Regardless of the percentage, Connecticut Democrats want to seize unwarranted power in order to limit access to ammunition. This outrageous tax may disproportionately affect lower income individuals such as single moms and young families, as it raises the price substantially. The Democrats’ proposed bill encroaches and infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, and they seek to unilaterally overturn an inalienable right in order to enact partisan policy.
If Republicans suggested a tax on abortions, the Democrats would retaliate and enthusiastically point to the “right to abortion” in the Constitution. In fact, Democrats at the national level support federally funded abortion and late term abortions. Conveniently, when it comes to guns, Democrats discount the Second Amendment as antiquated and unnecessary.
While the Second Amendment explicitly enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, Democrats ardently support the loose interpretation and political activism that resulted in Roe v. Wade. Why is it that Democrats risk the lives of law abiding citizens, but they maliciously defend legal protection to murder babies?
Rather than simply proposing additional funding for gun violence prevention, Gilchrest makes the bill political by blatantly undermining the Second Amendment. Remarkably, she accused others of politicizing anti-vaccination laws with pro-life posters, yet she hypocritically politicizes tragedies of gun violence that grieve both sides of the political aisle. Additionally, Rep. Jillian Gilchrest flip-flopped from her previous statement after facing criticism.
On Feb. 4, she implied that she has the power to limit the purchase of ammunition since homeowners should not need very much for self defense. On Feb. 10, Gilchrest said she wanted to increase tax revenue, backtracking after facing backlash on Twitter. She also stated that bills during this “short session” have to relate to the budget.
To fully adhere to a position that values life, Democrats should support the right of babies to live. Until then, their motive behind infringing on gun rights will remain ambiguous.
Furthermore, it is not her place to decide the quantity of ammo citizens can own as the Second Amendment exists to protect against government tyranny. Autocratic partisans deserve little credibility when they hold contradicting opinions on life and use taxation to enforce their policy preferences. Democrats in Connecticut want to infringe on the rights of single moms, families, and all other citizens from protecting themselves and loved ones.
The notion that limiting the capacity citizens capacity to defend themselves results in decreased gun violence is lazy and assumes that shooters buy ammo legally and will be deterred by increased costs.
Rep. Gilchrest tries to reason that since tobacco consumption has fallen because of taxes that ammo taxes will also reduce gun violence. That is a non sequitur considering the possibility of private ammo purchases and the constitutional protection of ammo. Also, murdering people is already illegal and that simply doesn’t deter shooters.
Is it reasonable to suggest that shooters will not commit their evil atrocities because of a 35% hike?
While the motive of reducing murders and mass shootings merits credit, legislators need to consider the externalities of their decisions. Reducing the sales of ammunition may on its face seem like a plausible way to reduce violence since less bullets intuitively mean less shots fired. More innocent people will suffer if these taxes leave them defenseless against assailants.
Lives can be saved by allowing Americans their right to life and right to bear arms.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.