Re: US Constitution query

[Jacob E Boucher <jbuchr@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 jericson@erinet.com wrote:
> argument of the government was that it was not a gun control measure
> at, but merely for tax revenue generation. This, in fact, is what all
> the hoopla is about - it ain't the fact that you have a sawed off
> shotgun, or machine gun - it's the fact you haven't paid Uncle Sam his
> $200 that gets you killed or tossed in the slammer for 25 years.)
> 
> In other words, it really behooves you to pay Uncle Sam his $200.

And, well, why the heck shouldn't it?

I mean, this is probably about the best example I've ever seen of a
"luxury tax".  Anyone with the means, motivation, and no criminal record
keeping them from owning a weapon requiring a Federal license shouldn't be
crying over paying up 200 bucks a year for their hobby.  So what if it's
just revenue and not gun control?  Owning an M-16 isn't necessary, it's
just fun.  Tit for tat.



-- 
Jacob E. Boucher
AIM S.N.= jbuchr
http://people.bu.edu/jbuchr