And that, grasshopper, is a very important statement, though not for the initial part of it. You can tax gun/ammo purchases “just as any other physical good” without a problem. It is when you start putting special taxes on that you may run into issues.
You are guessing wrong and you are wrong.
I was not replying to your question. I was replying to Ex Tank who was suggesting I do not know the meaning of “militia” and “well regulated”. This stemmed from earlier where I suggested the first half of the 2nd Amendment seems to be conveniently ignored by pro gun advocates.
Miller and subsequent interpretations which I quoted (and tough if you do not like Wiki…it is a cite and if you think those Wiki cites of cases are wrong it is up to you to prove it so) have supported the notion that those words DO mean something. It does supports my notion that I do know what those words mean, that they are there for a reason and not rhetorical flourish and no less than the SCOTUS and other courts have suggested the same thing.
I don’t need to accuse you. You’ve done a fine job of revealing your true colors right here in this thread:
So, I’d say we can judge from your own words that you have a low opinion of gun owners and are in favor of punsihing them for being gun owners.
Villa - are there any other goods or services which are taxed differently than others?
Because many governments levy a special tax on restuarant meals, or drinks, or stays in a hotel or motel, or sports tickets, or lots of other things … does that then mean that we are trying to take away a persons right to stay in a hotel or motel, or buy a restaurant meal, or attend a sporting event?
“Shoulder thing that goes up” I have a cousin that supports the AWB. One of the ‘reasons’ was because some of them have holes in the side of the barrel.
It took some time to finally figure out that she was talking about barrel shrouds. What Rep. Carolyn McCarthy thinks is the “shoulder thing that goes up”
I’m a gun owner. I was never that concerned about gun rights until I discovered the out and out ignorance of those that would like to impose more gun laws. It doesn’t need to make sense. As long as it imposes more restrictions, the anti-gun crowd is for it.
That’s what it comes down to.
As far as I’m concerned, the anti-gun crowd has lost any credibility that they might have had if they would have educated themselves just a little bit about guns.
ID each bullet? Data is recoverable? Only half a cent a round? Is there a link to the company and its claims somewhere? Like most shooters, I don’t believe any of those claims.
Yes there are. But there are a few things to consider here. First is whether a constitutionally protected right is involved. Hotel rooms/restaurants get interesting there because of the civil rights cases. However, a non-discriminatory tax probably wouldn’t fall foul, unless there was pretty strong evidence in the legislative record that the intent of the tax was to deliberately burden interstate travel.
Second, I never said a special tax is per se unconstitutional (though in some cases, especially religion, it would come very damn close indeed). I said that “*t is when you start putting special taxes on that you may run into issues.” Which is true. A small increase in the tax on ammunition in order to fund a national database from marking data probably wouldn’t be a constitutional issue. A significant hike in the price with legislative history showing the purpose was to prevent poor people being able to afford ammo would not pass constitutional muster, IMHO.
Over a period of 40 years, plus or minus, yes. What this counts as, is basically a seizure of a serious amount of property from citizens.
Oh puh-leeze…
You are suggesting that the government does not impose rules on manufacturing? Are you suggesting there are no regulations facing manufacturers in things such as, say, the procurement and storage of explosives in ammunition manufacturing?
What planet do you live on because here there are all sorts of regulations affecting industry. Heck…by your way of thinking there should be no minimum wage law applied to ammunition manufacturers since it raises the cost of ammunition which amounts to a tacit restriction of your constitutional rights.
People who were ordinarily single-issue voters or who would ordinarily have voted Republican due to their platform on guns chose to vote Democrat in large numbers in this election because the Republicans did a horrific job of running the country over the last 8 years.
So, by doing what is clearly the right thing to do for the country as a whole you’re saying that people like me essentially gave carte blanche to betray those votes of conscience? The NRA didn’t lose, the Republican Party lost. Barack Obama did a very intelligent thing and left gun control largely off the agenda because it has been a loser issue for the Democrats. That does not mean that it isn’t a policy issue for him- it clearly is. So what we are doing is preparing a defense against something that may or may not happen, but is far more likely to happen than in any of the last 8 years.
Frankly, I’m annoyed about the whole thing. I did what I think was right, and for my trouble I am facing the diminution of my rights. I discounted the idea that Obama would trouble himself with this issue because he had more important things to do, but from the push I see here (see the Pit thread for examples) it is clear that there is an expectation that Obama will do something, and soon.
Thanks for nothing, Democrats. Me and people like me helped mightily to get Obama elected, and now you’re talking about showing us the back of your hand. Much obliged, it won’t be forgotten.
Villa - I agree with you. You said it well.
Like all things, the devil is in the details.
In your opinion, how much of a tax on ammunition would be acceptable to fund this data base and at what level does it begin to become punitive?
AirmanDoors
I too supported Obama. I am not a gun owner. I do not want to take away anyones legal guns. I saw nothing in either the Democratic platform or statements from Obama that indicated he did either.
President-elect Obama has a lot of very serious stuff on his plate. I do not envision any effort being made to take away anyones legal guns, ammunition or exercise of their Second Amendment rights.
You’re the guy saying 'tis so. Back it up with the appropriate regulations. You can then show how nominal the increase in cost is and use it to justify your support of the proposed law discussed in this thread. Or not. Your presumptions alone, though, aren’t terribly effective in persuading me to your overall point.
I have no idea to be honest. This doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be other issues with the existence of such a database by the way…
0.5 cents per round - probably not going to cause an issue. Putting 9mm rounds up to $5 a piece? Probably going to raise a problem.
It is also important (despite what our cute little textualist friends tell us) to look at the legislative history of any tax imposed for this purpose. You would be amazed how STUPID legislators are on this. If you look back at some of the “moment of silence” cases, you have legislators talking the whole time in debates, on the record, about how this is the way to get sponsored prayer back into schools.
Such disingenuous crap…
Fine, for starters:
OSHA Regulations
National Labor Relations Regulations
Commerce in Explosives Regulations (if you are manufacturing ammo you are handling explosives)
Have fun…
Yes I understand that. At some point, there must be an accomation between reasonable people of good will.
Non-gun owners like myself must stand up and state without any trickery that they support peoples rights under the Second Amendment and there is not intention to take away peoples guns by hook or by crook.
And gun owners must stand up and help clean up the extremists in the gun culture that give legitimate gun owners a bad name.
There needs to be a middle ground of reason.
I know of very few people who do not want hunters to have their rifles. … or people in their homes to be denied a pistol or shtogun or rifle for home protection … or to deny sportsemnt the opportunity to have a weapon for target shooting or other such normal activity.
Its the extremists with loads of automatic weapons and military weapons that people want to see controlled. I am all for hunters keeping their guns and the other stuff I mentioned. I do not anyone to have heavy duty military style automatic weapons.
Yes, I understand that the citizenry is the last line of defense.
Yes, i understand that if the government is well armed then some citizens who fear the government feel they need an equal response.
All I can say to that is if we ever get to either of those two points you might as well bend over backwards and kiss your ass goodbye because our society is finished regardless. So to me, I do not consider those things as real.
I am sorry if that offends anyone, but is my position.
Yes, and quoting the entire thing is often known as copyright infringement, which isn’t only applicable to this forum.
I am not a moderator, and this is not official advice.
People are generally quoting less than 50% of the article the refer to. It is also a good idea to include a link to your source, if one exists, or a reference to the book, magazine, newspaper that it came from so that we can go and judge it for ourselves.
If the government decides that it is best for the collective to put a restriction on polls that results in an increase in cost, it’s not a threat to the 15th.
Are you for that also?
This is true of a large percentage of anti-gun individuals. At least, that is what my observations over the last 20-odd years have shown me.
I can think of no better example than poll taxes. Apparently, it’s such an issue that although my statement above regarding the 15th Amendment neatly fits alongside Kalhoun’s argument about the Second, we currently have a 24th Amendment to prevent exactly that.
As in sales tax, which I already pay when I purchase ammuntion at the local Gander Mountain.
And Kalhoun’s posts in this thread are perfect evidence of the disingenuous nature of the ‘We only want reasonable restrictions and compromise’ arguments that are currently being put forth in the other gun control thread by Zeriel and EddyTeddyFreddy.
Find me one that is specific to ammunition manufacturers only, and not anyone else who deals with gunpowder, lead, copper, brass, or other materials that are used in the manufacture of ammunition.
You just haven’t learned the code words yet. A few prominent examples:
From Obama’s transition website:
From his acceptance speech in June:
From a speech in San Francisco:
Guns are clearly on his mind, and he is talking like a person that a) doesn’t know the first thing about guns (there are no AK-47s on the streets of Cleveland), b) wants to reaffirm a law that, when it sunsetted, did not cause a measurable increase in crime, c) cares enough about the issue to repeal what is no more or less than privacy (the Tiahrt Amendment), and d) treats gun ownership with contempt.
First off what is said here is a FAR cry from Obama passing anti-gun laws.
Secondly, I am curious why you hold out the 2nd Amendment as the only right worth defending and if it gets restricted you made a mistake electing a Democrat. I posted earlier 23 places where the Bush administration has reduced or ignored our constitutional rights. By getting Obama in those rights may be restored or at least far less likely to continue to be eroded.
But this one right trumps all I guess (assuming it even does get restricted which is by no means even remotely clear). :rolleyes:
Funny, I don’t remember saying that. I voted for Obama precisely because of those other rights being violated. Does that give you cause to ignore, dismiss, or undermine my concerns?
Not much of an effort on your part.
You just link to the OSHA home page.
Ditto for the NLRB.
Your explosives regulations link is slightly more specific.
There’s also nothing from you to show how much impact any regulations have on the cost of a firearm or ammo.
IOW, this is basically still just your presumption dressed up with a little anger and three useless links.
You’ve done nothing to prove your point which was, as I understood it, that since there are other government regulations in place that may have an impact on the cost of a product it’s okay to put others in place. The thing is that I’m concerned about why people do things as well as with what they do. This whole proposal just absolutely stinks of an anti work-around for both Heller and the Constitution.