Nope, no more than anyone else demanding the government does something is sent a bill for it.
Pretty sure the mother, the actual gun owner, was the first victim. In addition, the system already in place prevented the shooter from getting the guns legally. And did he walk to the school? If he had no car, would he have been able to shoot up the school?Again, these mass shooting were facilitated by legally owned firearms. See the distinction? These mass shootings were not facilitated by submachine guns bought in a back alley and executed by a drug cartel. These were gun owners turning their weaponry on random people or letting their guns be taken, and then turned on random people, including children.
And again, if the NRA went about putting guards in every school that currently lacked them, would that mean that gun owners get their current restrictions removed? Of course not, only "new" restrictions make sense. All the compromises made through the decades mean absolutely nothing, only the next ban matters.Since legal gun owners were responsible for these mass shootings, I don't see the problem with them helping to pay for the NRA's claimed fix.
Maybe they should streamline the NFA process, allow new manufacture of machine guns, and use the $200 tax's from that system towards schools. As a compromise to gun owners to increase tax revenue as you want.
None of MY guns are the problem, perhaps you should bill the estate of the shooter and his mother?In this case, taxing gun owners extra to cover the almost eight billion it could cost to have armed guards protecting our children from those same gun owners' weapons.
Do explain how they facilitated the shooting? Was it through their gun safety programs? Was it their lobbying for ATF to actually enforce laws? Or wait, I guess they should be taxed extra for ATF to do the job we already pay them for.Since roads have so many different uses, I'm not sure why you think the car industry should pay extra. Of course if someone was taking a car from a legal car owner, driving into a classroom, running over twenty kids, one eleven times apparently, and the car industry demanded that we put guards in every school? Then, yes, absolutely the car industry should be taxed extra. So should car owners.
Considering those details. I don't see how having the responsible parties pay extra, since stricter gun controls are not being offered, to handle mass shootings they themselves are facilitating, is somehow pointless. Nor how reminding those supporting or considering that option of the fairest way for it to be implemented, would induce nausea. The legally purchased and owned semiautomatic rifle killing twenty six-year and seven-year old children, should be the nausea inducing part.
Is the NRA smuggling guns into CT or something?
If they do pass a ban of some sort, who foots the bill for that? Do we charge the schools for the money to enforce the ban? Is that why this happened, because they didn't tax the kids in CT to enforce the states ban?
Not that it matters. The NRA won't be hiring any security guards, I don't believe gun owners should be forced to pay for it, and I doubt many that aren't just taking shots at the NRA would suggest such a thing either. At least you're not tweeting about how NRA members should be shot, so I guess you're ahead of the politicians in your hyperbole.