|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
ME: ‘Supporting a Second Amendment tax’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In Kennebunk, we’ve allocated over $400,000 for this measure which translates to a “hidden,” annual Second Amendment tax of about $40 for taxpayers.
I enthusiastically support the measure, but know it will come at a cost of either eliminating school programs, teacher raises, or adding another tax increase. So the NRA has won another round in the Second Amendment debate while we legislate a remedy for the symptoms rather dealing with the disease.
There are over 300 million guns in the U.S., owned mostly by non-NRA members like myself. But somehow, a small chorus of 6 million NRA members have convinced us to accept this hidden tax while they protect their “no compromise on any reasonable gun legislation.” |
| Comment by:
jac
(6/8/2018)
|
The only thing this scribe got right was "These shootings are as much about a lack of security as they are about stalking “targets of opportunity” at schools, malls, theaters or churches."
TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY.
As long as schools remain victim disarmament zones, these shootings will continue.
The solution is to allow law abiding citizens to be armed in schools and other venues. And it would not cost taxpayers a nickel.
I also resent as an NRA member being blamed for the behavior of others over whom I have no control. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
