I’ve been saying for years this was going to be what happens, instead of common sense gun laws they are just going to tax the shit out of it. Which sucks for law abiding responsible gun owners who just want to hunt or defend themselves. This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court – the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA’s idea here, but it’s all going to come down to implementation.
“As a giant chicken with a southern accent wearing a judges robe, this here tax is unconstitutional on the grounds of me not liking it.” -The Roberts court, most likely
This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table
Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a ‘reasonable compromise’ on gun ownership and some ‘common sense’ gun control legislation.
What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??
I live on a farm, an hour from town. The sheriff response time is about 45 minutes usually. Meth heads roam around looking for stuff to steal. There’s also wild dogs, Coyotes, and also wild pigs that will kill you given the opportunity. I truly hope that I’m never in a position where I have to take a human life. But having a gun is a necessity out here, even if you only have to fire a warning shot to get the crackheads to scatter. I also hunt, not even just for sport, game meat is a not inconsequential portion of our food supply. Wild pigs are a very real concern, they will gore you before you can even blink, and they can run at close to 40 MPH.
I don’t get how it’s even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don’t see how forcing a cost can be.
I would consider it an infringement, do any other rights include a fee? The only reason some states haven’t made it prohibitively expensive is that it is more likely to go to the courts.
Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.
With respect, that’s bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much… which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.
Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you’re effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
Don’t pretend that it is both sides who refuse to “negotiate”, when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.
Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.
there’s already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals
“Lots of people” are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don’t mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let’s see how close to a majority that is.
Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible.
Can you elaborate? This is demonstrably false so I figured I’d give you the opportunity to explain what you meant with such a ridiculously simplistic and nonsensical statement.
It’s a generalization but absolutely true. I’m not going to get drawn into a “aha! But this one Republican dude in New Hampshire supports restrictions on guns therefore you are wrong” bullshit fest.
Sounds like you think truth is just a feeling. I tend to look for collections of objective facts to garner truth but I get that your way is less challenging.
If I suspected you might be actually conversing in good faith, I’d expend the effort. But I’ve seen this kind of rhetorical trap before. It’s not quite sealioning, but similar.
I’m fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.
I’ve been saying for years this was going to be what happens, instead of common sense gun laws they are just going to tax the shit out of it. Which sucks for law abiding responsible gun owners who just want to hunt or defend themselves. This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court – the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA’s idea here, but it’s all going to come down to implementation.
“As a giant chicken with a southern accent wearing a judges robe, this here tax is unconstitutional on the grounds of me not liking it.” -The Roberts court, most likely
Foghorn Leghorn had more integrity and righteousness than the justices on the current SCOTUS
In my heart I genuinely wish that I could argue to the contrary, reality is just dashing my dreams term over term.
There’s also this crazy thing called an illegal market which circumvents tax entirely
Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a ‘reasonable compromise’ on gun ownership and some ‘common sense’ gun control legislation.
What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??
How often do people really defend themselves with lethal force?
Are your criminals weird or something? Do they shoot people at every opportunity?
No, defending property doesn’t justify lethal force.
I live on a farm, an hour from town. The sheriff response time is about 45 minutes usually. Meth heads roam around looking for stuff to steal. There’s also wild dogs, Coyotes, and also wild pigs that will kill you given the opportunity. I truly hope that I’m never in a position where I have to take a human life. But having a gun is a necessity out here, even if you only have to fire a warning shot to get the crackheads to scatter. I also hunt, not even just for sport, game meat is a not inconsequential portion of our food supply. Wild pigs are a very real concern, they will gore you before you can even blink, and they can run at close to 40 MPH.
I absolutely get hunting rifles we have a lot of them here and as far as I know they are rarely used or crime.
Maybe don’t let those wild pigs in when they ring your doorbell? Even if they huff and puff
Be careful - there’s a correlation between huffing, puffing, and houses being blown down.
I don’t get how it’s even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don’t see how forcing a cost can be.
Does the constitution say that guns need to be free?
I would consider it an infringement, do any other rights include a fee? The only reason some states haven’t made it prohibitively expensive is that it is more likely to go to the courts.
Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.
With respect, that’s bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much… which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.
Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.
Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you’re effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
Don’t pretend that it is both sides who refuse to “negotiate”, when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.
I mean, this is a succinct description. You’re saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.
Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.
Not scared, just unwilling.
Unwilling due to their fear. Of their donors, of their electorate, of losing control. Pick your poison.
there’s already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals
Bringing up bans on military hardware actually supports the slippery slope argument very strongly. You’re already thinking about bans.
dang you got me, I don’t want rich people to own nukes
No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.
Why? Lots of people are calling for bans.
“Lots of people” are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don’t mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let’s see how close to a majority that is.
k
Can you elaborate? This is demonstrably false so I figured I’d give you the opportunity to explain what you meant with such a ridiculously simplistic and nonsensical statement.
It’s a generalization but absolutely true. I’m not going to get drawn into a “aha! But this one Republican dude in New Hampshire supports restrictions on guns therefore you are wrong” bullshit fest.
Sounds like you think truth is just a feeling. I tend to look for collections of objective facts to garner truth but I get that your way is less challenging.
If I suspected you might be actually conversing in good faith, I’d expend the effort. But I’ve seen this kind of rhetorical trap before. It’s not quite sealioning, but similar.
Yet you’ll expend the effort to explain why you won’t expend any effort to make an actual point- lol.
I’m starting to think maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about at all ;)
Big difference between saying “ha I’m not falling for that” and finding sources. The former requires little effort.
Yeah- makes it clear you’re just driven by emotion and don’t have any reasoned points to make.
Am Democrat. Do not want bans.
I’m fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.
Does it include half of Russia? Because if you have wrong chromosome, you will be trained with weapons even if you actively avoid it.
Also what to do if owner is too dead for this?
There are not two sides here. Try ten, or twenty, or some large number.
We are not talking about sane world.