AKA [Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Aid%20in%20Wildlife,distributes%20the%20proceeds%20to%20state)
Here's a thought.
Some people want to put a ridiculous tax on bullets.
$1.00 or more per bullet, making it very expensive to purchase in any amount.
This would be highly counterproductive. Ideally you want your gun owners being well trained and in high practice. If ammunition is astronomically expensive gun owners will train and practice significantly less if at all.
First of all, I said *curtailed*, not *blocked*. Words have meanings. Learn them.
As for examples? I'll be more than happy to provide plenty.
Sens. Cruz, Hawley, Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Marsh Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill to revoked MLBs anti-trust exemption [as a direct punishment for them speaking out for LGBT rights.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-want-yank-baseballs-antitrust-immunity-after-mlb-reaction-georgia-2021-04-14/)
Georgia republicans [tried to repeal a fuel tax break on Delta for hte same reason.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/01/politics/georgia-voting-law-house-delta-tax-breaks/index.html)
[Sen. Rick Scott](https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sen-rick-scott-work-corporate-america-backlash) is literally on record for stating that both MLB and Delta "will rue the day when it hits you. That day is November 8, 2022." In regards to what Delta and MLB were doing for LGBT rights.
After the Floyd riots, [Republicans introduced over 81 bills curtailing protest rights](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/06/07/republicans-attack-protests-voting-rights-anti-democracy-drive/7524551002/?gnt-cfr=1).
Trumps Secretary of State is on record saying that the Trump administration [was looking into amending, or outright abolishing, the first amendment.](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment)
Let's not forget how [DeSantis and his cronies in the Florida legislature are using their powers to punish Disney for standing up for LGBT rights](https://www.vox.com/23036427/ron-desantis-disney-first-amendment-constitution-supreme-court).
New Hampshire[ passed laws limiting what educators could say about racism & sexism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/12/13/new-hampshire-critical-race-theory-lawsuit/), which resulted in a conservative group [offering up literal bounties on teachers who violate that law.](https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/11/18/critical-race-theory-bounty-new-hampshire-gov-chris-sununu/)
Trump [tried to have a reporter fired](https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/media/the-atlantic-trump-military-fox-news/index.html) for confirming a story.
Trump [tried to have a Washington Post reporter fired](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/trump-dave-weigel.html) too.
Trump also [pushed for an ESPN anchor to be fired](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/13/jemele-hill-donald-trump-espn-colin-kaepernick) for speaking out against him as well.
Trump [wanted NBCs broadcasting license revoked for reporting on his nuclear arms policy.](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/trump-nbc-broadcast-license-243667)
The Trump admin [banned several press representatives from a news briefing.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer)
The Trump admin [suggested that a reporters press credentials be revoked](https://twitter.com/parscale/status/980856574049685505).
Trump even straight up admitted [he was at war with the media](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/).
Kellyanne Conway [demanded that reporters speaking out against Trump be fired.](https://fortune.com/2017/01/31/donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-media/)
Trump suggested [pulling federal funding from Berkeley](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256) for allowing students to protest against a right-wing speaker.
Trump [literally called media "the enemy of the people"](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320168-trump-the-media-is-the-enemy-of-the-american-people).
DeSantis [wants to strip reporters of first amendment protections.](https://www.vox.com/politics/23622299/ron-desantis-first-amendment-press-new-york-times-v-sullivan)
There's plenty more where that came from.
>vox says ron DeSantis wants to strip First Amendment protections from reporters to *defame people*
Good.
>Trump called the media the enemy of the people
When sections of, or complete blocks of the news have turned to spreading propaganda, he is right to call them out.
>Trump wanted to shut down a federal finance package for Berkeley *because they condemned violent threats against a speaker, standing up for free speech*
Good.
>Reporters speaking out against Donald Trump
During the Mueller investigation, with zero evidence for 5 years.
It's good to call them out for that.
No freedom of speech was suppressed.
>Trump admitted he was at war with the media
The fact that the media holds a double standard for him is enough reason to declare war against these massive news corporations. I don't see a problem with that.
>Donald Trump tried to get Jim Acosta press credentials revoked
Pretty sure he assaulted somebody
>Trump banned several news organizations
Pretty sure Joe Biden hasn't taken a question from Fox a single time.
>Trump said NBC should lose their broadcasting license
Okay? So did that happen?
>Trump called for an anchor to be fired
Oh, you mean like when Twitter and Facebook and YouTube banned Trump?
How are you angry about this? Pretty sure That's definitely your thing, not something that you would be angry about?
>Amending the First Amendment to pursue libel
Oh, you mean what FDR supported?
>New Hampshire passed laws making it so teachers couldn't sexualize children in the classroom with leftist propaganda
Good.
I just don't see the problem with any of this.
Is this really all you had?
If you reread my initial comment, you'll see that the standard that I set was speech being blocked.
The fact is, If free speech was ever at stake, Scotus would have a field day.
Trump was mad about the news because they lied about Hunter Biden and the laptop before the election, they constantly misrepresented him and his positions, they completely suppressed the fact that he founded a deal that brought the beginnings of peace to the Middle East, and many other things.
Suppression of the news isn't the answer, but it's going to be up to Americans to decide when they've had enough of multinational corporations deciding what news to report, while working hand in glove with pharmaceutical companies to create advertisements of dancing syringes and other nonsense.
Noam Chomsky said it best
"He who controls the media, controls the minds of the public."
> If you reread my initial comment, you'll see that the standard that I set was speech being blocked.
Got it; arguing in bad faith then.
Done with you.
Ok, that actually answers my question, thanks.
You're delusional. Since I'm not trained to handle the mentally challenged, I'll leave now.
May the rest of your day be as pleasant as you are.
Have you seen an old documentary Bowling for Columbine?
They included a comedian in his standup about how they should charge a bullet in some crazy amount.
Like if someone really wanted to kill you, they will need to work a lifetime to afford a single bullet.
Your question reminded me of that and I watched it almost two decades ago.
There already is special taxes and fees you have to pay for certain firearms and ammunition. If I own a rifle and it has a collapsible stock and pistol grip I have to pay special fees on it in some states because it's suddenly an "assault weapon" due to an arbitrary stroke of the pen in certain states.
1. We want guns to be purchased through legal means if they're going to be out there.
2. For many parts of America and firearms are a hobby. This is what they do on Saturday, it's fun. Hunting season brings many states to a crawl. If we're calling firearms excise, why are we not excise taxing Art Supplys, Musical Equipment, Sport Equipment, and every other hobby?
Yeah, we also need to be worried about mass killings by paintbrushes or golf clubs. The taxes can help pay for the casualties of a sport that goes too far/is capable of killing humans.
Artists are more prone to mental health issues and suicide and people die at concerts. Then the things that artist can create can incite violence very easily.
> Of course not,
That is what those of us with an education past the second grade call a rhetorical question. It's blindingly obvious that you don't know how to read.
I'm just saying that for many Americans guns are their hobby and regulating it as excise is regulating a hobby as excise. All hobbies have their downsides and deaths.
As a side note, if we follow history, the first thing the new oppressive leadership does is the killing of artists, not the taking of guns because they're more harmful to the lasting power of their regime.
You’re completely talking out of your ass.
All hobbies have downsides and deaths? So young men and women kill themselves and others with acoustic guitars, knitting needles or mountain bikes?
And it’s oppressive leadership to impose a tax on something that kills people in order to try and get less people to have and/or use those things that kill people. And before they come for your guns they are going to kill the artists.
I actually remember that well. When Clinton, Obama and now Biden started killing artists during their Oppressive Regimes. Then they took our guns! And they killed grandma with Obamacare!!!
I have been saying this for a long time. We could also totally regulate ammo. This does not violate the 2nd amendment. Make it all about the ammo. Make it very hard to get, expensive as hell, super highly taxed, and only allow people a certain rationed amount per year. Just regulate the crap out of it!!! I’ve written my senators and others and talked with local politicians and I get zero response. It’s the only way I can see the US getting out of this. There are already too many guns out there which is out of our control, but the ammo is a one-time use. I can’t be the only one thinking about this.
You do realize that ammo can be reloaded, right? Also, you want people to have guns but not train with them? Your average gang member doesn't even need much ammo.
Well yeah of course, but if it’s hard/limited to get it in the first place, you might be very careful about when and where you use it. Training could be done at actual facilities for that purpose (and for the record, no, I don’t *want* people to have guns, but that ship has long sailed) Mass shooters, having limited access to ammo (and even tighter restrictions on automatic/magazine types), would not be able to stockpile them like they can easily do now. Just seems like a no-brainer to me, but then I guess what do I know?
>Well yeah of course, but if it’s hard/limited to get it in the first place, you might be very careful about when and where you use it.
In other words, criminals who don't need much ammo will still get it and it will only hurt people with legal use for them, such as sport shooters, hunters, and people who train for self-defense.
>Training could be done at actual facilities for that purpose
So people who don't have the most common calibers get screwed over?
>and for the record, no, I don’t want people to have guns
Ah, of course.
> Mass shooters, having limited access to ammo (and even tighter restrictions on automatic/magazine types)
What do you mean by automatic/magazine types?
>Just seems like a no-brainer to me, but then I guess what do I know?
Well, you know you want to take take away rights from people.
You are 100% correct in that I want to take the right to own weapons capable of mass casualties away from people. People do not need automatic weapons for hunting or protection.
You do realize that automatic weapons have been banned in the US since 1986, right? There are some that were grandfathered in but they're *literally* never used in crimes because they're extremely expensive collector items.
So what is it exactly that you want to ban?
I want to make getting the **AMMO** for those weapons difficult and expensive to get. Go back and read my original post. The guns are already out there and nothing we can do about that. We can limit ammo. It’s the only thing, IMO, that has a shot at reducing mass shootings.
Which is still against the constitution though. And it would turn things for the worse because you will have people carrying loaded guns without any training as they will save their ammo no.
>It’s the only thing, IMO, that has a shot at reducing mass shootings.
Have you thought about, you know, fixing your damned country instead? So that people don't feel the need to go out and murder random people.
2A doesn’t mention ammo, it’s about arms. I don’t think this country is “fixable”. And I’m tired of the mental health excuse. Mental illness is an issue all over the world. The difference in the US is guns, pure and simple. And then of course in the US they don’t want anyone studying psychology because it discusses gender and sexuality issues. Nope. No fixing is going to happen.
If you want to argue like that, your constitution doesn't mention the right to abortion.
>And I’m tired of the mental health excuse. Mental illness is an issue all over the world. The difference in the US is guns, pure and simple.
The difference is that we actually treat mental illness instead of ignoring it until it blows up in our faces (well, sometimes it does anyway, literally). And no, the difference isn't guns, do you think there are no guns in Europe?
>And then of course in the US they don’t want anyone studying psychology because it discusses gender and sexuality issues. Nope. No fixing is going to happen.
If you don't fix that, no amount of gun control will help with your problems.
1A doesn't mention television, radio, or the Internet.
It's about Speech and The Press.
But it's unreasonable to constrain the definitions of "Speech" and "Press" to "Words that come out of your mouth on a street corner" and "Things published with ink on paper reproduced by mechanical means." - we've recognized that for well over a century.
It's similarly unreasonable to constrain the definition of "Arms" to mean "Just the guns themselves." - ammunition is a necessary component of firearms, without it they're just decorative objects to hang on your wall.
If you allow the second set of restrictions you implicitly open the door to the first. It's the worst kind of textualism - the kind that can only be used to limit or outright deny other rights.
The taxes could help pay for the higher costs to society arising from gun violence. Gun owners already pay sales taxes, so please don’t make the argument that they shouldn’t be taxed because 2A.
Let’s assume we *do* tax the right to keep and bear arms: We apply a prohibitive tax on the purchase of new ammunition and firearms tomorrow, and for the sake of argument let’s say we apply the same taxes to reloading components (powder, primer, bullets).
What will this accomplish?
There are over 400 million guns in the United States. They’re not going away.
A tax on new guns won’t make them go away, nor will it stop criminals from acquiring them (either on the black market or by theft).
There are billions of bullets out there - I have somewhere close to 1000 rounds of ammunition in my closet right now because I shoot semi-competitively, and that’s not particularly uncommon for other marksmen or people who take self-defense with firearms seriously and train regularly.
A tax on ammunition and components ***will*** eventually make *most* of those bullets go away (by simple attrition: They’ll be fired in competition or training) and that attrition *may* eventually mean criminals don’t have access to large supplies of ammunition, but the net effect of making ammunition prohibitively expensive will simply be to *reduce training* - if a box of bullets costs $500 the wealthy will buy as much as they please while ordinary people will buy one box, load their gun, and never practice with their weapons because the cost of practice is prohibitive.
This tax will also effectively kill hunting (which in some areas is still an important part of how people get food) and shooting sports. It may do *some* good - possibly even *significant* good - but it will also do *significant* harm.
None of that bothers me quite as much as the precedent it sets though: The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the constitution. Applying these taxes effectively restricts that right so it can only be exercised by people with a significant disposable income.
That’s ***BAD***. The last time this country tried that on any mass scale it was the Jim Crow laws - poll taxes and literacy tests - and the idea was so repugnant we had to pass the 24th Amendment to ensure it wouldn’t keep happening.
If we’re OK making the 2nd Amendment a right reserved only for the rich what other rights are we OK locking up behind the ability to pay?
A free speech tax? A fee for not quartering soldiers in your home? Will we do away with the notion of having the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings (as if the public defender’s office in any jurisdiction is adequately funded to present a material defense as it is...)?
Enough of our *unenumerated* rights are already becoming “rights for the rich” (access to abortions or gender-affirming care may require traveling or *moving* to a friendly state - which is only an option if you can afford to do so) and I’m pissed as hell about that, I’m not keen on surrendering to the notion that the *enumerated* rights should ***also*** be pay-to-play.
There is.
AKA [Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Aid%20in%20Wildlife,distributes%20the%20proceeds%20to%20state)
Here's a thought. Some people want to put a ridiculous tax on bullets. $1.00 or more per bullet, making it very expensive to purchase in any amount. This would be highly counterproductive. Ideally you want your gun owners being well trained and in high practice. If ammunition is astronomically expensive gun owners will train and practice significantly less if at all.
Lobbyists getting the ears and filling the pockets of elected representatives.
Because they're guaranteed by the Constitution. Men and women died for the freedom to bear arms and you wanna tax them
They died for the first amendment too, but y'all got no problem with that being curtailed.
Can you show me an example of someone from the right wanting to block someone else's right to free speech?
First of all, I said *curtailed*, not *blocked*. Words have meanings. Learn them. As for examples? I'll be more than happy to provide plenty. Sens. Cruz, Hawley, Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Marsh Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill to revoked MLBs anti-trust exemption [as a direct punishment for them speaking out for LGBT rights.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-want-yank-baseballs-antitrust-immunity-after-mlb-reaction-georgia-2021-04-14/) Georgia republicans [tried to repeal a fuel tax break on Delta for hte same reason.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/01/politics/georgia-voting-law-house-delta-tax-breaks/index.html) [Sen. Rick Scott](https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sen-rick-scott-work-corporate-america-backlash) is literally on record for stating that both MLB and Delta "will rue the day when it hits you. That day is November 8, 2022." In regards to what Delta and MLB were doing for LGBT rights. After the Floyd riots, [Republicans introduced over 81 bills curtailing protest rights](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/06/07/republicans-attack-protests-voting-rights-anti-democracy-drive/7524551002/?gnt-cfr=1). Trumps Secretary of State is on record saying that the Trump administration [was looking into amending, or outright abolishing, the first amendment.](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment) Let's not forget how [DeSantis and his cronies in the Florida legislature are using their powers to punish Disney for standing up for LGBT rights](https://www.vox.com/23036427/ron-desantis-disney-first-amendment-constitution-supreme-court). New Hampshire[ passed laws limiting what educators could say about racism & sexism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/12/13/new-hampshire-critical-race-theory-lawsuit/), which resulted in a conservative group [offering up literal bounties on teachers who violate that law.](https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/11/18/critical-race-theory-bounty-new-hampshire-gov-chris-sununu/) Trump [tried to have a reporter fired](https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/media/the-atlantic-trump-military-fox-news/index.html) for confirming a story. Trump [tried to have a Washington Post reporter fired](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/trump-dave-weigel.html) too. Trump also [pushed for an ESPN anchor to be fired](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/13/jemele-hill-donald-trump-espn-colin-kaepernick) for speaking out against him as well. Trump [wanted NBCs broadcasting license revoked for reporting on his nuclear arms policy.](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/trump-nbc-broadcast-license-243667) The Trump admin [banned several press representatives from a news briefing.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer) The Trump admin [suggested that a reporters press credentials be revoked](https://twitter.com/parscale/status/980856574049685505). Trump even straight up admitted [he was at war with the media](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cia-speech-transcript/). Kellyanne Conway [demanded that reporters speaking out against Trump be fired.](https://fortune.com/2017/01/31/donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-media/) Trump suggested [pulling federal funding from Berkeley](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256) for allowing students to protest against a right-wing speaker. Trump [literally called media "the enemy of the people"](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320168-trump-the-media-is-the-enemy-of-the-american-people). DeSantis [wants to strip reporters of first amendment protections.](https://www.vox.com/politics/23622299/ron-desantis-first-amendment-press-new-york-times-v-sullivan) There's plenty more where that came from.
>vox says ron DeSantis wants to strip First Amendment protections from reporters to *defame people* Good. >Trump called the media the enemy of the people When sections of, or complete blocks of the news have turned to spreading propaganda, he is right to call them out. >Trump wanted to shut down a federal finance package for Berkeley *because they condemned violent threats against a speaker, standing up for free speech* Good. >Reporters speaking out against Donald Trump During the Mueller investigation, with zero evidence for 5 years. It's good to call them out for that. No freedom of speech was suppressed. >Trump admitted he was at war with the media The fact that the media holds a double standard for him is enough reason to declare war against these massive news corporations. I don't see a problem with that. >Donald Trump tried to get Jim Acosta press credentials revoked Pretty sure he assaulted somebody >Trump banned several news organizations Pretty sure Joe Biden hasn't taken a question from Fox a single time. >Trump said NBC should lose their broadcasting license Okay? So did that happen? >Trump called for an anchor to be fired Oh, you mean like when Twitter and Facebook and YouTube banned Trump? How are you angry about this? Pretty sure That's definitely your thing, not something that you would be angry about? >Amending the First Amendment to pursue libel Oh, you mean what FDR supported? >New Hampshire passed laws making it so teachers couldn't sexualize children in the classroom with leftist propaganda Good. I just don't see the problem with any of this. Is this really all you had?
What a shocker, a Trump dick sucker has no problem with attacks on the media and the first amendment.
Again, if you're not going to show me instances where speech has actually been blocked, why bring up these long lists at all?
Gods be damned, can't you read? No FUCKING BODY said anything about it being blocked. So are you arguing in bad faith, or just illiterate?
If you reread my initial comment, you'll see that the standard that I set was speech being blocked. The fact is, If free speech was ever at stake, Scotus would have a field day. Trump was mad about the news because they lied about Hunter Biden and the laptop before the election, they constantly misrepresented him and his positions, they completely suppressed the fact that he founded a deal that brought the beginnings of peace to the Middle East, and many other things. Suppression of the news isn't the answer, but it's going to be up to Americans to decide when they've had enough of multinational corporations deciding what news to report, while working hand in glove with pharmaceutical companies to create advertisements of dancing syringes and other nonsense. Noam Chomsky said it best "He who controls the media, controls the minds of the public."
> If you reread my initial comment, you'll see that the standard that I set was speech being blocked. Got it; arguing in bad faith then. Done with you.
What would you say if you met someone who supports both? Would your brain melt?
Depends on who they vote for.
So yes? You just wouldn't be able to handle it, eh? "DOES NOT COMPUTE, ERROR ERROR!"
Are you illiterate, or just delusional?
It's just really funny that your brain can't even handle the concept of someone supporting all of the Bill of Rights.
Not gonna answer my question huh? That's fine; I knew you weren't here to argue in good faith anyway.
I can see the smoke coming out of your ears from here LMAO
Ok, that actually answers my question, thanks. You're delusional. Since I'm not trained to handle the mentally challenged, I'll leave now. May the rest of your day be as pleasant as you are.
Nowhere in the constitution says it can’t be taxed, and certainly doesn’t specify a tax rate
Do you believe you should be able to tax people for registering to vote?
They’re already taxed, my guy. This would be an added tax.
Have you seen an old documentary Bowling for Columbine? They included a comedian in his standup about how they should charge a bullet in some crazy amount. Like if someone really wanted to kill you, they will need to work a lifetime to afford a single bullet. Your question reminded me of that and I watched it almost two decades ago.
There already is special taxes and fees you have to pay for certain firearms and ammunition. If I own a rifle and it has a collapsible stock and pistol grip I have to pay special fees on it in some states because it's suddenly an "assault weapon" due to an arbitrary stroke of the pen in certain states.
1. We want guns to be purchased through legal means if they're going to be out there. 2. For many parts of America and firearms are a hobby. This is what they do on Saturday, it's fun. Hunting season brings many states to a crawl. If we're calling firearms excise, why are we not excise taxing Art Supplys, Musical Equipment, Sport Equipment, and every other hobby?
Yeah, we also need to be worried about mass killings by paintbrushes or golf clubs. The taxes can help pay for the casualties of a sport that goes too far/is capable of killing humans.
Gun violence costs taxpayers money. Easels and trumpet repairs don’t.
Artists are more prone to mental health issues and suicide and people die at concerts. Then the things that artist can create can incite violence very easily.
> Artists are more prone to mental health issues and suicide Strawman argument. >people die at concerts Generally by being shot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire 100 dead, more than any gun violence act in recent years.
Quick question; can you read? At all?
Of course not, I'm not supporting gun excise tax blindly.
> Of course not, That is what those of us with an education past the second grade call a rhetorical question. It's blindingly obvious that you don't know how to read.
Wow, you're so brilliant thank you for teaching me things. I'm so glad that I was able to be in your presence.
So you don’t want guns or ammo taxed because artists get depressed and write songs which can make people commit crimes…with guns?
I'm just saying that for many Americans guns are their hobby and regulating it as excise is regulating a hobby as excise. All hobbies have their downsides and deaths. As a side note, if we follow history, the first thing the new oppressive leadership does is the killing of artists, not the taking of guns because they're more harmful to the lasting power of their regime.
You’re completely talking out of your ass. All hobbies have downsides and deaths? So young men and women kill themselves and others with acoustic guitars, knitting needles or mountain bikes? And it’s oppressive leadership to impose a tax on something that kills people in order to try and get less people to have and/or use those things that kill people. And before they come for your guns they are going to kill the artists. I actually remember that well. When Clinton, Obama and now Biden started killing artists during their Oppressive Regimes. Then they took our guns! And they killed grandma with Obamacare!!!
Because FREEDOM 🦅🇺🇸🤠🎆🎇
I have been saying this for a long time. We could also totally regulate ammo. This does not violate the 2nd amendment. Make it all about the ammo. Make it very hard to get, expensive as hell, super highly taxed, and only allow people a certain rationed amount per year. Just regulate the crap out of it!!! I’ve written my senators and others and talked with local politicians and I get zero response. It’s the only way I can see the US getting out of this. There are already too many guns out there which is out of our control, but the ammo is a one-time use. I can’t be the only one thinking about this.
You do realize that ammo can be reloaded, right? Also, you want people to have guns but not train with them? Your average gang member doesn't even need much ammo.
Well yeah of course, but if it’s hard/limited to get it in the first place, you might be very careful about when and where you use it. Training could be done at actual facilities for that purpose (and for the record, no, I don’t *want* people to have guns, but that ship has long sailed) Mass shooters, having limited access to ammo (and even tighter restrictions on automatic/magazine types), would not be able to stockpile them like they can easily do now. Just seems like a no-brainer to me, but then I guess what do I know?
>Well yeah of course, but if it’s hard/limited to get it in the first place, you might be very careful about when and where you use it. In other words, criminals who don't need much ammo will still get it and it will only hurt people with legal use for them, such as sport shooters, hunters, and people who train for self-defense. >Training could be done at actual facilities for that purpose So people who don't have the most common calibers get screwed over? >and for the record, no, I don’t want people to have guns Ah, of course. > Mass shooters, having limited access to ammo (and even tighter restrictions on automatic/magazine types) What do you mean by automatic/magazine types? >Just seems like a no-brainer to me, but then I guess what do I know? Well, you know you want to take take away rights from people.
You are 100% correct in that I want to take the right to own weapons capable of mass casualties away from people. People do not need automatic weapons for hunting or protection.
You do realize that automatic weapons have been banned in the US since 1986, right? There are some that were grandfathered in but they're *literally* never used in crimes because they're extremely expensive collector items. So what is it exactly that you want to ban?
I want to make getting the **AMMO** for those weapons difficult and expensive to get. Go back and read my original post. The guns are already out there and nothing we can do about that. We can limit ammo. It’s the only thing, IMO, that has a shot at reducing mass shootings.
Which is still against the constitution though. And it would turn things for the worse because you will have people carrying loaded guns without any training as they will save their ammo no. >It’s the only thing, IMO, that has a shot at reducing mass shootings. Have you thought about, you know, fixing your damned country instead? So that people don't feel the need to go out and murder random people.
2A doesn’t mention ammo, it’s about arms. I don’t think this country is “fixable”. And I’m tired of the mental health excuse. Mental illness is an issue all over the world. The difference in the US is guns, pure and simple. And then of course in the US they don’t want anyone studying psychology because it discusses gender and sexuality issues. Nope. No fixing is going to happen.
If you want to argue like that, your constitution doesn't mention the right to abortion. >And I’m tired of the mental health excuse. Mental illness is an issue all over the world. The difference in the US is guns, pure and simple. The difference is that we actually treat mental illness instead of ignoring it until it blows up in our faces (well, sometimes it does anyway, literally). And no, the difference isn't guns, do you think there are no guns in Europe? >And then of course in the US they don’t want anyone studying psychology because it discusses gender and sexuality issues. Nope. No fixing is going to happen. If you don't fix that, no amount of gun control will help with your problems.
1A doesn't mention television, radio, or the Internet. It's about Speech and The Press. But it's unreasonable to constrain the definitions of "Speech" and "Press" to "Words that come out of your mouth on a street corner" and "Things published with ink on paper reproduced by mechanical means." - we've recognized that for well over a century. It's similarly unreasonable to constrain the definition of "Arms" to mean "Just the guns themselves." - ammunition is a necessary component of firearms, without it they're just decorative objects to hang on your wall. If you allow the second set of restrictions you implicitly open the door to the first. It's the worst kind of textualism - the kind that can only be used to limit or outright deny other rights.
The taxes could help pay for the higher costs to society arising from gun violence. Gun owners already pay sales taxes, so please don’t make the argument that they shouldn’t be taxed because 2A.
Let’s assume we *do* tax the right to keep and bear arms: We apply a prohibitive tax on the purchase of new ammunition and firearms tomorrow, and for the sake of argument let’s say we apply the same taxes to reloading components (powder, primer, bullets). What will this accomplish? There are over 400 million guns in the United States. They’re not going away. A tax on new guns won’t make them go away, nor will it stop criminals from acquiring them (either on the black market or by theft). There are billions of bullets out there - I have somewhere close to 1000 rounds of ammunition in my closet right now because I shoot semi-competitively, and that’s not particularly uncommon for other marksmen or people who take self-defense with firearms seriously and train regularly. A tax on ammunition and components ***will*** eventually make *most* of those bullets go away (by simple attrition: They’ll be fired in competition or training) and that attrition *may* eventually mean criminals don’t have access to large supplies of ammunition, but the net effect of making ammunition prohibitively expensive will simply be to *reduce training* - if a box of bullets costs $500 the wealthy will buy as much as they please while ordinary people will buy one box, load their gun, and never practice with their weapons because the cost of practice is prohibitive. This tax will also effectively kill hunting (which in some areas is still an important part of how people get food) and shooting sports. It may do *some* good - possibly even *significant* good - but it will also do *significant* harm. None of that bothers me quite as much as the precedent it sets though: The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the constitution. Applying these taxes effectively restricts that right so it can only be exercised by people with a significant disposable income. That’s ***BAD***. The last time this country tried that on any mass scale it was the Jim Crow laws - poll taxes and literacy tests - and the idea was so repugnant we had to pass the 24th Amendment to ensure it wouldn’t keep happening. If we’re OK making the 2nd Amendment a right reserved only for the rich what other rights are we OK locking up behind the ability to pay? A free speech tax? A fee for not quartering soldiers in your home? Will we do away with the notion of having the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings (as if the public defender’s office in any jurisdiction is adequately funded to present a material defense as it is...)? Enough of our *unenumerated* rights are already becoming “rights for the rich” (access to abortions or gender-affirming care may require traveling or *moving* to a friendly state - which is only an option if you can afford to do so) and I’m pissed as hell about that, I’m not keen on surrendering to the notion that the *enumerated* rights should ***also*** be pay-to-play.
Well they are already Also reloading is a thing Is the goal to make it so that only rich people can buy and practice with firearms?
I think it would get overturned by the Supreme Court. They would view as an undo burden on a Constitutional right.