House Passes Gun-Control Bill Expanding Background Checks on Firearm Sales

[Axxe55]

How then would you determine if the taxes are being used in such a manner?

And what of Pitman-Robertson taxes? Those were kinda voluntary at the time enacted IIRC.

All you have to do would be to look at who is wanting to tax firearms, ammo or firearms accessories and their intent behind the taxing to determine that.

When you have rabid anti-gun politicians pushing for taxes and registrations on firearms, as a means of "allowing" us to still possess them, or to face penalties if we don't comply, that is a sure to IMO of using excessive taxes to further restrict a citizen from being able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[HawkeyeSATX]

An historian friend (I still find it odd that I have to use "an" instead of "a") insists that ammo, and all firearm attachments, are considered part and parcel of "arms" under the 2A, and therefore cannot be prohibited.

That brings up the question of whether as such taxes on those items can be considered "infringed".

I'm glad you brought that up. To the anti-gun coalition, they try to pick at things. Their tactic is this: they come come at the politicians with a slew of laws they want enacted. They know that not all of the proposals will be made into law, but as long as one makes, they're golden. They keep continuing to do so, until all of our 2nd Amendment rights are taken away. They chip and hammer at what they call senseful gun laws ( does that sound familiar?)

Here are some FBI statistics:
When dealing with a life or death situation at home, like a home intruder, it takes the police department 20 - 25 minutes to arrive on scene. That's way too long to wait, and not be able to defend yourself.

In a situation where we would be invaded: the U.S. Government won't react right away. They won't come in to an area without some sort of plan.
It will take at least 30 days to come up with a plan of attack and resist the invaders, and push them out. So, in those thirty plus days, if you're lucky enough to still be alive, and you're not able to defend yourself, you can pretty much consider yourself a casualty of war, because any one of the enemies we face right now, don't believe in the Geneva Convention of lawful warfare, which means they will kill all of the residents living in the area they have control over.
So, some things to think over.
This is the cold, hard truth.
Our city government, our state government, our national government is not capable of fully protecting us, our loved ones, our friends, our homes, or our cities.
If we allow any more 2nd Amendment rights to be eroded, our future is bleak.
Who will defend us in those short few moments?!?
Don't rely on any of our government leaders.
It's up to us, under full provision of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment!


Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

 

[bbbass]

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!

 

[bbbass]

All you have to do would be to look at who is wanting to tax firearms, ammo or firearms accessories and their intent behind the taxing to determine that.

When you have rabid anti-gun politicians pushing for taxes and registrations on firearms, as a means of "allowing" us to still possess them, or to face penalties if we don't comply, that is a sure to IMO of using excessive taxes to further restrict a citizen from being able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights.

Yes, all great observations. But I was thinking more along the lines of what would be used in a courtroom to reverse such policies or laws.

 

[bbbass]

BTW, people that have lost loved ones always seem to be the most rabid of anti-gunners.

We have one here in OR legislature... an R named Prozanski that lost a son. Every year he puts forth new gun control measures, along with his commie sidekick Ginnie Burdick.

 

[Kar98]

I would have said NSFW...

And you would have been correct.

 

[cycleguy2300]

How then would you determine if the taxes are being used in such a manner?

And what of Pitman-Robertson taxes? Those were kinda voluntary at the time enacted IIRC.

Paying tax to vote seems to be held as an infringement on the right to vote...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Yes, all great observations. But I was thinking more along the lines of what would be used in a courtroom to reverse such policies or laws.

Lawyers would be needed to discern the legal wording and to put it forth to work in a courtroom. That ain't me! I am no legal scholar by any stretch, I just understand the basic fundamentals and theories of the law.

I will even throw this out there, and it's simply an opinion of mine. Every state, that has system of requiring to pay a fee and to undertake training in order to have a carry permit, is also an infringement upon a person's 2nd Amendment rights. If a person can't afford the class and training and the permit fee, then "legally" they can't carry a firearm on their person, concealed or openly. So that system is an infringement upon those that can't afford the costs of getting a permit to carry.

 

[bbbass]

I will even throw this out there, and it's simply an opinion of mine. Every state, that has system of requiring to pay a fee and to undertake training in order to have a carry permit, is also an infringement upon a person's 2nd Amendment rights. If a person can't afford the class and training and the permit fee, then "legally" they can't carry a firearm on their person, concealed or openly. So that system is an infringement upon those that can't afford the costs of getting a permit to carry.

Needing a permit to carry IMO is an infringement to start with... SCOTUS should have determined that all methods of bearing arms are constitutional, ie Constitutional Carry states should be the rule rather than the exception. Don't even get me started on states that require a permit to buy and own a firearm!!!!!!!

 

[Army 1911]

I've consistently said that the government should pass some legislation, calling it a Universal Background Check, that would infringe LESS on the rights of gun owners than the current system. That would be a step in the right direction.

So you're in favor of some infringements. Infringing less is still an infringement.
Banning assault rifles is less of an infringement than banning all guns.
Where do the less infringements stop? The left wants them to stop after all have been infringed.

 

[Axxe55]

Needing a permit to carry IMO is an infringement to start with... SCOTUS should have determined that all methods are bearing arms are constitutional, ie Constitutional Carry states should be the rule rather than the exception. Don't even get me started on states that require a permit to buy and own a firearm!!!!!!!

Mt position is, every state should have Constitutional Carry since the 2nd Amendment is SUPPOSE to apply to all states in this country. Key word, suppose to apply. If a person is of legal age and not prohibited from buying, possessing and owning a gun, they should be able to carry concealed or open if they so choose to carry a gun. No fees, no permits, and no training required.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Lawyers would be needed to discern the legal wording and to put it forth to work in a courtroom. That ain't me! I am no legal scholar by any stretch, I just understand the basic fundamentals and theories of the law.

I will even throw this out there, and it's simply an opinion of mine. Every state, that has system of requiring to pay a fee and to undertake training in order to have a carry permit, is also an infringement upon a person's 2nd Amendment rights. If a person can't afford the class and training and the permit fee, then "legally" they can't carry a firearm on their person, concealed or openly. So that system is an infringement upon those that can't afford the costs of getting a permit to carry.

Texas at least has a path for indigent citizens to obtain a LTC.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I'm glad you brought that up. To the anti-gun coalition, they try to pick at things. Their tactic is this: they come come at the politicians with a slew of laws they want enacted. They know that not all of the proposals will be made into law, but as long as one makes, they're golden. They keep continuing to do so, until all of our 2nd Amendment rights are taken away. They chip and hammer at what they call senseful gun laws ( does that sound familiar?)

Here are some FBI statistics:
When dealing with a life or death situation at home, like a home intruder, it takes the police department 20 - 25 minutes to arrive on scene. That's way too long to wait, and not be able to defend yourself.

In a situation where we would be invaded: the U.S. Government won't react right away. They won't come in to an area without some sort of plan.
It will take at least 30 days to come up with a plan of attack and resist the invaders, and push them out. So, in those thirty plus days, if you're lucky enough to still be alive, and you're not able to defend yourself, you can pretty much consider yourself a casualty of war, because any one of the enemies we face right now, don't believe in the Geneva Convention of lawful warfare, which means they will kill all of the residents living in the area they have control over.
So, some things to think over.
This is the cold, hard truth.
Our city government, our state government, our national government is not capable of fully protecting us, our loved ones, our friends, our homes, or our cities.
If we allow any more 2nd Amendment rights to be eroded, our future is bleak.
Who will defend us in those short few moments?!?
Don't rely on any of our government leaders.
It's up to us, under full provision of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment!


Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

Where do you get the idea it would take a month to come up with a plan to repel an invading military force? Sure, some things take a few days, but there would be rapid, immediate response.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[HawkeyeSATX]

Where do you get the idea it would take a month to come up with a plan to repel an invading military force? Sure, some things take a few days, but there would be rapid, immediate response.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Rapid response? How rapid do you think it would be?
Our Armed forces are trained to fight on foreign soil, not ours.
Our Army doesn't do anything quick. The top brass ( aka generals ) have to have intel, and briefings before making any decisions. Then they have to consult the President, and unfortunately, the current "President", in which if his brains were dynamite, doesn't have enough to blow his nose, would have to have his advisors giving him input.
But yes, 30 days + is a conservative estimate.
Don't bet on their being a "Rapid" response, it just wouldn't be there.
Logistically, it takes about 4 - 5 days to load a brigade of tanks onto a train to get them there to make sure the enemy wouldn't go any further.
Plus, does anyone know what the acceptable amount of civilian loss is due to collateral damage?
The FBI, and Army estimates about 10%. So, you can guarantee that there will be a minimum of 10% civilian casualties when they go in to re-patriate the people in such an invasion zone.


Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

So you're in favor of some infringements.

Not exactly. I made that clear in post #159 when I said:

The ultimate goal (and I'm borrowing this from Vin Suprenowicz (sp?)) is that gun laws should be repealed until any 16-year-old girl can walk into Home Depot, plunk down cash, and walk out with a newly manufactured 1919 Browning, no questions asked, no paperwork required.

I am in favor of essentially no infringements. All rights have limitations. Even though I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist, the old, tired example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire still stands. So I accept that there may be some acceptable infringement on the 2A. I illustrated how limited I believe that infringement should be in post #187 when I said:

If someone is adjudicated mentally incompetent they may be peaceful. They may not deserve to be institutionalized. But they may simply be untrustworthy with a firearm. I don't have a problem with them being prohibited persons though I should also stress that I think that "adjudicated" bar needs to be set really, really high.

The only thing I'm trying to say in this thread is that we could, with some political smarts and backbone, potentially make progress toward less infrinement. Even though this...

Infringing less is still an infringement.

...is true, can't we agree that less infringement tomorrow, compared to today, would be a good thing?

Then we could work toward even less infringement in the years beyond that.

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of gun owners who don't want to work toward less infringement. They want to sit in one place, like a stump, and repeatedly grumble "Not one more inch!" They're not willing to give an inch in one area even if it gains them a mile in another. They're not willing to discuss that such a thing might even be possible. They have so little faith in the ability of 2A believers to negotiate, they have completely foreclosed the possibility in their own minds that progress towards more freedom is even possible.

"Not one more inch!" is not just obstructionist, it's defeatist. It's accepting the status quo and giving up the fight for real progress. It's embracing the current and completely unacceptable level of infringement we currently endure without being arsed to make the slightest effort to improve the situation.

"Not one more inch!" isn't principle. It's virtue signalling. And it's just as impractical/harmful as the virtue signalling of the progressives.

I just hope that all the "Not one more inch!" folks are giving money to the FPC, the GOA, or the SAF, etc. If they do, then they're doing something to make the world a better place and they earn a pass. They may have their heads in the wrong place but at least they're contributing to the effort.

So, to everyone who has ever said "Not one more inch!" on TGT, I assume you've given to the right activists and I hold no ill will toward you.

I just wish y'all would concentrate a little less on principle and a little more on the practical, real-world strategies needed to win back our freedoms via effective political and legal action.

Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good...

 

[oldag]

Not exactly. I made that clear in post #159 when I said:

I am in favor of essentially no infringements. All rights have limitations. Even though I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist, the old, tired example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire still stands. So I accept that there may be some acceptable infringement on the 2A. I illustrated how limited I believe that infringement should be in post #187 when I said:

The only thing I'm trying to say in this thread is that we could, with some political smarts and backbone, potentially make progress toward less infrinement. Even though this...
...is true, can't we agree that less infringement tomorrow, compared to today, would be a good thing?

Then we could work toward even less infringement in the years beyond that.

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of gun owners who don't want to work toward less infringement. They want to sit in one place, like a stump, and repeatedly grumble "Not one more inch!" They're not willing to give an inch in one area even if it gains them a mile in another. They're not willing to discuss that such a thing might even be possible. They have so little faith in the ability of 2A believers to negotiate, they have completely foreclosed the possibility in their own minds that progress towards more freedom is even possible.

"Not one more inch!" is not just obstructionist, it's defeatist. It's accepting the status quo and giving up the fight for real progress. It's embracing the current and completely unacceptable level of infringement we currently endure without being arsed to make the slightest effort to improve the situation.

"Not one more inch!" isn't principle. It's virtue signalling. And it's just as impractical/harmful as the virtue signalling of the progressives.

I just hope that all the "Not one more inch!" folks are giving money to the FPC, the GOA, or the SAF, etc. If they do, then they're doing something to make the world a better place and they earn a pass. They may have their heads in the wrong place but at least they're contributing to the effort.

So, to everyone who has ever said "Not one more inch!" on TGT, I assume you've given to the right activists and I hold no ill will toward you.

I just wish y'all would concentrate a little less on principle and a little more on the practical, real-world strategies needed to win back our freedoms via effective political and legal action.

Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good...

With respect to the current status of our country, more than just 2A issues, where has the compromising with liberals gotten us?

All that has happened is we have given ground every single time, with not one thing in return.

It is past time to draw the line in the sand.

 

[jrbfishn]

Y'll might want to listen about Ben's plan. It's better than you think.
Drawing a line in the sand is fine.
But without SCOTUS to stand on that line with us, as much as I hate to say it, Ben is right.
The other side needs to be the one doing the compromising and think they are getting something when they really don't. Use their own tactics against them.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

where has the compromising with liberals gotten us?

All that has happened is we have given ground every single time, with not one thing in return.

I don't disagree. I'm just arguing we need to do better. We need to work smarter.

It is past time to draw the line in the sand.

But drawing a line in the sand isn't the way to work smarter. It's an invitation to a winner-take-all brawl. It's an invitation to all-out war where the loser loses everything.

I honestly believe there's a chance we could lose everything. Because I believe that, I accept the need to not draw un-cross-able lines but, instead, to work the system to try to make incremental progress.

We have successfully made incremental progress, a great deal of it, at the state level and in the courts over the last 30 years. Look at how much more common the ability to legally carry a firearm has become over that time frame in so many states. Look at the Heller decision. Why can't we bring that mindset to the arena of federal legislation?

Incrementalism isn't a dirty word. It's just a strategy. It's a strategy that has been used effectively against us for a long time at the federal level. I'd just like to see us turn that around and start winning at that level. I think it's possible as long as we don't fall into a self-defeating, absolutist mindset.

 

[karlac]

I don't disagree. I'm just arguing we need to do better. We need to work smarter.

But drawing a line in the sand isn't the way to work smarter. It's an invitation to a winner-take-all brawl. It's an invitation to all-out war where the loser loses everything.

I honestly believe there's a chance we could lose everything. Because I believe that, I accept the need to not draw un-cross-able lines but, instead, to work the system to try to make incremental progress.

We have successfully made incremental progress, a great deal of it, at the state level and in the courts over the last 30 years. Look at how much more common the ability to legally carry a firearm has become over that time frame in so many states. Look at the Heller decision. Why can't we bring that mindset to the arena of federal legislation?

Incrementalism isn't a dirty word. It's just a strategy. It's a strategy that has been used effectively against us for a long time at the federal level. I'd just like to see us turn that around and start winning at that level. I think it's possible as long as we don't fall into a self-defeating, absolutist mindset.

What about incorporating a "Sunset provision" in these types of government grabs for power?
Just a thought ... not researched, but was effective in Texas with the law that created the Residential Construction Commission.

 

[oldag]

Y'll might want to listen about Ben's plan. It's better than you think.
Drawing a line in the sand is fine.
But without SCOTUS to stand on that line with us, as much as I hate to say it, Ben is right.
The other side needs to be the one doing the compromising and think they are getting something when they really don't. Use their own tactics against them.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Actually, we now have five solid Constitutionalists on SCOTUS, we don't have to have Roberts any more.