided we needed


That about right?

reply to post by okiecowboy

To oversimplify it ABSOLUTELY. But then again what is simple anymore?
Colorado voters routinely shoot down tax proposals.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by macman

 

Like I said: IF your government is already running background checks whenever somebody is purchasing a firearm, then you're already paying for it, aren't you ? If they're not running background checks, then my point is moot, isn't it ?

But you've got people ranting about "free government" background checks in this thread, therefore why should they "pay for a right"...

Hence my point.

The purchaser is paying the fee, which is unlawful to begin with.
And yes, it is a right, that we are being taxed on.

ok you two, i'll stand as the fence and you can both aim accordingly.
you're BOTH correct.

The purchaser is paying the fee, which is unlawful to begin with.

mac, yes consumers do pay an additional tax at the time of purchase ... however, that function (running the check) is still done by government employees who are PAID with taxdollars to perform the service consumers pay EXTRA for, simply to acquiesce to the anti crowd already.

so, please, give her some credit, she's right.

And yes, it is a right, that we are being taxed on.

agreed and it needs to stop.