Action, reaction; the left never learns

Seattle passed a “gun tax” they claimed would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, dollars to be spent on gun violence research. Being idiots they are, the did not expect that anyone would react to changing incentives. Of course any significant percentage tax-rate increase on something that costs several hundred to a couple of thousand dollars is a considerable sum. So people changed buying habits and bought from outside the city limits. So the ordinary sales-taxes collected plummeted because of falling sales. The city is refusing to say how much has been raised, or lost, as a result of the decision.

So is it that they cannot learn, are they are blinded by ideology, are they clinically insane, or what? I know some of them appear to be intellegent and function in daily work life OK, soooo? Why/how is it that something so obvious is done again and again? This sort of thing gets predicted over and over, but it’s like watching Charlie Brown going after Lucy’s football.


15 thoughts on “Action, reaction; the left never learns

  1. A fair question, regarding what afflicts “them”.

    Patent stupidity is as good an estimation as any, IMO.

  2. The power to tax is the power to destroy. This is not unnoticed by the gun ban zealots. But they do not want to admit this, as destructive taxes levied against an enumerated right are blatantly unconstitutional. Their actions are but evidence in future litigation, and denying scholarship or even simple media coverage allows them to further such actions and delay the reckoning. It is their hope that they can push over the point of no return before that day

    • But of course. The questions were largely rhetorical. But sometimes people (non-vested parties that don’t like getting preached at) need to be asked in the right way so they can come up with the answer themselves. And when that realization comes, they feel betrayed and angry… meaning they will not forget easily. And we have made an ally.

  3. It was NEVER their intention to raise revenue. The ones pushing the scheme knew when they started that it wouldn’t. The WHOLE purpose was to dampen the purchase of firearms. They only used the revenue schik to help give some cover and sell the scheme to the clueless, feelz-good, brain-dead voters to whom ‘gunz’ translates into EVIL. And there seem to be an unending concentration of such koolaid drinkers in that area.

    Lack of revenue is a feature, not a bug and does not bother them in the least.

    • Oh, sure they want the revenue. But they must have wanted the utterly predictable destruction of rights even more. The problem is that because it’s so predictable, it’s obvious. Yet they whine when called on it (which is also predictable). The fact that it is unlikely to have actually decreased firearm purchases more than an trivial amount at the margin, while at the same time losing a great deal of revenue overall, is lost on them. Can they not see the obvious work-around and consequences? I suppose that is the real question; I assume they wish to screw with people and eliminate rights an independent thinking any way they can. But they need money for power, and this method neither raises money nor limits gun accessibility in any significant way.

  4. This was the the only quasi-legal way to force those evil gun shops outside the city limits. I’m fairly certain that they achieved exactly the results they were looking for.

    • IOW, virtue-signaling while costing the city tax revenue and jobs, while attempting to undermine individual rights.

      New question: is it that cities make people insane, or insane people move to the city?

      • Both.

        Cities attract those who have difficulty dealing with the real world out in fly-over country.
        It is normally easier to make a living in condensed living areas (cities and surrounding ‘burbs).
        Being surrounded by liberals (insane people) attracts similar thinking people.
        Weak thinking people can be convinced to copy the thinking of those surrounding them.
        Cities are incubators for liberal thinking. History shows this. Only the obsoleting of dense housing areas will diminish the attractiveness of being a liberal.

        • *scratched head*
          It is interesting. I’ve been reading Robert Howard’s Conan series. He seems to have a better grasp of human psych and the ebb and flow of world and cultural history than most writers. I find myself grinning and thinking about how the barbarian and “civilized” nations are going to shake out over the next couple of hundred years as America collapses.

          • Howard’s observations about civilization are a lot of fun. There were things he liked about civilization, but he seemed to think it lead to madness

  5. ” I know some of them appear to be intellegent and function in daily work life OK, soooo?”

    While most of them appear competent in their professions, when they turn their thoughts to political thought, their IQ plummets to single digits.

    The condition seems to be chronic, but fortunately not contagious.

    • I’m not so sure. An awful lot of people go off to college in big cities and get pretty screwed up with the insanity indoctrination.

  6. You think this is bad? Wait until you see the millions of instant outlaws that Gavin Nuisance is going to produce with his evil ammo registration scheme!

  7. San Francisco went the whole nine and simply banned firearm stores in the city, finally forcing the closure of the last remaining gun store in the city. Murders in Oakland have inexplicably failed to plummet.

    One thing “progressives” do not seem to enjoy having pointed out is how blatantly racist, or at least classist, these policies are. For a white-collar professional who owns a car, the law is merely annoying. He can afford the extra tax, or to drive to a store in the next county, Heck he probably lives in the suburbs, anyhow. The inner-city single mother waiting tables and living paycheck to paycheck who wants to spend her painstakingly saved-up tips on a handgun, and required CCW course, and assorted fees, though, faces a more significant hardship. Then (if she’s in Chicago, for example) she learns that concealed carry is specifically illegal on the public transportation she uses to get to work.

    -Progressives, why do you hate the working poor? Why do you use thinly veiled poll taxes to strip them of the right to defend themselves that more affluent citizens enjoy? Are their lives worth less to you?

    • Yes and no.

      The “working poor”, especially the minority working poor, are by and large a voting block. One that “Progressives” control.

      If the individuals in that voting block were allowed to discover their capacity for self-reliance and self-determination — particularly, but not limited to, self-defense — they may start a “preference cascade” which will cause a shift in the collective mindset of said voting block.

      IOW, the “working poor” — which overwhelmingly votes Democrat — must never be allowed to learn how to fend for themselves, or experience the inherent joy and dignity in fending for themselves, or even discover that fending for themselves is a viable option. If that were to happen, they might … *gasp* … start voting Republican. [insert dramatic “Dun dunh DUUUUNNN!!” sound here]

      And if that were to happen, the lives of the “working poor” WILL be worth less to “Progressives”. If their lives (or their deaths) can’t be used to further the “Progressive” agenda, they ARE worth less (or worthless).

      And that is one reason why “gun control” measures, intentionally or unintentionally, will always tend to affect law-abiding, lower-income people more than wealthy people (who can afford to work around them) or criminals (who will ignore them). It’s a feature, not a bug.

Comments are closed.