Gun, Ammo Tax Aims At Reducing Violence In Seattle
First of all this is an agenda driven full of FUCKING SHIT headline
If you’re a gun owner (or hoping to be) in the city of Seattle, it’s going to cost you: Seattle City Council has unanimously approved a new tax on gun and ammo sales.
Under the new law, referred to as the “gun violence tax,” gun and ammo sales in the city are subject to a tax of $25 per firearm at sale and $0.05 for every round of ammunition at sale ($0.02 for every round of .22 caliber ammunition and smaller). Seattle’s City Budget Office estimates that the gun violence tax will raise between $300,000 and $500,000 per year: revenue raised under the tax will be earmarked for violence prevention.
Those who support the tax believe that it could deter potential criminals from buying a gun that would be used to commit a crime. Opponents of the tax say that it unfairly penalizes lower-income individuals by making it more expensive to legally acquire a gun.
City Council President Tim Burgess says that the new law is intended to improve gun safety:
Every day, the general public pays the enormous cost of gun violence. Gun violence is a public health crisis in our city and our nation. City government can and must pursue innovative gun safety measures that save lives and save money. As it has in other areas of policy, Seattle can lead the way in local solutions.
A gun violence tax will give us revenue to provide broad-based benefits through research and prevention programs.
It wouldn’t be the only such tax in the country. A similar tax in Cook County, Illinois, was adopted after much controversy in 2012. The hope was that it would slow gun violence. However, according to reports in the Chicago Tribune, gun violence continues to escalate in the city of Chicago with the numbers of persons shot in 2015 so far on pace to top those shot in 2014.
Council also approved a related law that would require gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours. Those gun owners who fail to do so would be slapped with a $500 civil penalty. Currently, federal law requires firearms businesses holding a federal license to report lost or stolen guns but not individual gun owners.
Council President Burgess said, about mandatory reporting, “This simple requirement will help law enforcement trace guns used in crimes and solve more cases. It is a straightforward and important step for gun safety.”
The reporting requirement is, as you can imagine, less controversial than the gun and ammo tax. City Council’s web site links to a 2012 survey (downloads as a pdf) which found that nearly 2/3 of National Rifle Association (NRA) members support a proposal requiring gun owners to report missing weapons; such a proposal has nearly 70% support overall.
The new reporting requirement takes effect in 30 days. The new tax is slated to kick in on January 1, 2016, but hold your fire: chances are that it will be delayed as gun-rights advocates consider their legal options, including suing the city.
These backward thinking people In Seattle are trying desperately to put more stores out of business and people out of work. People are just going to go into other areas to buy the ammo and guns.
In 5 years tell me how that “LIVING WAGE” thing is working out with no one working.
In addition they say it is for “violence prevention”, Lets see how much of that revenue is actually used for that in 6 months. Another emotional cause people will forget about in short time and there will still be the same idiots looking for more of your money for their pet peeves.
It is amazing how so many sheep are willing to give up more of their rights on a whim law simply based on emotion and designed to generate revenue.
This has become the summer of the political outsider, as a cast of interlopers upend and dominate the presidential nominating process in both parties.
The surging candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are fueled by people’s anger with the status quo and desire for authenticity in political leaders. Across the ideological spectrum, candidates are gaining traction by separating themselves from the political and economic system that many everyday Americans view as rigged against them.
“There are a lot of voters who are exceptionally frustrated with traditional politics and politicians and who quite simply feel failed by the system,” said pollster Geoff Garin, who advises Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. “A lot of this anger crosses party lines in the sense that it is directed at what people see as a concentration of wealth and power that leaves them holding the short end of the stick.”
Consider recent developments in the Republican race. Rick Perry was the governor of Texas for 14 years and had an enviable record on jobs to boot, but his presidential campaign is running on fumes. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham has served on Capitol Hill for a quarter-century, yet the South Carolina Republican barely cracks 1 percent in the polls.
In stark contrast, Ben Carson, a soft-spoken retired neurosurgeon with far more expertise in separating conjoined twins than in brokering trade agreements, is surging in recent polls and drew one of the biggest campaign crowds yet in Des Moines last week. Carly Fiorina, a businesswoman who has never held elective office, is also on the upswing.
Then there is Trump. The brash billionaire, who loudly brands politicians as “stupid” and “losers,” has rocketed to front-runner status.
On the left, Sanders has blazed a similar outside trail. The self-described socialist senator from Vermont, who routinely scolds the Washington and Wall Street establishments, is giving Clinton a scare. He has drawn massive overflow crowds — and on Wednesday, he surpassed Clinton in a New Hampshire poll for the first time.
“There’s a longing for real authenticity in politics today,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who is advising Sanders. “People feel that the candidates are too manufactured, there’s not enough spontaneity. They want someone who, even if they don’t agree with them, is telling it like they see it, really leveling with voters. I see that with Bernie and I think with Trump, too. It’s resonating very powerfully.”
Clinton has been treading carefully in responding to the populist threat Sanders poses, but she has spent the summer laying out a progressive agenda on immigration reform, voting rights, college affordability, regulating the financial sector and economic pocketbook concerns, such as expanding paid leave.
Sanders had his first edge over Clinton on Wednesday, when a Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll showed him with 44 percent support to Clinton’s 37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, home to the nation’s first primary.
But Clinton has a decisive lead in national polls as well as in Iowa, which holds the nation’s first caucuses. Support for Sanders is concentrated among highly educated white liberals, and he has struggled to make inroads with minority groups.
The outsider dynamic is more pronounced on the Republican side, where Trump and other candidates are galvanizing conservative activists while a few governors and senators are splitting the party establishment vote.
Carson’s and Fiorina’s stock has risen after last week’s first primary debate, as has that of Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), who, despite a career in politics, has positioned himself firmly as antiestablishment.
Post-debate polls show these candidates gaining ground. In Iowa, a CNN survey released Wednesday shows Trump leading with 22 percent and Carson in second, with 14 percent. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who had been the Iowa front-runner, was third, with 9 percent, followed by Cruz and Fiorina, with 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
In New Hampshire, the Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald survey had Trump in the lead, with 18 percent, followed by former Florida governor Jeb Bush in second, with 13 percent, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich in third, with 12 percent. Cruz and Fiorina are fourth and fifth, with 10 percent and 9 percent.
“There’s a disquiet, discomfort and angst that so many people are feeling,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who advises Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.). “They’re scared economically, they’re scared about what’s happening with our adversaries, and it makes them really, really uncomfortable with where the country’s going and where the leaders are going.”
Insider candidates are by no means out of the game. Bush is the clear fundraising leader and holds his own in polling. Many Republicans and Democrats consider the former Florida governor the most likely eventual nominee. On Tuesday, Bush posted a photo of a turtle on Instagram — “joyful tortoise,” read his caption — as a metaphor for his position in the contest.
Rubio gave what many GOP insiders considered a sparkling debate performance and also is viewed as a plausible nominee. Walker has polled at or near the top all year in Iowa and is laying the groundwork for an aggressive national campaign. And Kasich, a late entrant, has risen in New Hampshire on the strength of his debate performance as well as a television advertising campaign in the state by his allied super PAC.
But it’s the fiery insurgents — especially Trump, but also Fiorina and others — who are generating buzz and media attention at the moment, drowning out and frustrating some of their more established opponents.
Among the victims is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has served in government nearly his entire adult life and considers the presidency the next step on his career ladder. But he has been unable to break out of the bottom of a 17-candidate pack.
History is filled with examples of outsider candidacies that galvanize activists but run out of gas.
“Wherever the insurgency was — and it didn’t matter which party it was in — the establishment had almost ironclad control over the rules, over the money,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign. “They could form a firing squad and just hail ammo at you until you drop.”
But now, Trippi said, social media and digital communications make it far easier for outsiders to get their message out and mobilize supporters. “Both parties are losing control,” he said.
Officials in the Bush, Walker, Rubio and Kasich campaigns say they are not concerned about Trump’s summer rise. It is only August, after all, and they argued that the race will remain unsettled through the fall.
“We’ve always thought this race was wide open, and the events of the last week tell us clearly that it is,” said John Weaver, Kasich’s chief strategist. “There is no front-runner.”
Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant who is not aligned with a presidential campaign, said voters eventually will gravitate toward the more serious contenders.
“I think that after people get their yips out about Trump, people are going to ask, ‘How do we have the right person to post up against Hillary Clinton? Who can break the code?’” Wilson said. “A lot of the Trump stuff is an emotional response to being furious about the establishment, about immigration, all these other sensations that are not illegitimate feelings but that are not going to be politically viable for the long haul.”
Anthony Scaramucci, one of Walker’s top national fundraisers, foresees a calming of the race that could benefit a candidate like Walker. “I think the cream will rise to the top and Governor Walker will be way more effective with less people on stage,” he said. “He’s more steak than sizzle.”
But other Republicans think the tempest that Trump has whipped up will not die down. One of them is Cruz, who is among the best-funded candidates and is building a nationwide grass-roots organization. Cruz has refrained from attacking Trump, setting himself up to capture the anti-establishment vote when it looks for its final home this winter.
“I don’t think it is necessarily a majority of either party that is fueled by fury,” Garin said, “but there are a lot of furious voters out there who feel completely alienated from and let down by politics as usual.”
My personal opinion is I am tired of the same old shit from the career politicians and some of this stuff is actually refreshing. I am just waiting for the right candidate to come along, Donald Trump not sure about that one…….
Is the 526-hp Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang one of the best performance values on the market today? A new configurator tool on Ford’s website officially confirms the starting price of $49,995 for the GT350 and $63,495 for the GT350R, including destination and a gas guzzler tax.
That’s a remarkably low sum for the newest Shelby Mustang’s levels of performance, as this upgraded ponycar is clearly a direct competitor for the Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, which starts at a significantly higher $75,000. The standard 2016 Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang’s price includes a $1,300 gas guzzler tax, as does the more hardcore, stripped-out GT350R model. Both versions come standard with a screaming 5.2-liter flat-plane crank V-8 with a redline of 8,250 rpm.
We also now know the Shelby GT350’s available options, which are bundled into two packages. A $6,500 Track Package includes MagneRide adaptive dampers, a decklid spoiler, an aluminum tower-to-tower brace, coolers for the engine oil, transmission, and differential, and heavy-duty front springs. Also available, but not in combination with the Track Package, is a $7,500 Technology Package that offers the same MagneRide dampers and front springs, along with an upgraded audio system, the new Sync 3 infotainment system, power driver and passenger seats, leather, automatic climate control, and navigation.
The stripped-out Shelby Mustang GT350R, which does without standard features like an audio system and air conditioning, only offers one option package: the $3,000 Electronics Package. Adding the Sync 3 infotainment screen, automatic climate control, a backup camera, navigation, and an audio system, this option makes the track-oriented GT350R a bit more livable on the street. What really matters with the GT350R, though, is that the performance bits come standard, including adaptive dampers, carbon-fiber wheel, six-piston Brembo brakes, and a Tremec six-speed manual transmission.