# The PROFITS, My Dear! Gun Makers Cash IN!!!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [July 9, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502 "2016-07-09T21:10:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 7
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/121 "2016-07-13T00:15:43Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Perhaps you didn’t realize that your formulation (quoted below) leads to only one logical conclusion: _that the government has no right to tax_.
>
> And yet, there it is in the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8–the right of the government to tax!
>
> So, yes: your powers of logic are in question, at least with regard to these quoted remarks:
>
> If “the government cannot do something which would make guns unaffordable” then logically the government may not impose _any tax of any kind_–because even the smallest tax might make a gun “unaffordable” to some citizen. Yet as has been noted in this thread, the federal government has been imposing excise taxes on the manufacture of firearms since at least 1934 (which types, and what taxes on the types, have changed over time). Such taxes have yet to be declared unconstitutional.
If my argument was carried to an extreme then you’d be right. But the laws are decided on the basis of what’s reasonable. And the courts have decided that a certain amount of taxation is reasonable and therefore doesn’t qualify as infringement.
You might have been able to sell your proposed tax if you hadn’t said out loud that its purpose was to effect gun sales.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/122 "2016-07-13T00:22:55Z")
If only rich folks can afford guns, then we will have to borrow theirs when we send them to The Wall.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/123 "2016-07-13T00:26:44Z")
> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> Whatever might be claimed about the Second Amendment, it clearly was intended to place a restriction on federal power. So I have a hypothetical question for the “well-regulated militia” (collective right) adherents. In the 1790s a few years after the Constitution is ratified, the federal congress passes and the President signs a law something like the following: “No person ineligible to be called to muster shall keep or bear arms”. IOW, there would be a federal law forbidding women, teenagers, freed slaves, men too old to serve, or other persons disqualified for various reasons, to own or carry guns; and federal agents and marshals would enforce this law. Do you suppose that the states would have accepted that the federal government had that authority, and acquiesced to it?
Interestingly, the Second Amendment doesn’t say who it applies to.
The First Amendment does: it says Congress (and by extension the Federal government) shall not do certain things. This is why private entities can restrict your speech even though the government can’t.
But consider the Thirteenth Amendment. It doesn’t say the government cannot own slaves. It says nobody can own slaves. Which makes sense in context; slavery was almost entirely practiced by private individuals. A law that din’t prohibit private individuals from owning slaves would have been meaningless.
So where does the Second Amendment fall? Does it just restrict the government from infringing on your right to own and carry a gun? Or does it prohibit anyone from infringing on that right?
---
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/124 "2016-07-13T02:19:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> Clearly to _you_, maybe. Not to the non-result-oriented, who are forced to accept that the entire sentence exists.
I pick the least controversial statement possible about the 2nd Amendment, and you object simply because it’s coming from me. Way to go…
> [@](#):
>
> There are many things the federal government restricts people from doing. You can read more about it in the rest of the Constitution. Why would this be an exception? You appear not to realize that gun ownership isn’t a religion or a fetish for most of the rest of us, and never has been. You’re one of the minority, and for good reason.
…and you say absolutely nothing about the hypothetical I posted (because you can’t?). E.L., you’re not three years old- you can’t win a debate by shitting in your pants anymore.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/125 "2016-07-13T02:20:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Interestingly, the Second Amendment doesn’t say who it applies to.
>
> The First Amendment does: it says Congress (and by extension the Federal government) shall not do certain things. This is why private entities can restrict your speech even though the government can’t.
>
> But consider the Thirteenth Amendment. It doesn’t say the government cannot own slaves. It says nobody can own slaves. Which makes sense in context; slavery was almost entirely practiced by private individuals. A law that din’t prohibit private individuals from owning slaves would have been meaningless.
>
> So where does the Second Amendment fall? Does it just restrict the government from infringing on your right to own and carry a gun? Or does it prohibit anyone from infringing on that right?
If only there were some branch of the government to whom we could look to interpret the constitution. Nah, that’s crazy talk!!
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/126 "2016-07-13T02:38:30Z")
> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> I pick the least controversial statement possible about the 2nd Amendment, and you object simply because it’s coming from me. Way to go…
Try reading the post you object to. You’d notice something, rather than simply oppose on the basis of who wrote it.
> [@](#):
>
> …and you say absolutely nothing about the hypothetical I posted (because you can’t?).
Again, try reading it.
You’re really not helping your cause here.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/127 "2016-07-13T03:18:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Culture? When I hear that word, I reach for my CD of _Revolver_! We ain’t got no friggin’ culture! GD? That’s for nellies who murmur politely while sipping their tea, pinkies akimbo!
You’d be wise to listen to **elucidator** on this subject. He’s s strong team player, and he wouldn’t want to see someone on his team have his ass handed to him in GD. Note that he hasn’t endorsed your thesis here, but you might just out of curiosity ask him about it… Only **Elvis** has given you his endorsement, and he’s too much of a coward to back you up in GD.
So, yeah, my advice is DO NOT bring your ideas to GD. You will not like the result.
---
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/128 "2016-07-13T15:29:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> Try reading the post you object to. You’d notice something, rather than simply oppose on the basis of who wrote it.
>
> Again, try reading it.
>
> You’re really not helping your cause here.
Folks, should I even bother at this point, or is **ElvisL1ves** no longer lucid?
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/129 "2016-07-13T20:01:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> … But the laws are decided on the basis of what’s reasonable. And the courts have decided that a certain amount of taxation is reasonable and therefore doesn’t qualify as infringement.
E_xact_ly.
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> You might have been able to sell your proposed tax if you hadn’t said out loud that its purpose was to effect gun sales.
Why would coyness help make the case? The premise is that the current level of obtainability of firearms may not be optimal for society, and that the costs imposed on society might well be borne in greater part by those who profit from manufacturing said firearms.
This need not be a frightening prospect for gun enthusiasts. Think of the potential headlines:
> [@](#):
>
> \*Three New Children’s Trauma Centers Set to Open This Week, Thanks to the Firearms Excise Tax; Twenty More Slated, Nationwide, in Next Six Months
>
> We’re Grateful to Gun Makers, Buyers for Increased Funding, Say Fire-Rescue Departments in Southwestern States
>
> New Tax Funds Medical Equipment Upgrades at Seventeen V.A. Hospitals \*
Etc., etc. It could be a PR bonanza for the makers and buyers alike.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/130 "2016-07-14T20:23:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> You state those facts as axiomatic truths when in fact they are a particular ideological interpretation of a nation’s constitution that is closely aligned with the conservative ideals of originalism and textualism. It is equally valid to believe that there are such things as unwritten constitutional norms and the presumption that a constitution must reflect a nation’s evolving identity and values, and that it can not only become outdated but also inadequate or incomplete.
Facts are truths, axiomatic or not.
The concept of a living constitution does not extend nearly so far as you think. Proponents of the living constitution doctrine do not think that the doctrine allows the courts to substitute their own judgment for what is in the best interests of society for the judgment of the democratically elected branches of government. In fact this is one of the (invalid) criticisms that conservatives throw at living doctrine types.
The courts in fact (axiomatic or not) do not disregard the 4th amendment in order to make sure a murderer goes to jail, in fact they release murderers to preserve the right for all the rest of us.
The courts in fact (axiomatic or not) do not disregard the 1st amendment to prevent the Westboro Baptist church says horrible things, in fact they have consistently upheld judgments in favor of the westboro Baptist church awarding them large damages for violations of their first amendment right to be assholes.
The courts similarly would not allow a prohibitive tax on firearms.
Living constitution notions are generally used to protect or expand rights and liberties. It is rarely if ever used to constrain rights and liberties.
> [@](#):
>
> And there is no better example of this than the Second Amendment. You can argue forever whether the Founders had hundreds of years of awesome prescience and would have wanted the same measure today despite the technological development of automatic weaponry and all the carnage on American streets, whether it’s ridiculously and dangerously obsolete, or whether the Founders ever meant it to be an individual right for any individual purpose in the first place. But all of those arguments are subject to judgment and interpretation – none are in the category of mathematical axioms unless one is a Scalia originalist – and a great many wise justices are not.
NONE of the justices would ignore the existence of the second amendment, they might try to apply it differently in the modern world than the majority in Heller but that application STILL has to be consistent with the constitution. None of the justices in the dissent would deny that there is a second amendment right. Their arguments in the dissent weren’t living constitution type arguments. They were original intent type arguments. They didn’t try to adapt the second amendment to modern circumstances, they were trying to limit the rights under the second amendment to what they imagine the original intent of the second amendment right might be. It is the majority that adopts the view that after the veneer of collective rights is scraped off the second amendment, there is a basic right of self defense that lays underneath like the nougat underneath the chocolate caramel and peanuts of a snickers bar. It is this foundational right that must be adapted as times and technology changes.
> [@](#):
>
> It’s possible to be both intelligent in many important ways and batshit crazy at the same time. Some mass murderers and historical demagogues have been in that category. I love reading Scalia’s opinions for their richness of language, and I abhor them for their ideological crackpottery.
Scalia’s judicial philosophy frequently placed his legal conclusions on the conservative side of the spectrum. But I can think of several times when Scalia’s judicial philosophy led him to vote for the liberal side of the argument. I don’t think I can say this for most of the other justices.
Disagree with him all you want, particularly his political ideology but unless batshit crazy means shit you don’t agree with, I don’t see how you can call him batshit crazy without calling pretty much the entire court batshit crazy.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/131 "2016-07-14T20:52:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> The 2nd Amendment is a masterpiece of ambiguity, yes, repeat, no! All that is required is to interpret it in one of its two most likely interpretations. Interpret the 2nd as a restriction that refers only to “well-regulated militia” and interpret well-regulated in a strict way. Most every state has a well-regulated militia in the form of the National Guard, OK. They may have access to weapons that the rest of us do not. No problem.
>
> Not saying this makes anything any easier, it doesn’t, the resistance to gun control is irrational and unreasoning. And frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how any legislation could be effective, guns are everywhere. They don’t even rust away, if cleaned and oiled with the devout attention common to the ballistophiliac. Not entirely hopeless, but very, _very_ difficult.
>
> But at bottom, we are not required to rend asunder, simply re-interpret.
>
> Barry Goldwater famously opposed the Civil Rights Acts on Constitutional grounds, that the Federal government was not empowered to impose itself upon the States. Reading him on it, he says he agonized over it, fully cognizant that his approach would slow, or even halt, progress and justice for colored Americans.
>
> I think he was wrong, even if I accepted his interpretation as correct. The wretched state of affairs could no longer be tolerated. If we were justified in violent revolution over taxation and representation, how could we say that our oppressed citizens should not, or could not, violently resist _their_ oppression? What good is a Constitution that protects such flagrant injustice?
>
> Perhaps interpreting the Constitution in a way that Barry (not you, Barry, the other Barry…) could not approve did violence to the Constitution. Perhaps an appendectomy does violence to the patient. But it was necessary, and all it required was a different interpretation.
>
> Barry Goldwater’s case was solidly founded and well-reasoned. He was still wrong. As are you, Counselor.
Living constitution doctrines have AFAICT mostly been used to expand rights and freedoms (perhaps because of the institutional guilt over the Dredd Scott opinion). I don’t recall the doctrine being invoked to constrain rights or freedoms because the justices thought society was better off that way.
The gun control side tries to make a moral appeal without having cemented its moral argument. How much better off was Washington DC because of the ban on the legal possession of handguns?
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/132 "2016-07-14T21:27:25Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> You’re too bitter to participate in the rumble, sorry.
I don’t think John Mace particularly supports gun rights. He generally tries to keep the barbarians at the gate though when the walls have turned to dust when it comes to certain principles.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/133 "2016-07-14T21:28:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> If only rich folks can afford guns, then we will have to borrow theirs when we send them to The Wall.
Won’t they NEED guns on the wall? With valyrian steel tipped bullets (I don’t know if you could tip bullets with dragonglass)?
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/134 "2016-07-14T21:31:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Interestingly, the Second Amendment doesn’t say who it applies to.
>
> The First Amendment does: it says Congress (and by extension the Federal government) shall not do certain things. This is why private entities can restrict your speech even though the government can’t.
>
> But consider the Thirteenth Amendment. It doesn’t say the government cannot own slaves. It says nobody can own slaves. Which makes sense in context; slavery was almost entirely practiced by private individuals. A law that din’t prohibit private individuals from owning slaves would have been meaningless.
>
> So where does the Second Amendment fall? Does it just restrict the government from infringing on your right to own and carry a gun? Or does it prohibit anyone from infringing on that right?
OMFG, I’ve got to point that out to my wife the next time she tries to limit my gun collection to whatever I can fit into a 22 gun safe (which doesn’t really fit 22 guns AFAICT).
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/135 "2016-07-14T21:34:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> If only there were some branch of the government to whom we could look to interpret the constitution. Nah, that’s crazy talk!!
Hush. I am totally going to tell the guys at Virginia Arms about this.
AFAICT, the biggest impediment to gun ownership is infringement by wives. All my friends that don’t have guns tell me that their wives won’t let them have one. Wait until I tell them that the constitution prohibits their wives from infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.
I’m certain this argument will work.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/136 "2016-07-14T21:40:27Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> E_xact_ly.
NOONE is saying that NO taxation is possible but taxation as a method to discourage gun ownership is not.
> [@](#):
>
> Why would coyness help make the case? The premise is that the current level of obtainability of firearms may not be optimal for society, and that the costs imposed on society might well be borne in greater part by those who profit from manufacturing said firearms.
For the same reason coyness about the expected effects of voter ID laws on racial participation in elections might make a difference. If the Texas legislature passed voter ID laws and stated that the purpose of the laws was to reduce voter participation among blacks and Hispanics, the courts might view things differently.
> [@](#):
>
> This need not be a frightening prospect for gun enthusiasts. Think of the potential headlines:
>
> Etc., etc. It could be a PR bonanza for the makers and buyers alike.
This is not Powerball. This is not a vice that we tax to provide funding for things that we think are more socially desirable.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/137 "2016-07-14T21:52:52Z")
Are you aware of the multiquote function?
It would make your babble easier to scroll past, at least.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502/138 "2016-07-15T16:25:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> Are you aware of the multiquote function?
>
> It would make your babble easier to scroll past, at least.
Yeah, but then people bitch and moan about walls of text.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-profits-my-dear-gun-makers-cash-in/759502.md?page=6)