Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@neptuneblue,

The only basis for the tax is to limit firearms and ammo.

@Baldimo,

I will give you this one. That's exactly what it for. That is a good thing.

@RABEL222,

This is why people should vote for Trump and the Republicans.

Progressives hate the Constitution and want to violate our civil liberties.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Ok, so you now agree that federally taxing guns, ammunition and accessories is NOT against the 2nd Amendment, therefore perfectly legal.

No. Such a tax would violate the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

I disagree. To pass Strict Scrutiny,

Quote:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Therefore, it is in the government's interest to try to curb gun violence; by using tax law to narrowly define the goal; and it is the least restrictive measure.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

That is exactly why it will be deemed unconstitutional. We should start making people take tests before they can vote, and pay a tax. Once they have completed the testing and paid their tax, they can vote.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Strict Scrutiny forbids preventing people from having weapons that are effective for self defense.

And how does the government have any interest in dictating the method that murderers use to commit their crimes? People are just as dead when they are killed with other weapons.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I'm not preventing anything. I'm taxing the **** out of it.

And cite your reference how the government dictates methods to kill, other than the Armed Services.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

I'm not preventing anything.

Sure. And levying a million dollar tax on each abortion will not prevent anyone from getting an abortion.

neptuneblue wrote:

I'm taxing the **** out of it.

Which would prevent people from having it.

neptuneblue wrote:

And cite your reference how the government dictates methods to kill, other than the Armed services.

Here is the post where you proposed that the government had an interest in dictating the method that murderers use to kill:
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-314#post-6893635

Your specific words:
"it is in the government's interest to try to curb gun violence"

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Sure. And levying a million dollar tax on each abortion will not prevent anyone from getting an abortion.

This isn't an abortion thread, it's gun reform. If you'd like to start a thread about taxing abortion, be my guest. Until then, stick to Strict Scrutiny.

oralloy wrote:

Which would prevent people from having it.

No it won't. See your reply above.

oralloy wrote:

Here is the post where you proposed that the government had an interest in dictating the method that murderers use to kill:
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-314#post-6893635

Your specific words: "it is in the government's interest to try to curb gun violence"

Wouldn't they be just as dead if knives were used?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

This isn't an abortion thread, it's gun reform. If you'd like to start a thread about taxing abortion, be my guest.

The abortion point is entirely on topic. It illustrates how placing an onerous tax on something makes it impossible to acquire.

neptuneblue wrote:

Until then, stick to Strict Scrutiny.

That's what I am doing.

neptuneblue wrote:

No it won't.

That is incorrect. Making something unaffordable makes it unavailable.

neptuneblue wrote:

See your reply above.

My reply above illustrates that making something unaffordable makes it unavailable.

neptuneblue wrote:

Wouldn't they be just as dead if knives were used?

Yes. That is exactly my point.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

This is why people who don't want a dictatorship should vote against trump.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

If you think Trump is a dictator, why would you want people to give up their weapons?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

That is exactly why it will be deemed unconstitutional. We should start making people take tests before they can vote, and pay a tax. Once they have completed the testing and paid their tax, they can vote.

I suppose this is what you guys mean when you say "Make America Great Again"...like it was in 1943.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Because the American military would be highly reluctant to fire on their own citizens, while the NRA nutters have proven over and over again they have no such compunctions.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Because the American military would be highly reluctant to fire on their own citizens,

I happen to agree with you, that's why I don't by the "we can't fight the US military because they have air planes and nukes." They would be very reluctant to fire on their own people.

Quote:

while the NRA nutters have proven over and over again they have no such compunctions.

You are being dishonest, not a single mass shooting has been committed by a member of the NRA.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Strict Scrutiny forbids preventing people from having weapons that are effective for self defense.

And how does the government have any interest in dictating the method that murderers use to commit their crimes? People are just as dead when they are killed with other weapons.

Automatic weapons are effective for self defense, but they're virtually banned by regulation. The same can be applied to other weapons.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

not a single mass shooting has been committed by a member of the NRA.

Your interpreting this upide down. Rather than looking or NRA members whove taken part in gun murders, let us know how many NRA members have ever tried to PREVENT same??

If the answer to my question is "ZERO" , then the question you posed is kinda BS isnt it??

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I didn't see his question. But he was correct to say that members of the NRA are not the ones who are committing mass shootings.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Automatic weapons are effective for self defense,

I don't know about that. The increased possibility of missing the target and striking a bystander makes full-autos inappropriate for both self defense and police work in my opinion.

But even if they are effective for self defense, they are not required for self defense. There are other alternatives.

Someone with a M1 Garand and a M1911 pistol is pretty well defended against most threats.

Even someone with a .30-30 rifle and a .357 revolver is pretty well defended against most threats.

Plus, people can provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to full-autos.

InfraBlue wrote:

but they're virtually banned by regulation. The same can be applied to other weapons.

Only if the restriction in question can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

And only if people are still able to have enough weaponry for effective self defense.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know