Online users
???: Message   

Oh, PLEASE. From comments: (This is like wading into a pre-school and swinging haymakers.)
Re: The insidious thinking of a progressive: -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

10/29/2018, 15:13:27

Author Profile Mail author Edit
 

I am not of the belief that I can convince you that the solution proposed here is something you might support but I do think that we should at least listen to each other when it comes to this issue. My view is that the Second Amendment must be upheld and that we as Americans have the right to own as many guns as we want.



 

"My view is that the Second Amendment must be upheld and that we as Americans have the right to own as many guns as we want."

Non sequitur. If you stand by your article, you give the lie to that statement.


 

So why not tax the living sh#t out of bullets? And using the current administration's precedence of "national security" in the imposition of tariffs, place a 25% (or more) tariff on all imported handguns? And the latter does not need Congressional approval, just a new President.


 

That 'clever' argument will cause the anti-gun left to end up laughingstocks.

In fact, I'm chuckling a bit right now! *smirk*

Such a retarded move would be met with a court challenge to the tax which, if not summarily granted amidst scorn and derogation aforehand, would rise to the SCOTUS and be granted certiorari.

Guaranteed, the Court would assume arguendo that "arms" means functional firearms that depend on ammunition to be in fact functional, hence ammunition is part and parcel of the whole, and such tax is retaliatory and an impermissible burden on a fundamental right, so, "Buh-bye, tax!"

Take your cue from this:

“Held:

“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008)

The thrust of that portion of the ruling (emphasized) is that gov't-imposed methods that facially interfere with the core right of self-defense are unconstitutional.

Wanna bet against it?


 

It is possible that taxes and tariffs could help but I argue here that we need a true long term solution. Someone once asked me "How many bullets does it take to rob a bank or for that matter you if I have a handgun?". The answer is zero. Then they said " How many bullets does a distraught person need to end their life?" The answer is one.



 

BNSFguy - you make a good point about the cost of handguns going up - to a degree this is indeed a consequence that would impact lower income Americans. Keep in mind that there are already a lot of handguns owned by lower income Americans and that this solution would provide those lower income handgun owners - in fact all handgun owners - with a dividend of sorts. Selling extra handguns for cash is a choice and all Americans would be able to make that choice. Remember - the value of all handguns in the US would increase substantially.

By the way I don't mind being called liberal or even that this could be a utopian dream. I understand your point of view and respect that. But I think you are missing the mark a bit calling me or this solution as racist. In any event thanks for your thoughts. We need discourse to solve this problem and we have to talk to each other.


 

Personally, I don't think you're a racist. I think you're a progressive, which nowadays is much more dangerous.





LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page