Supporters of gun rights point out, rightly, that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. And that schools should be protected with armed personnel, whether that means school resource officers, faculty, staff or a combination of all three. The question is, are firearm owners willing to pay for that? Should the burden of paying for it fall solely on gun buyers?
That’s what’s being proposed by Democrats in South Carolina.
State leaders of all political stripes — Democrats and Republicans — agree every public school in the state needs a school resource officer on staff. But the state — and many of its school districts — say they can’t afford the up to $60 million it would cost to hire and train the nearly 600 police officers that would be needed to staff every S.C. school.
But some House Democrats say they have a solution.
Their idea is to tack a 7% tax on the sale of every firearm sold in the state to pay for posting a cop in each school. That would raise about $20 million or about a third of the cost of posting cops in schools that don’t already have them.
It won’t surprise you to hear that gun rights orgs in the Palmetto State think further hiking the cost of firearms would place an undue burden on gun buyers.
Gerald Stoudemire, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, called Brawley’s idea “absolutely ridiculous.”
“People that buy firearms already pay extreme taxes,” Stoudemire said, referring to the state’s sales tax and a federal tax on the sale of ammunition and guns. “People are grabbing solutions for problems. … In my county, Newberry, we have SROs (paid for) through the sheriff’s department and that’s paid for by the taxpayers. That’s where it needs to stay.”
It’s almost as if South Carolina Dems think that firearms are the real cause of “gun violence” and are looking to penalize law abiding gun owners as a result. Never mind that a disproportionate burden placed on lower income buyers who can ill afford another $35, $50 or more tacked on to the price of a gun.
Brawley said it is not her intention to strip gun owners of their firearms, only to fill a need.
“I hope that both Republicans and Democrats see the value in protecting our children in South Carolina, particularly in schools,” she said. “I hope they put partisan politics aside and do what’s in the best interest of the schools.”
Can’t we all just get along?
How is that proposal *not* a ‘poll tax’, and therefore unconstitutional?
Because a Poll tax is levied on everyone. They want to punish someone. Why not tax the manufacturers of SSRI’s.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)
Because, once again, punishing pharmaceutical companies for a tiny, in fact statistically insignificant, number of people who commit violent acts while on certain medications is pretty much exactly what these folks who want to tax guns are doing.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
So you do have a financial interest in pharmaceuticals….explains your unconditional support of inadequately studies/safety tested vaccines.
I think vaccines can cause autism, as Pg2 is the proof @_@
@KLP, wow, that was really well thought out response….I’ve heard better spam from 6 year olds.
Glad to make your day, sunshine 🙂
How about an extra tax on all people with testicles, to pay for rape counselors, and publicly funded abortions?
Testicles are responsible for the majority of rapes. Unwanted pregnancies almost always involve a testicle person.
Make them pay!
We don’t want to take your testicles. If you like your testicles, then you can keep them. We just want common sense testicle reform!
You are lucky we even allow you to keep them! The founders of our nation certainly never imagined a society with over 300,000,000 testicles. They would have been appalled.
On the other hand, maybe we should set up special “extreme risk protection court orders” to confiscate the testicles of “potentially dangerous people”.
(Sarc)
How about a 20% surtax on the billing of pshrinks. It their “services” were effective there would be no crazies shooting. They are all demtards as well living on the income of taxpayers. Punish the bastards.
Huntmaster says:
March 28, 2018 at 19:17
Because a Poll tax is levied on everyone. They want to punish someone.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Huntmaster, you need to get your facts straight.
A poll tax taxed everyone whom voted. This tax, taxes everyone
who buys a forearm.
Huntmaster says:
March 28, 2018 at 19:17
Because a Poll tax is levied on everyone. They want to punish someone.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Huntmaster, you need to get your facts straight.
A poll tax taxed everyone whom voted. This tax, taxes everyone
who buys a firearm.
For the same reason that having to pay for your firearm or ammunition isn’t a ‘poll tax’.
You seem to be confused. Paying for gun or ammo can’t be a tax. You just pay the seller for what you get. Like paying for microphone or your internet connection is not tax on your 1st amendment rights.
Now taxing your speech through that mike and internet is different story.
A tax of 10 percent of the sales price is imposed on pistols and revolvers, and a tax of 11 percent of the sales price is imposed on other portable weapons (e.g., rifles and shotguns) and ammunition.
https://www.ttb.gov/firearms/faet-faqs.shtml
WTF People, you really need to learn the existing laws and try to fight them.
And any tax would go into the General Fund, never to see the light of day for its intended purpose…
You are right, Geoff. And the majority of firearm
buyers are white. This proposal is racist.
Yeah, the Dems here in SC are throwing everything they can at the wall to see what will stick (AR-15 ban right before this brain-storm)…because Dems. Might as well try to pass a law taxing sunlight (I know…I just gave them an idea!). Bless their hearts.
I hear the candlemakers already have a petition posted to change.org.
These schools already charge ruinous school taxes, then waste what they get and raise their taxes again. Let ’em cut back on waste and foolishness to pay for security.
Why should the tax fall to gun purchasers?
Tax everyone or cut some waste or GTFO
If it ever gets in vogue to crash airplains into schools, will they demand special tax on airplane tickets?
No, it’s just another way to make gun ownership a bit harder and less appealing, while sticking it to their political opponents.
How about a tax on SSRI antidepressant drugs like Prozac?
That seems as practical.
Well… similarly, why not? Use it to fund better mental health evaluations in schools.
Yeah, beacause what could go wrong with government controlled public schools being the arbiter of who’s fit to own firearms?
Ummm… That wasn’t the point. At all. Don’t see a spark and yell “fire!!”
Judging by the pic I have to ask: South Carolina or South Sudan? Just sayin’!
Too well fed (credit the American welfare system).
What do you call a chicken in Somalia (or S. Sudan)? Fast and nervous.
Sayin what?
Ha, ha, ha!
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ” – Ben Franklin
Those who would give up essential tax money to their lying ahole neighbors who needed a job (their government), to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither $$$$ nor Safety.
Sweet, sweet, make sure it’s harder for minorities to buy guns.
I actually don’t have too big of a problem with this. In the scheme of a $400 gun, it’s a small amount. Though I’d rather see a flat $10-20 fee instead of a percentage. If it helps fund secure schools and get the antis off our backs, it’s a small price to pay.
Yeah, I think you missed the entire point…it’s to harass law abiding gun owners. It’s got nothing to do with ‘funding SROs’…that’s just the (lame) excuse to make it sound like it’s not about harassing law abiding citizens.
I have a problem with this. My kids have been out of school going on 20 years. And yet I still have to pay taxes (being a property owner) to fund schools. Yes, I have a problem with funding the indoctrination centers here in Corruptocrat controlled Calif.
It will not get antis of our back. Grant them this and they will immediately ask for more.
I pay $7,000 property tax, most of which goes to finance schools. When I see how wastefully they use the money, it feels little cheeky to ask us – gun owners for more, just because we buy items similar to those used in couple widely publicized crimes.
How about they tax everyone who does not have a gun?
Even better, charge prisoners for room and board.
Dumocrats. They earn their reputation every single day.
Well , I’m quite sure that the DNC alone could dive deep into it’s political slush funds and pay for it themselves…How about an “🚫 illegal alien 👽 tax, or a Tax on Sanctuary cities…?”
why don’t they levy another tax against their traditional cash machine-I mean property owners. I’m a property owner; NO MORE TAXES YOU SUMS-A-Bitches!
I do not anticipate that all guns will be outlawed. They will use tobacco as their roadmap, and tax firearms and related sales.
Taxes on ‘Arms’ is an Infringement and is illegal.
I have an Idea, reopen the NFA registration on automatic firearms, SBS’s, SBR’s, for import, manufacture, and sale. 10% tax on a $5,000 automatic M16 . Throw a 10-25% tax on THAT stuff.
They get their tax, we get our open NFA registry Now that’s common sense compromise/gun reform I can get behind
States always find a way to funnel specialized taxes (set asides for specific purposes) into the general treasury.
Not to mention how it is Demoncrats use taxes to punish or reduce certain activities, while simultaneously shouting that taxing the productivity of the nation creates more productivity.
They want to repeal the second amendment; So there you go
prog tards are dimmer than a box of 40w light bulbs
“States always find a way to funnel specialized taxes (set asides for specific purposes) into the general treasury. ”
Bingo. IIRC, that’s been the case for more than a few state lotteries which were supposed to be used solely for educational funding.
So when it’s the cost of educating the little darlings, the argument is that education of the next generation benefits society as a whole. So the cost must be born by all property owners via property taxes, regardless whether you have school age children, or any children, or how many you do have, or homeschool your children, or even if your property is non-residential.
Yet, when it comes to protecting the little darlings, all of a sudden that’s a specific expense that must fall not only disproportionately, but exclusively, on the gun purchasing segment of society? You’re just lying when you say you aren’t holding responsible and punishing all gun owners based on some people’s crimes.
Will it be wireless carriers or car manufacturers that will be paying the extra tax to finance cops to give out more tickets (here’s a bright idea to make it self-sustaining! and no municipality has ever figured it out…) for teenagers texting-and-driving? Think of how many lives can be saved! Think of the children!
We would need 133 million dollars and since we are about to squander 686 billion on the military this year we could well afford to divert that small amount from the wasteful military budget and not even miss it.
Now you can see that when it comes to wars of rape, pillage and conquest no amount is too much but when it comes to the lives of our own children the Republicans simply say “let em die”
Thanks for the 411 pserge, 16V, cisco, et al.
What they say: “Let’s all put partisan political ideology aside and come together.”
What they mean: “You put YOUR political ideology aside and fall in line…”
Well, it’s flattering that you recognize that the people who arm themselves, for their protection and others’ would be willing to put armed security in schools to keep kids safe — their own and yours too.
However, taxing only gun owners seems unfair. We think it should be a general tax: we’d hate to deny the rest of you the chance to step up. Even if you won’t or can’t buy a guy, you should be able to do your part to keep our kids safer.
Put the tax on tide pods.
A “consumption tax” as it were?
See, we can agree on stuff, Pg2.
Why should non gun owners not be paying there share of protection?
Require non gun owner permits at 20 $ a yr to fund that also.
Why?
Because they contribute to the problem by not being armed there by encouraging attacks .
As a teacher I say B.S. and no thank you.
The answer to school security is to allow/encourage any on the school staff who are already licensed to carry concealed to do so, every day. Not a gun in a desk drawer, a locker, cabinet or purse- on their person. If students figure out who is packing the staff member should lose the “privilege”- this should be totally clandestine as far as students and even other staff members are concerned.
When you break it all down and get beneath the BS- mass school shootings happen in about 1/50th of 1% of all public school buildings in the US. They are not common-place and to try to equip every building in the nation with paid, armed guards is ridiculous and unsustainable. (Like that word?)
In large districts like the one in which I was employed for 30 years, a solution for the parents (or staff members) who were “aghast” at employees being allowed the option of going armed would be to allow them to open-enroll/transfer to a building in the district where teachers and staff weren’t. A bit like placing a “No Guns Allowed On This Property- No One Is Armed Here” sign out front, but some would probably take them up on it.
we can do that the day registered democrats get taxed to pay for abortions
Who says the having a cop in schools is some inherent good? Does not attract “good” cops. I don’t WANT my kids Indoctrinated with the standard left wing BS. As the idiotic “DARE” program.
Seems like they should tax Democrats. They are the ones responsible for most of the messes out there.
In the long run, I don’t think they’ll earn the money they’re hoping, especially when people can go to where guns are cheaper. Oregon and Washington recently reaffirmed these kinds of things don’t work.
“Oregon and Washington recently reaffirmed these kinds of things don’t work.”
Actually, the laws worked as designed: reduce or eliminate sales of guns and ammunition. The success (noted by the seriously less than projected tax revenue) will be replicated and expanded. Watch for it.
As noted several times before, making guns and ammunition virtually useless is how gun grabbers will proceed. Not by storm troopers rounding up people and taking guns.
I wasn’t aware that SC was an anti-gun state, I thought NC was the one that leaned that way. As far as the northwest and their taxes, they were under the impression they would make a lot of money while they were choking peoples rights and were surprised when people went to other places to get what they wanted.
“…they were under the impression they would make a lot of money while they were chocking peoples rights and were surprised when people went to other places to get what they wanted.”
Never, ever underestimate the cunning of the opposition. The people who were surprised at the loss of revenue were the public who thought they could suck off gun owners and use the taxes against same. The political leaders had no intention of raising revenue; only ridding themselves of guns, gun stores, and hopefully gun owners. And even those suckered by the shower of revenue fib will admit that they are just as happy to be safer because of “no gun stores”.
Do not ascribe to stupidity that which can be easily and simply explained as malevolent intent and conspiracy.
Charge the parents of the kids.
Why punish someone who doesn’t even have a dog in that fight whatsoever?
Schools are democrat indoctrination centers.
Comments are closed.