Dr. John Lott, the world's foremost expert on gun laws, offers the following astute observation:
With the cost of insurance at up to $2,000, Democrats put the fine for not having insurance at $10,000.
Compare that to Obamacare where the fines for not having insurance are less than a quarter of the costs for people whose income is at $50,000.
My interpretation is that Democrats are not serious about people getting health insurance, but they are serious [in] stopping people from owning guns.
Remember, folks, a penalty is a tax, except when it's just a tax, other than when it is a penalty or simply a penalty and a tax. Ain't that right, Chief Justice Roberts?
4 comments:
Why do conservatives suck so horribly using the courts to defend our civil liberties?
All of the laws on the books protecting voting rights could / should be used to defend our other constitutional rights. What's the difference between being illegal to place a poll tax on voting and an ammo tax? The 2nd Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law....". Voting rights are based on federal state laws, but provide more freedom than a crystal clear constitutional amendment.
I don't know about the legal ramifications, but DAY-AM! That chick is purty.
In the spirit of Obamacare, will they also propose a $10,000 fine for failing to purchase and carry a concealed firearm?
how much more straw can the camel be expected to carry before its back is broken??
firefirefire
Post a Comment