Does the Immorality of the Welfare State Apply to Shooting?

KSFreeman · December 8, 2002, 07:19 PM

Another thread brought this topic to my attention. I have long felt that the Welfare State is undermining the republic in numerous ways. I believe it is time to bring the termination of the Welfare State home so to speak.

As shooters, should we allow the subsidization of one man's fun under the threat of violence (i.e. taxes) to another? Should we shooters continue to pay the freight for hunting?

Cookie Monster · December 8, 2002, 07:40 PM

As shooters, should we allow the subsidization of one man's fun under the threat of violence (i.e. taxes) to another? Should we shooters continue to pay the freight for hunting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please clarify, are you saying that 2nd Amendment supporters should distance themselves from the hunting community?
I agree that hunting issues are clouding and diluting the gun rights organizations focus which should be strictly RKBA (not to mention draining our RKBA war chest with conservation projects). But can we afford alienating a voting bloc that only cares about RKBA so they can hunt game?

Christopher II · December 8, 2002, 07:45 PM

One could make a salient argument that the hunting (and to a lesser extent the sport shooting) community has never been involved in the RKBA fight. After all, how often have we complained about slob hunters or trapshooters (just an example) who are either non-active or openly support further gun control? By distancing ourselves from that community, are the rest of us really losing anything?

Something to think about.

- Chris

KSFreeman · December 8, 2002, 08:02 PM

Cookie, not a question about an internal policy decision of, e.g. the NRA, but ending the subsidies that hunters receive from the income tax and the P-R excise tax that all shooters pay for the benefit of hunters.

In the name of morality and consistency, shouldn't we end the oppression of one group for the benefit of another group?

Tamara · December 8, 2002, 08:14 PM

I'm all about ending subsidies, no matter who receives them. (Remember, folks: once you take the King's Shilling, you become the King's Man.)

It's your phraseology that gets people all confused:

"Hunters suck." vs. "Tax subsidies that nominally support hunting (but really just expand the tentacles of Leviathan) suck."

See the difference?

pax · December 8, 2002, 08:19 PM

KS,

You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about this. That's okay, we all get those sometimes.

But you're going to have to provide some facts, if you want to persuade anyone to agree with your views. What subsidies? What's a "P-R excise tax"?

pax

I am always willing to learn, however I do not always like to be taught. -- Winston Churchill

Christopher II · December 8, 2002, 08:26 PM

P-R = Pittman-Roberts tax. Excise tax on sporting goods and ammo, allegedlly used to fund wilderness access and hunting programs.

- Chris

answerguy · December 8, 2002, 08:36 PM

Isn't there an 11% excise tax on all guns and ammo? I guess I can see how a target shooter would feel taken advantage of by having to pay a tax that goes to wildlife developement.

Tamara · December 8, 2002, 08:43 PM

Shut down the CMP!

KSFreeman · December 8, 2002, 09:00 PM

If they can't pay their way and make a profit, CMP goes immediately! Well, given a Tsar Kostya, of course.

Tamara, who says hunters suck? I'm not boo-hooing over Bambi. I'm not debating wildlife management.

I am saying they should pay their own way and stop depending on those of us who shoot but do not hunt to carry their load.

pax, I started this thread because a lot of shooters gripe about the Welfare State but do not know that they subsidize the hunters through taxation.

Tamara · December 8, 2002, 09:10 PM

KSFreeman said:

Quote:

Putting hunters in the pokey? About time.

If he's convicted, can the judge order restitution to all shooters in the amount of tens of billions of dollars?

Let's see... We can put Col. Cooper in the pokey. And Art Eatman, Don Gwinn, Long Path, LawDog, Rich Lucibella...

Do they get to pay restitution to all shooters?

Tamara · December 8, 2002, 09:31 PM

After a relaxing smoke and a Sierra Nevada by the outdoor fireplace, let me clarify myself...

I ain't meaning to dog on you; just trying to show you how some of your earlier statements on this topic could be misconstrued.

KSFreeman · December 9, 2002, 07:57 AM

Tamara, that hunter, oddly not part of this thread, allegedly perpetrated a crime. I guess you could analogize that by participating in the Welfare State everyone who hunts is liable, but all I want to do is end the subsidies that use violence to bolster another's fun.

The underlying morality question is what I seek.

ATTICUS · December 9, 2002, 09:16 AM

How timely. According to an article in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch, 13 million people hunt, while 82 million enjoy the benefit of public land/wildlife management paid for LARGELY by hunting licenses and fees. That does not take into account the billions of $ put into the economy by hunters who buy clothing, gasoline, fast food, motels rooms, guns,ammo, deer pee, etc, etc. ...and pay taxes on it all.

Oh.. and we pay the same taxes you do KS , AND most of us hunt on private land, which we also have to buy with previously taxed income. So we get to pay our own way and pay for the nature loving/anti hunting bird watchers as well.

And we have to fight a dual battle for RKBA, so that we can hunt, keep our tactical ninja stuff, and so that you can play SWAT games.

There has been a 7% decline in hunters over the past decade. I'd say that hunting needs MORE public funding, or at least a reduction in fees/permits.

When John and Suzy Q Public no longer think of "Old Dad and his 30/30" when thinking about gun ownership, we're in trouble. Like it or not, the general voting public doesn't vote to keep us all armed with AR's,AK's and BetaC mags.

Tamara · December 9, 2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Tamara, that hunter, oddly not part of this thread, allegedly perpetrated a crime.

Yes, but you did not say "Putting hunters who commit crimes in the pokey? About time." or "Putting criminals in the pokey? About time."

Quote:

I guess you could analogize that by participating in the Welfare State everyone who hunts is liable, but all I want to do is end the subsidies that use violence to bolster another's fun.

I wonder what tuitions at Gunsite and/or Thunder Ranch would be without all the military & LEO participation? Do you think they'd even still be in business? I wonder how many of my tax dollars have, by paying for training of more efficient door-kickers, indirectly supported training fun for civilians?

Besides, the P-R tax has been used more to fund Clinton's Green Iron Fist for the last 10 years than any actual hunting-related usage.

Anyhow, I hate subsidies, too. I hate farm subsidies, industrial supports, artistic handouts, the academic dole. I'd still look a little odd if I wrote "Putting farmers/factory workers/artists/students in the pokey? About time."

KSFreeman · December 9, 2002, 06:10 PM

Atticus, hunting is mere recreation. Congress may regulate it or ban it entirely. It may be good policy for recreational hikes or wildlife management, but I ask the moral question: whether it is just to use violence to protect recreation?

Sure, hunters pay some of the excise taxes, but shooters pay far more. I would love to see Congress transfer the burden of hunters' recreation to them entirely. Exempt firearms and ammunition and transfer the tax to deer pee, duck calls and call tapes. That would indeed put the burden back on the users.

Hunting has absolutely nothing to do with RKBA. The SQUAT exercises and the ninja shooting gear are the Constitutionally protected activities and items, not hunting.

I'm not saying we do away with hunting. (Your pretext argument [for gun ownership] is a good one). However, I do argue that is moral to make the hunters pay their own way. They do not do so now, we should make them.

Tamara, Gunsite, et al are constitutionally protected. Learning to fight with firearms is reasonable related to the militree. If my tax dollars go to help the Constitution, I would be all for it (and amazed). Hunting is merely recreation and is afforded no protection.

The use of P-R as a slush fund is yet another reason to abolish it.

glock glockler · December 9, 2002, 06:54 PM

KSFreeman,

Why would hunting not be Constitutionally protected? I would like to direct your attention to the 9th Amendment if you believe otherwise.

As far as subsidizing it via govt, I'm all for ending all subsidies. I'd rather the Feds not own any land that isn't directly necessary for defense purposes, so land and population management would fall on the states or private organizations.

KSFreeman · December 9, 2002, 07:00 PM

glock, and how is hunting part of a "scheme of well-ordered liberty" that would trump the Big Hammer?

I'm right with you in abolishing the BLM/DoI and letting the states have their property back.

BogBabe · December 9, 2002, 07:19 PM

I agree 100% with Tamara:

Quote:

I'm all about ending subsidies, no matter who receives them. (Remember, folks: once you take the King's Shilling, you become the King's Man.)

However, I'd be hard-pressed to place hunting subsidies at the top of the priority list of subsidies to eliminate.

If I got to be dictator of the country long enough to eliminate 10 subsidies, hunting wouldn't be on that list. It probably wouldn't even be on the list if I got to eliminate 100 subsidies. It would be pretty far down there.

If I were dictator long enough, I'd eventually get to it, though.

B9mmHP · December 9, 2002, 07:37 PM

Hunting has absolutely nothing to do with RKBA.
------------------------------------------
I wonder what the people in the 1700 - 1800s would have thought of that statement and many now that depend on firearms for survival too gether food. (MEAT)

Hunting is merely recreation and is afforded no protection.
------------------------------------------

For some it is, for others it is not. Yes it is soooo violent to kill those poor little critters that taste soooo good on the table, yum yum.

Doug444 · December 9, 2002, 07:41 PM

KS, where do you get off stating that hunters don't pay their own way? Man, you are so full of it your eyes are brown! What a selfish child you act like some times

. I won't repeat what Atticus has already stated (nice job, Atticus), except to add that any state sponsored shooting facilities also get money from the P-R fund. Never use them? Lucky you. We can't all live on enough personal land to safely shoot whenever we want.

Every time I hear that kind of crap it makes my blood boil, but not for the reason you're probably thinking. It's because you are doing EXACTLY what the anti's are trying to accomplish every time they single out a smaller group from the big "gun owners" group - divide and conquer. Yup, drive in a wedge and then see just how much cooperation you get THEN! You conveniently forget that there are a LOT of cross-over hunter/RKBA folks out there, but I guess that doesn't matter to you, because hunting is "mere recreation".

You never cease to amaze my with the arrogance you exude.

Doug444

KSFreeman · December 9, 2002, 08:55 PM

Doug, I apologize for free speech. Hunters do not pay their own way. If so, why P-R??? Those of us who shoot but do not hunt pay for their recreation.

Why must the taxpayers fund everything? Why can't hunters have private clubs?

How is it driving a wedge between anyone to ask that they pay their own way? I have the right to keep and bear arms, must you pay for my next firearm?

Hunting does not matter to me, but I tell no one that they cannot hunt, only that they pay their own way. Carrying your own load is obviously upsetting to some, but the moral thing.

I am sorry that you believe that my raising this question is arrogant. There are always some that do not like the status quo questioned, but I thought that what free speech was there for?

labgrade · December 9, 2002, 09:09 PM

KS,

I'd like to see the numbers.

How much P&R funds go to what type activities, & how much is syphoned off (a la Klinton's finangling) to other "more worthy" causes.

Got any ideas?

ACP230 · December 9, 2002, 09:16 PM

A lot of the excise taxes you are complaining about are used to build or maintain shooting ranges, which are used by shooters and hunters/shooters.

The money also funds gun safety classes. Some of these are called "Hunter Safety" classes, but they mostly teach safe gun handling, something everyone should learn.

Since I have been paying exise taxes on guns and fishing gear for years, and also buying hunting licenses and paying taxes that contribute to habitat restoration, I think I'm doing more for the bird watcher and tree hugger types than they have ever done for me.

answerguy · December 9, 2002, 09:32 PM

glock glockler you said: "Why would hunting not be Constitutionally protected? I would like to direct your attention to the 9th Amendment if you believe otherwise."

How does this:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...prevent a ban on hunting?

If all species became endangered species; banning of hunting would become a certainly. It may well be true that P-R funds have saved us from this fate.

You also said: "As far as subsidizing it via govt, I'm all for ending all subsidies."

The P-R excise tax was requested by sportsman. Yes, we asked to have an additional tax levied on guns and ammo to help protect the future of hunting. A traditional excise tax would be taking from you to give to me. This is more of a 'user-pay benefit'
we take from us to give back to us.

More info on P-R: http://www.brick.net/~deerhunt/magazine/fund.html

December 8, 2002, 07:19 PM	#1
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Does the Immorality of the Welfare State Apply to Shooting? Another thread brought this topic to my attention. I have long felt that the Welfare State is undermining the republic in numerous ways. I believe it is time to bring the termination of the Welfare State home so to speak. As shooters, should we allow the subsidization of one man's fun under the threat of violence (i.e. taxes) to another? Should we shooters continue to pay the freight for hunting?

December 8, 2002, 08:14 PM	#5
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	KS, I'm all about ending subsidies, no matter who receives them. (Remember, folks: once you take the King's Shilling, you become the King's Man.) It's your phraseology that gets people all confused: "Hunters suck." vs. "Tax subsidies that nominally support hunting (but really just expand the tentacles of Leviathan) suck." See the difference? __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

December 8, 2002, 08:43 PM	#9
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	Shut down the CMP! __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

December 8, 2002, 09:31 PM	#12
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	KS, After a relaxing smoke and a Sierra Nevada by the outdoor fireplace, let me clarify myself... I ain't meaning to dog on you; just trying to show you how some of your earlier statements on this topic could be misconstrued. __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

December 9, 2002, 09:16 AM	#14
ATTICUS Senior Member Join Date: June 8, 1999 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,100	How timely. According to an article in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch, 13 million people hunt, while 82 million enjoy the benefit of public land/wildlife management paid for LARGELY by hunting licenses and fees. That does not take into account the billions of $ put into the economy by hunters who buy clothing, gasoline, fast food, motels rooms, guns,ammo, deer pee, etc, etc. ...and pay taxes on it all. Oh.. and we pay the same taxes you do KS , AND most of us hunt on private land, which we also have to buy with previously taxed income. So we get to pay our own way and pay for the nature loving/anti hunting bird watchers as well. And we have to fight a dual battle for RKBA, so that we can hunt, keep our tactical ninja stuff, and so that you can play SWAT games. There has been a 7% decline in hunters over the past decade. I'd say that hunting needs MORE public funding, or at least a reduction in fees/permits. When John and Suzy Q Public no longer think of "Old Dad and his 30/30" when thinking about gun ownership, we're in trouble. Like it or not, the general voting public doesn't vote to keep us all armed with AR's,AK's and BetaC mags. Last edited by ATTICUS; December 9, 2002 at 10:01 AM.

December 8, 2002, 07:40 PM	#2
Cookie Monster Member Join Date: November 12, 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 18	As shooters, should we allow the subsidization of one man's fun under the threat of violence (i.e. taxes) to another? Should we shooters continue to pay the freight for hunting? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please clarify, are you saying that 2nd Amendment supporters should distance themselves from the hunting community? I agree that hunting issues are clouding and diluting the gun rights organizations focus which should be strictly RKBA (not to mention draining our RKBA war chest with conservation projects). But can we afford alienating a voting bloc that only cares about RKBA so they can hunt game?

December 8, 2002, 07:45 PM	#3
Christopher II Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Germantown, MD Posts: 2,349	One could make a salient argument that the hunting (and to a lesser extent the sport shooting) community has never been involved in the RKBA fight. After all, how often have we complained about slob hunters or trapshooters (just an example) who are either non-active or openly support further gun control? By distancing ourselves from that community, are the rest of us really losing anything? Something to think about. - Chris

December 8, 2002, 08:02 PM	#4
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Cookie, not a question about an internal policy decision of, e.g. the NRA, but ending the subsidies that hunters receive from the income tax and the P-R excise tax that all shooters pay for the benefit of hunters. In the name of morality and consistency, shouldn't we end the oppression of one group for the benefit of another group?

December 8, 2002, 08:19 PM	#6
pax Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2000 Location: In a state of flux Posts: 7,520	KS, You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about this. That's okay, we all get those sometimes. But you're going to have to provide some facts, if you want to persuade anyone to agree with your views. What subsidies? What's a "P-R excise tax"? pax I am always willing to learn, however I do not always like to be taught. -- Winston Churchill

December 8, 2002, 08:26 PM	#7
Christopher II Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Germantown, MD Posts: 2,349	P-R = Pittman-Roberts tax. Excise tax on sporting goods and ammo, allegedlly used to fund wilderness access and hunting programs. - Chris

December 8, 2002, 08:36 PM	#8
answerguy Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2002 Posts: 176	Isn't there an 11% excise tax on all guns and ammo? I guess I can see how a target shooter would feel taken advantage of by having to pay a tax that goes to wildlife developement.

December 8, 2002, 09:00 PM	#10
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	If they can't pay their way and make a profit, CMP goes immediately! Well, given a Tsar Kostya, of course. Tamara, who says hunters suck? I'm not boo-hooing over Bambi. I'm not debating wildlife management. I am saying they should pay their own way and stop depending on those of us who shoot but do not hunt to carry their load. pax, I started this thread because a lot of shooters gripe about the Welfare State but do not know that they subsidize the hunters through taxation.

December 9, 2002, 07:57 AM	#13
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Tamara, that hunter, oddly not part of this thread, allegedly perpetrated a crime. I guess you could analogize that by participating in the Welfare State everyone who hunts is liable, but all I want to do is end the subsidies that use violence to bolster another's fun. The underlying morality question is what I seek.

December 9, 2002, 06:10 PM	#16
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Atticus, hunting is mere recreation. Congress may regulate it or ban it entirely. It may be good policy for recreational hikes or wildlife management, but I ask the moral question: whether it is just to use violence to protect recreation? Sure, hunters pay some of the excise taxes, but shooters pay far more. I would love to see Congress transfer the burden of hunters' recreation to them entirely. Exempt firearms and ammunition and transfer the tax to deer pee, duck calls and call tapes. That would indeed put the burden back on the users. Hunting has absolutely nothing to do with RKBA. The SQUAT exercises and the ninja shooting gear are the Constitutionally protected activities and items, not hunting. I'm not saying we do away with hunting. (Your pretext argument [for gun ownership] is a good one). However, I do argue that is moral to make the hunters pay their own way. They do not do so now, we should make them. Tamara, Gunsite, et al are constitutionally protected. Learning to fight with firearms is reasonable related to the militree. If my tax dollars go to help the Constitution, I would be all for it (and amazed). Hunting is merely recreation and is afforded no protection. The use of P-R as a slush fund is yet another reason to abolish it.

December 9, 2002, 06:54 PM	#17
glock glockler Senior Member Join Date: April 30, 2000 Location: Portsmouth, NH, USA Posts: 905	KSFreeman, Why would hunting not be Constitutionally protected? I would like to direct your attention to the 9th Amendment if you believe otherwise. As far as subsidizing it via govt, I'm all for ending all subsidies. I'd rather the Feds not own any land that isn't directly necessary for defense purposes, so land and population management would fall on the states or private organizations.

December 9, 2002, 07:00 PM	#18
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	glock, and how is hunting part of a "scheme of well-ordered liberty" that would trump the Big Hammer? I'm right with you in abolishing the BLM/DoI and letting the states have their property back.

December 9, 2002, 07:37 PM	#20
B9mmHP Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Texas Posts: 465	Hunting has absolutely nothing to do with RKBA. ------------------------------------------ I wonder what the people in the 1700 - 1800s would have thought of that statement and many now that depend on firearms for survival too gether food. (MEAT) Hunting is merely recreation and is afforded no protection. ------------------------------------------ For some it is, for others it is not. Yes it is soooo violent to kill those poor little critters that taste soooo good on the table, yum yum.

December 9, 2002, 07:41 PM	#21
Doug444 Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2001 Location: Draper, UT Posts: 257	KS, where do you get off stating that hunters don't pay their own way? Man, you are so full of it your eyes are brown! What a selfish child you act like some times . I won't repeat what Atticus has already stated (nice job, Atticus), except to add that any state sponsored shooting facilities also get money from the P-R fund. Never use them? Lucky you. We can't all live on enough personal land to safely shoot whenever we want. Every time I hear that kind of crap it makes my blood boil, but not for the reason you're probably thinking. It's because you are doing EXACTLY what the anti's are trying to accomplish every time they single out a smaller group from the big "gun owners" group - divide and conquer. Yup, drive in a wedge and then see just how much cooperation you get THEN! You conveniently forget that there are a LOT of cross-over hunter/RKBA folks out there, but I guess that doesn't matter to you, because hunting is "mere recreation". You never cease to amaze my with the arrogance you exude. Doug444

December 9, 2002, 08:55 PM	#22
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Doug, I apologize for free speech. Hunters do not pay their own way. If so, why P-R??? Those of us who shoot but do not hunt pay for their recreation. Why must the taxpayers fund everything? Why can't hunters have private clubs? How is it driving a wedge between anyone to ask that they pay their own way? I have the right to keep and bear arms, must you pay for my next firearm? Hunting does not matter to me, but I tell no one that they cannot hunt, only that they pay their own way. Carrying your own load is obviously upsetting to some, but the moral thing. I am sorry that you believe that my raising this question is arrogant. There are always some that do not like the status quo questioned, but I thought that what free speech was there for?

December 9, 2002, 09:09 PM	#23
labgrade Member In Memoriam Join Date: November 29, 1999 Location: west of a small town, CO Posts: 4,346	KS, I'd like to see the numbers. How much P&R funds go to what type activities, & how much is syphoned off (a la Klinton's finangling) to other "more worthy" causes. Got any ideas?

December 9, 2002, 09:16 PM	#24
ACP230 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2000 Posts: 708	A lot of the excise taxes you are complaining about are used to build or maintain shooting ranges, which are used by shooters and hunters/shooters. The money also funds gun safety classes. Some of these are called "Hunter Safety" classes, but they mostly teach safe gun handling, something everyone should learn. Since I have been paying exise taxes on guns and fishing gear for years, and also buying hunting licenses and paying taxes that contribute to habitat restoration, I think I'm doing more for the bird watcher and tree hugger types than they have ever done for me.

December 9, 2002, 09:32 PM	#25
answerguy Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2002 Posts: 176	glock glockler you said: "Why would hunting not be Constitutionally protected? I would like to direct your attention to the 9th Amendment if you believe otherwise." How does this: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ...prevent a ban on hunting? If all species became endangered species; banning of hunting would become a certainly. It may well be true that P-R funds have saved us from this fate. You also said: "As far as subsidizing it via govt, I'm all for ending all subsidies." The P-R excise tax was requested by sportsman. Yes, we asked to have an additional tax levied on guns and ammo to help protect the future of hunting. A traditional excise tax would be taking from you to give to me. This is more of a 'user-pay benefit' we take from us to give back to us. More info on P-R: http://www.brick.net/~deerhunt/magazine/fund.html