Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Rep. Clyde Introduces Legislation to Eliminate the Excise Tax on Firearms and Ammunition

His argument makes no sense... so PR which has been around for 100 years should be removed, because potentially a different/ totally different law, which is also a tax could be enacted, if republicans lose a bunch of seats in the senate, and the house( which they are expected to take back), that wouldn't be challenged and lose in the supreme court, which the republicans control?

or... that you know economics, and he owns a gun shop and if you get rid of PR that's more money in his pocket personally.

Vote for ass hats get ass hat laws.

This is the exact same argument that the anti-public land crowd makes. "We need to eliminate public land and replace it with a system that we haven't developed or even defined, but trust us, it will be awesome even though we don't know what it will be."

It's a political headfake and it's horse bollocks.
 
Capitalism works if you let it
I think you have made some good points and for the most part have stayed above the name-calling, which I appreciate. Try not to let the 'crowd' get you down. Many on this forum could do better at arguing the real points of discussion instead of insulting each other, but alas, most people are not too bright and go for the easy 'win' by trying to sound clever instead of making valid arguments.

Hang in there and thank you.

BTW, I think it would be a travesty to kill PR, but I don't have a legitimate argument for keeping it as-is (taxing guns/ammo for benefit of mostly unrelated issues, ie wildlife). A similar legal framework for funding the state wildlife agencies (ie license fees have to be spent on wildlife or you lose the carrot of federal matching funds) that does not tax recreational/non-hunting shooters would be the 'ideal' solution. Maybe that could be incorporated into something like RAWA?
 
I think you have made some good points and for the most part have stayed above the name-calling, which I appreciate. Try not to let the 'crowd' get you down. Many on this forum could do better at arguing the real points of discussion instead of insulting each other, but alas, most people are not too bright and go for the easy 'win' by trying to sound clever instead of making valid arguments.

Hang in there and thank you.

BTW, I think it would be a travesty to kill PR, but I don't have a legitimate argument for keeping it as-is (taxing guns/ammo for benefit of mostly unrelated issues, ie wildlife). A similar legal framework for funding the state wildlife agencies (ie license fees have to be spent on wildlife or you lose the carrot of federal matching funds) that does not tax recreational/non-hunting shooters would be the 'ideal' solution. Maybe that could be incorporated into something like RAWA?
Interesting... non-hunting shooters. A user group which basically didn't exist 10 years ago, hence PR also it's more or less an underlying assumption in Scalia's Heller.

Hard for me to see this as anything but greed by a few folks, nothing different than non-consumptive users not wanting a backpack tax.
 
I think you have made some good points and for the most part have stayed above the name-calling, which I appreciate. Try not to let the 'crowd' get you down. Many on this forum could do better at arguing the real points of discussion instead of insulting each other, but alas, most people are not too bright and go for the easy 'win' by trying to sound clever instead of making valid arguments.

Very clever insult of other's arguments. Just stipulate they aren't too bright.

Pittman Robertson was pushed by sportsmen and is by any measure a success for conservation efforts. It is a concrete example that people who hunt and fish value the resource and want to conserve and enhance it.

Could they have foreseen the explosion in interest in black rifles and the ammo sales associated with it? Not likely. I would not have a problem with some sort of change that makes the revenue derived from that segment spent in a way that aligns with that segment's interest.

That there is a portion of gun owners that have little to no interest in protecting our wildlife heritage, is not too surprising, but it is disheartening.
 
Very clever insult of other's arguments. Just stipulate they aren't too bright.

Pittman Robertson was pushed by sportsmen and is by any measure a success for conservation efforts. It is a concrete example that people who hunt and fish value the resource and want to conserve and enhance it.

Could they have foreseen the explosion in interest in black rifles and the ammo sales associated with it? Not likely. I would not have a problem with some sort of change that makes the revenue derived from that segment spent in a way that aligns with that segment's interest.

That there is a portion of gun owners that have little to no interest in protecting our wildlife heritage, is not too surprising, but it is disheartening.

And to be perfectly clear, the gun lobby & vast majority of the industry are not supportive of this bill.
 
"I would not have a problem with some sort of change that makes the revenue derived from that segment spent in a way that aligns with that segment's interest."

And to be clear this happened and PR was amended to fund shooting ranges.
And to clarify further, very few of the shooting sports enthusiasts even belong to a range. Can't shoot up TV's, microwaves, old vhs tapes, trees, bottles, cans, propane cylinders, paint cans, couches, etc. etc. at an organized range.

I guess the range membership fees are on par with the P/R taxes, they don't like paying either.

But, I'm the guy paying both as well as volunteering time to clean up their mess and pay for the proper disposal of same.

The very least they can do is pay the P/R taxes.
 
I think he makes some really good points. My biggest concern is that if this become law that the funding sources get diverted or severely lessened. After being in state government for 20 years I have seen this happen many times with a change of those in power for their political gain or agenda (and it cuts both ways). Hate to mess with success but I believe his second amendment position has some validity.
If you really want to wade through some bullshit, the sponsors of this bill are also those who voted against the GAOA which permanently funds the LWCF via revenues from OG on public lands...

Bill
1658766710454.png

Cosponsors of RETURN (anti PR Bill) who also voted No (highlighted) on GAOA, 26 in total
1658767570214.png

Full vote here...


But enjoy that "rain" on your neck and don't mind the asparagus smell... that's just the scent of progress
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another thing to consider is that presently, hunters and fishermen/women can clearly show that it is their dollars at work funding conservation efforts. If the funding is moved to coming out of the general fund, those that oppose hunting and or fishing can rightfully claim their tax dollars are being spent on activities they oppose.
 
Another thing to consider is that presently, hunters and fishermen/women can clearly show that it is their dollars at work funding conservation efforts. If the funding is moved to coming out of the general fund, those that oppose hunting and or fishing can rightfully claim their tax dollars are being spent on activities they oppose.
I think Americans have a strange relationship with taxes of all types, which makes PR all the more unique. It isn't as simple as just not-liking taxes, because no one likes taxes. But there is often no understanding of the benefit derived from the taxes. Today we don't realize what PR did for wildlife populations because none of us was around 100yrs ago. This week I just see articles that focus on what the tax bill will be for the person who wins the $800m Mega Millions. I can say that if I win the drawing with odds of 1 in 300m and a payout that size, I will gladly write the tax check and not lose one second of sleep over it.
 
"You mean to tell me my tax dollars are spent fixing roads I don't normally drive on?!"

....how I hear this arguement....
My city utility bill goes to pay for street lights, I’ve always wondered which one since there are none within a few blocks of my house. I’ve always been paying taxes towards schools for 24 years and won’t have a kid of my own taking advantage of that funding for another 4 years
 
I’m actually keeping it level headed and adding thoughts to a public forum.

Ever think that other people have different perspectives on matters?

Also, your demeaning attitude of calling me “son” is not necessary and I could almost guarantee you wouldn’t say that to my face.

Show some respect to others.
Holy shit. How did I miss this? You have the audacity to say "people are quick to react off emotion without thinking things through or seeing the accurate picture firsts" and then bitch about respect?

I'd say that to your face any day of the week.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,424
Messages
1,958,217
Members
35,173
Latest member
240shooter
Back
Top