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.
If only rich folks can afford guns, then we will have to borrow theirs when we send them to The Wall.
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?
I pick the least controversial statement possible about the 2nd Amendment, and you object simply because it’s coming from me. Way to go…
…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.
If only there were some branch of the government to whom we could look to interpret the constitution. Nah, that’s crazy talk!!
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.
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.
Folks, should I even bother at this point, or is ElvisL1ves no longer lucid?
Exactly.
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:
Etc., etc. It could be a PR bonanza for the makers and buyers alike.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Won’t they NEED guns on the wall? With valyrian steel tipped bullets (I don’t know if you could tip bullets with dragonglass)?
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).
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.
NOONE is saying that NO taxation is possible but taxation as a method to discourage gun ownership is not.
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 is not Powerball. This is not a vice that we tax to provide funding for things that we think are more socially desirable.
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.