Whoa now! I never said they couldn’t/shouldn’t be taxed. But we OK with a 200% markup on that tax?
California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition
This law serves two purposes:
Be seen to be “doing something”, always a winner. Tack on “for the children”, a tack conservatives are winning with.
More taxes on the poor. And that’s really the meat of it. It’s appalling how liberals (and I include myself in that definition) are quick to defend the poor, but abhor the notion of them defending themselves.
The individual right was decided by a 5-4 court decision along party lines 2 centuries after the fact. It’s not as clear cut as freedom of speech
Poor people and people of color are disproportionately victims of gun violence. You may come back with “good guy with a gun” but in most altercations more guns equals more deaths.
While Reagan’s gun law in California was racist, it wasn’t what killed the Panthers, FBI assassinations did. Even if black people had all the guns in Texas they still wouldn’t be able to challenge the state.
The courts held for two hundred and fifty years that there was no individual right. Only because we have three illegitimately installed Supreme Court justices did a court of law hold otherwise.
The reason it took thos long and basically coup is because the proposition is utterly ridiculous.
I’ll let it go right now, never argue for reasonable gun policy again, if you can find a single original document written in America prior to 1776 in which the phrase “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right. Because even though 95% of the pre-1776 usage clearly refers to proper warfare, you will find that the other 5% is at best ambiguous and in zero cases express.
Reading an individual right into it a revisionst history and lies. That federalist society hacks and bootlickers have been clambering for it for the last fifty years does not negate the actual history of this nation and the development of western jurisprudence.
Here’s is just one absurdity: if the express purpose of the second amendment is “security of the state,” how does reading in an implied, individual right advance the interest of state security, when the express language “bearing arms” and “well-regulated militia” adequately and directly achieves the purpose?
Another absurdity is that the express purpose of the bill of rights was to codify existing rights, and even today everyone agrees that the bill of rights did not create new rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of western, natural law, and for the most part, English common law. Guess what? They regulate guns in England and in every other western nation as we have done in America for 250 odd years.
It’s almost as if I’m not interested in rebutting someone who called me a racist when I didn’t even say anything about race. I know that must be hard for you to accept. Much like it’s hard for you to accept that a tax on guns is legal.
Removed by mod
Guns are already taxed under 2A.
Taxing them more is legal as long as the taxes aren’t so high that it infringes on rights.
In other words a 5 or 10% tax wouldn’t violate 2A but a 1000% tax certainly would.
If you still don’t believe guns are taxable, refer to sales tax.
Whoa now! I never said they couldn’t/shouldn’t be taxed. But we OK with a 200% markup on that tax?
This law serves two purposes:
Be seen to be “doing something”, always a winner. Tack on “for the children”, a tack conservatives are winning with.
More taxes on the poor. And that’s really the meat of it. It’s appalling how liberals (and I include myself in that definition) are quick to defend the poor, but abhor the notion of them defending themselves.
Further reading:
https://imgur.com/eUseWqC
Rather a 200% increase is reasonable depends on current taxes.
It’s 11%. Which would increase the current cost of a 9mm round from. .48 to about.53 cents.
They used 200% to get you wound up just like you’re trying to bait me with all the “but the poor!” nonsense.
It’s 5 cents.
Removed by mod
The individual right was decided by a 5-4 court decision along party lines 2 centuries after the fact. It’s not as clear cut as freedom of speech
Poor people and people of color are disproportionately victims of gun violence. You may come back with “good guy with a gun” but in most altercations more guns equals more deaths.
While Reagan’s gun law in California was racist, it wasn’t what killed the Panthers, FBI assassinations did. Even if black people had all the guns in Texas they still wouldn’t be able to challenge the state.
Even free speech as we know it today was a product of modern Supreme Court decisions from the Warren Court.
Until then we still enforced anti sedition laws!
The courts held for two hundred and fifty years that there was no individual right. Only because we have three illegitimately installed Supreme Court justices did a court of law hold otherwise.
The reason it took thos long and basically coup is because the proposition is utterly ridiculous.
I’ll let it go right now, never argue for reasonable gun policy again, if you can find a single original document written in America prior to 1776 in which the phrase “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right. Because even though 95% of the pre-1776 usage clearly refers to proper warfare, you will find that the other 5% is at best ambiguous and in zero cases express.
Reading an individual right into it a revisionst history and lies. That federalist society hacks and bootlickers have been clambering for it for the last fifty years does not negate the actual history of this nation and the development of western jurisprudence.
Here’s is just one absurdity: if the express purpose of the second amendment is “security of the state,” how does reading in an implied, individual right advance the interest of state security, when the express language “bearing arms” and “well-regulated militia” adequately and directly achieves the purpose?
Another absurdity is that the express purpose of the bill of rights was to codify existing rights, and even today everyone agrees that the bill of rights did not create new rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of western, natural law, and for the most part, English common law. Guess what? They regulate guns in England and in every other western nation as we have done in America for 250 odd years.
Called it.
Removed by mod
It’s almost as if I’m not interested in rebutting someone who called me a racist when I didn’t even say anything about race. I know that must be hard for you to accept. Much like it’s hard for you to accept that a tax on guns is legal.
Removed by mod