HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:08 AM

Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to Punish Online Gun Seller, Narrow Loophoole in Law

Source: The Daily Beast

Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to Punish Online Gun Seller, Narrow Loophoole in Law
Dec 13, 2012 4:45 AM EST

A lawsuit against Armslist accusing the Internet firearms marketplace of negligence in allowing a man to purchase a gun he later used to kill is designed to help plug a legal loophole that allows criminals to buy guns from private sellers without a background check.

On April 13th, 2011, Jitka Vesel was walking to her car when she saw a man she knew running toward her, shooting at her with a handgun.

Vesel threw coffee at her attacker and began to run away, but he pursued her and shot her in the back and in the back of the head, killing her and leaving her corpse so disfigured that local police would not allow Veselís family to see her body. Vesel was killed by Demetry Smirnov, a man she had met on the Internet and who had stalked her for years after she allegedly ended their brief romantic relationship.

Smirnov bought the .40-caliber handgun he used to kill Vesel via Armslist, an online firearms marketplace that has tens of thousands of guns listed, with no fees, no auctionsóand no enforced background checks for buyers.





Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/13/armslist-lawsuit-seeks-to-punish-online-gun-seller-narrow-loophoole-in-law.html

272 replies, 16270 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 272 replies Author Time Post
Reply Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to Punish Online Gun Seller, Narrow Loophoole in Law (Original post)
Judi Lynn Dec 2012 OP
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #1
sendero Dec 2012 #2
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #3
sendero Dec 2012 #5
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #16
sendero Dec 2012 #27
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #28
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #41
NickB79 Dec 2012 #30
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #6
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #17
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #21
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #42
quakerboy Dec 2012 #201
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #204
hack89 Dec 2012 #4
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #202
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #7
Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #8
jody Dec 2012 #11
primavera Dec 2012 #14
jody Dec 2012 #18
primavera Dec 2012 #20
jody Dec 2012 #22
primavera Dec 2012 #23
jody Dec 2012 #24
primavera Dec 2012 #25
jody Dec 2012 #29
bongbong Dec 2012 #31
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #38
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #197
jody Dec 2012 #210
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #212
X_Digger Dec 2012 #213
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #217
X_Digger Dec 2012 #218
WinniSkipper Dec 2012 #214
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #216
jody Dec 2012 #215
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #219
jody Dec 2012 #220
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #272
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #271
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #26
Hoyt Dec 2012 #53
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #54
Hoyt Dec 2012 #56
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #58
Hoyt Dec 2012 #70
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #208
PavePusher Dec 2012 #32
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #44
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #203
shanti Dec 2012 #237
billh58 Dec 2012 #9
jody Dec 2012 #12
primavera Dec 2012 #15
jody Dec 2012 #19
-..__... Dec 2012 #13
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #36
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #46
Lurks Often Dec 2012 #10
PavePusher Dec 2012 #33
booley Dec 2012 #34
PavePusher Dec 2012 #35
Hoyt Dec 2012 #167
PavePusher Dec 2012 #205
Hoyt Dec 2012 #206
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #37
X_Digger Dec 2012 #39
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #43
X_Digger Dec 2012 #47
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #50
X_Digger Dec 2012 #51
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #60
X_Digger Dec 2012 #62
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #65
X_Digger Dec 2012 #76
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #101
X_Digger Dec 2012 #105
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #107
X_Digger Dec 2012 #109
X_Digger Dec 2012 #96
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #100
X_Digger Dec 2012 #110
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #112
X_Digger Dec 2012 #115
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #116
X_Digger Dec 2012 #118
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #123
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #165
petronius Dec 2012 #68
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #72
X_Digger Dec 2012 #77
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #78
X_Digger Dec 2012 #80
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #83
X_Digger Dec 2012 #85
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #88
X_Digger Dec 2012 #90
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #94
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #106
X_Digger Dec 2012 #121
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #125
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #126
X_Digger Dec 2012 #129
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #132
X_Digger Dec 2012 #135
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #138
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #166
hack89 Dec 2012 #211
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #222
hack89 Dec 2012 #224
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #225
hack89 Dec 2012 #226
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #227
hack89 Dec 2012 #228
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #229
hack89 Dec 2012 #230
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #231
hack89 Dec 2012 #233
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #235
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #238
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #232
hack89 Dec 2012 #234
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #236
hack89 Dec 2012 #240
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #239
hack89 Dec 2012 #242
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #245
hack89 Dec 2012 #248
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #241
hack89 Dec 2012 #244
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #247
hack89 Dec 2012 #249
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #252
hack89 Dec 2012 #255
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #258
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #261
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #264
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #243
hack89 Dec 2012 #246
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #250
hack89 Dec 2012 #251
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #253
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #254
hack89 Dec 2012 #257
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #259
hack89 Dec 2012 #265
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #266
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #267
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #268
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #260
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #262
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #263
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #256
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #48
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #63
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #209
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #223
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #269
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #270
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #49
X_Digger Dec 2012 #52
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #59
X_Digger Dec 2012 #61
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #64
X_Digger Dec 2012 #67
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #71
X_Digger Dec 2012 #74
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #82
X_Digger Dec 2012 #84
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #87
X_Digger Dec 2012 #92
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #98
X_Digger Dec 2012 #102
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #104
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #164
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #66
X_Digger Dec 2012 #69
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #73
X_Digger Dec 2012 #75
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #79
X_Digger Dec 2012 #81
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #86
X_Digger Dec 2012 #89
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #91
X_Digger Dec 2012 #93
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #95
X_Digger Dec 2012 #97
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #99
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #103
X_Digger Dec 2012 #108
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #111
X_Digger Dec 2012 #113
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #114
X_Digger Dec 2012 #117
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #119
X_Digger Dec 2012 #120
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #122
X_Digger Dec 2012 #124
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #128
X_Digger Dec 2012 #131
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #134
X_Digger Dec 2012 #137
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #130
X_Digger Dec 2012 #133
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #136
X_Digger Dec 2012 #139
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #140
X_Digger Dec 2012 #141
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #143
X_Digger Dec 2012 #146
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #144
X_Digger Dec 2012 #147
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #151
X_Digger Dec 2012 #154
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #160
X_Digger Dec 2012 #162
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #168
X_Digger Dec 2012 #171
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #175
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #153
X_Digger Dec 2012 #155
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #169
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #145
X_Digger Dec 2012 #148
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #149
X_Digger Dec 2012 #150
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #152
X_Digger Dec 2012 #157
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #158
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #163
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #156
X_Digger Dec 2012 #159
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #161
X_Digger Dec 2012 #170
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #173
X_Digger Dec 2012 #177
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #198
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #176
X_Digger Dec 2012 #179
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #182
X_Digger Dec 2012 #186
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #199
X_Digger Dec 2012 #207
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #221
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #184
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #191
X_Digger Dec 2012 #172
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #174
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #178
X_Digger Dec 2012 #180
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #181
X_Digger Dec 2012 #183
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #185
X_Digger Dec 2012 #190
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #193
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #194
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #187
X_Digger Dec 2012 #192
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #195
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #196
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #189
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #188
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #200
slackmaster Dec 2012 #40
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #45
slackmaster Dec 2012 #55
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #57
slackmaster Dec 2012 #127
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #142

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:50 AM

1. Some what disingenuous

 

You can not buy a gun online with out a background check. Federal law requires that any firearm purchased over the internet be shipped from a federally licensed firearms dealer to a federally licensed firearms dealer who then does a background check before transferring the firearm to it's new owner. if this wasn't done the entire sale was illegal and therefore didn't take advantage of any "loophole"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:00 AM

2. Read the article...

.. apparently this listing service facilitates the sale of a weapon between private parties. There is no background check required in that circumstance.

The scenario you describe would apply to a site like auctionarms or gunbroker, where you are buying from a dealer. The dealer must ship the firearm to a local dealer who will perform the background check.

While I am a strong gun rights advocate, I agree that the "private seller" scenario might need some work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:17 AM

3. I read the article twice

 

If the gun was shipped from anywhere to anywhere it had to go through an FFL or the sale was illegal period.

Now, if Armslist is like Craigslist in that (using an example from my own state) I can list a gun in CO Springs and have some guy from Denver meet me in Monument and buy the gun face to face, (completely legal in Colorado since the entire transaction occurs with in the state) that's different.

But if that was the case how is listing a gun on Armslist any different that listing it in the Denver post? The "internet" aspect had noting to do with the sale in that case.

If you want ban all private intrastate sales just be upfront and say "I want to ban all private intrastate sales"

Let us know how that works out for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:36 AM

5. I don't want to ban any sales..

... I want a background check for ALL SALES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:23 AM

16. I don't object in theory

 

But I donít see how you could possibly enforce it without first registering every single gun in this country and that will guarantee a Republican government for the rest of our lives.

There are too many guns in this country that don't exist on paper anywhere to ever be able to track all sales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:49 AM

27. I don't subscribe..

... to the "if this can't be perfect then lets' don't do it at all" theory. Reminds me of the lame argument "taxing the rich won't solve the deficit problem".

How enforceable it is it not the point. If we had such a law at least we'd be able to go back and prosecute the assholes that knowingly sell guns to people they shouldn't, right now we have nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:55 AM

28. Re: prosecute the assholes that knowingly sell guns to people they shouldn't

 

Knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person is already a violation of Federal Law (18 USC 922(d)) punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

Do you want to make it more illegal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:06 PM

41. Leaving aside "perfection," there is the Interstate Commerce Clause...

upon which the Federal Firearms License and NICS test are based. Intrastate sales by non-FFL licensees are not covered by NICS and CAN'T be covered. One, because the sales are NOT interstate, and two, because even if you wanted to use the NICS test, if you are not an FFL, you cannot access the system.

I can live with a "universal" NICS test, but it has to be done constitutionally. There are some imaginative approaches:
(1) The feds could open up the NICS test for anyone who wants or is required by state law to meet the same requirements of the present NICS test; (2) encode on your driver's license a BG test pass so that if one wishes to purchase a gun, he/she could present the license; (3) have state compacts centered on "model legislation" which would standardize a universal NICS test without doing violence to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

But this suit appears to be in the same league of suing gun manufacturers, not for producing defective/dangerous arms (which is actionable now as with other product liability laws), but to somehow implicate gun manufacturers/dealers in damages & deaths due to the actions of a maniac. Those kinds of suits are now kaput, one court ruling after another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:36 PM

30. Private citizens CANNOT legally access the BATF instant-background check system

You need to have a firearms license to call in and run someone's background.

So, if you have a gun you want to sell, you can either sell it in a private sale with no background check to another individual, find a gun store that does transfers for a fee, or sell it to a gun store that will give you a greatly reduced price for it, since they have to turn around and sell it for a profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:40 AM

6. This is not true. You can ship to someone IN YOUR STATE without a background check.

 

The only time you need to go through an FFL is if you ship across state lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:25 AM

17. Thanks for squaring me away on that .

 

It's interesting to me that you correct me and I have no problem with that but if a pro control person gets corrected we're all a bunch of RW troll gun nutz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

21. There is a lot of confusion on this issue, even among FFLs

 

For example, I sold a handgungun to a guy in another state and shipped to his FFL from my home. The FFL returned it because it did not originate from an FFL.

I had already called the BATFE in both Washington and in my state and in his state and they said this was not necessary. The recipient has to receive it from an FFL, but it does not have to originate from an FFL.

I really lost money on that deal as I had to pay overnight shipping twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:09 PM

42. No, a "bunch of RW troll NRA/GOP Nugent-loving gun nutz." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:15 AM

201. Can you?

My understanding is that Craigslist has banned gun sales via its website. So maybe some other website allows you to do this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #201)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:55 AM

204. You are correct I was using craigslist as an example

 

Actually, my understanding is that "Armslist" came into being because craigslist prohibits gun sales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:17 AM

4. A private seller still is required to ship via a dealer

if it is an interstate transaction. No requiement for a background check in most states if it is an intrastate transaction. If the site merely facilitates intrastate transactions then no law is broken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:59 AM

202. You still have to mail from FFL to FFL

For handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:55 AM

7. This article is misleading. There is nothing special about what Armslist is doing.

 

Private sales are not, and cannot, be regulated by the federal government, as they would be interfering with intra-state commerce.

In most states, you do not need a background check if you buy a firearm from a private seller. You can even ship it to them without involving an FFL or a background check as long as they are in the same state.

This situation is not unique to Armslist. You can go look in the Sporting Goods section of any local newspaper or printed classified ads and see guns for sale by private individuals. All you have to do is meet up with them and pay cash and you are done. Or, if they are in your state, you can mail it to them. However, most people prefer to meet in person prior to the sale to examine the gun.

I sold a gun this way via Gunbroker just a few weeks ago. I listed it nationally, but the guy who bought it lived in my same town, so we met up and did the deal out of the back of my car. Gunbroker has no control over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:17 AM

8. didn't expect so many gun nuts on DU.

 

i'm disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:56 AM

11. Perhaps 60-70% of Democrats support RKBA and DU is no different. Perhaps you

 

need to find a gun-grabber site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:16 AM

14. Do you have a citation for that?

And what is meant by "support RKBA"? Are you saying that 60-70% of Dems support unrestricted access to any and all firearms, or that they support the right to keep and bear arms as long as it's regulated? This is one of those instances where the devil is in the details. I'm a Dem and, if you ask me whether I think that Americans should be allowed to own guns provided that they obtain licenses, subject to vigorous background checks, undergo mandatory safety instruction, be required to store their arms safely, and subject themselves to periodic relicensing and inspections to ensure that they are keeping and bearing their arms safely and responsibly, then sure, great, I support RKBA. But, somehow, I don't think that's quite what you had in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:34 AM

18. Browse DUs group on RKBA re support for RKBA. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:37 AM

20. So, you don't have a citation?

Sorry, I know it's annoying, but it's such a favorite trick of the gungeon to demand specific citations for everything from gravity to the spherical shape of the planet and then to scoff contemptuously when the OP is disinclined to go to the trouble of doing the questioner's research, I couldn't help myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:59 AM

22. I do but the topic has been discussed so often over the last 11 years that I've become weary of

 

educating others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:12 AM

23. I can relate

I don't know what it is about guns, but people are so disposed to picking their facts and figures selectively to support their starting assumptions, it sometimes seems like there's hardly any point in trying to have a discussion about it. Since there's no consensus on what the facts are, how can you have a meaningful conversation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:24 AM

24. We agree on those points. DoJ has the most credible data but even that depends on reports submitted

 

by local LEOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:33 AM

25. And so much of it is unknowable

CDC reports that, of the 30,000 annual gun deaths that occur each year, only 400 of them are ultimately found to be lawful uses of deadly force, such as self defense or intervention to protect some other innocent party. To me, that seems like a pretty telling figure. But then gun proponents will claim that there are countless cases where a gun was used to defuse a potentially violent situation that never gets reported. Admittedly, if it's never reported, it's not going to become part of any statistical reports, so I can't really know whether that's true or not. And even among those unreported incidents, how reliable are the accounts going to be? Some seedy looking character approaches a nervous woman at night in a dark alley, she points her gun at him and he goes away. Did she just use her gun to save her life? Or was the guy just coming up to her to ask for a smoke? We'll never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:18 PM

29. Agree and some DoJ reports that should trigger govt. programs are ignored, e.g.

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:24 PM

31. He is referring to a poll

 

That was done by the Delicate Flowers (gun-nuts too scared to walk in public without a gun). They loaded up the votes so it would appear that DU favors guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Delicate Flowers have many things in common with Fox "news". One of them is "bending" the truth to fit their religious beliefs (AKA, The Almighty Gun)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:07 PM

38. Yep. +1. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:09 AM

197. Bullshit

Show us your proof. As with most of your statements, they come from vapor. And your insinuating that those of us that disagree are "gun-grabbers" is downright fucking insulting. Your constant use of Right-wing taking points in your posts alarms me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #197)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:37 AM

210. "Public Support for Second Amendment Remains Strong" US News & World Report

 

"Two-thirds of Americans still support the Second Amendment right to bear arms,"

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/08/15/public-support-for-second-amendent-remains-strong

I selected the first news article I goggled.

Have a great day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #210)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:48 AM

212. Your continued use of Right wing talking points is noted by all

One day .....


You should also post all of the article instead of using the GOP tactic of cherry picking;


narrow majority also supports passing stricter gun control laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #212)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:50 AM

213. Who knew?! Apparently public support of a position is a 'right wing talking point'! *snort* n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #213)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:32 PM

217. Public support of gun control, who knew.

nice try gunny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #217)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:34 PM

218. *yawn*



Which line is going down, and which one is going up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #212)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:09 PM

214. Can you post another cropped picture to confirm your position? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinniSkipper (Reply #214)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:31 PM

216. Another Johnny come lately blurts out shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #212)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:10 PM

215. No, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat and I sypport our platform that says

 

"Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americansí Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

I believe Obama who promised: "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

I posted that portion of the article that pertained to my earlier post,

I cannot post the entire article so I gave a link to it.

It's childish to call the platform and Obama's statements right wing talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #215)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:47 PM

219. The same Yellow Dogs who wrecked havoc four years ago who are now out of office

Stupak comes to mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #219)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:48 PM

220. You really are in a state of bliss. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #210)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:19 AM

272. You claimed Democrats support was 60-70%. So now you are engaged in bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:18 AM

271. Factually wrong. The number is around 24%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:44 AM

26. We are everywhere

No legitimate gun owner wants banned individuals to have access to firearms. However the current law prevents private party transactions from using the established tools to verify eligibility. Fix that and things will change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:55 PM

53. Simple, sell your guns through FFL if you really care who you sell it to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:05 PM

54. Required in CA and some states, not in others

Its a records thing...and that is a valid concern

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:01 PM

56. If gun culture would do the right thing, the laws would not matter.


Unfortunately, too many are like bankers, polluters, etc. And will push the envelop of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:01 PM

58. Your view of the right thing and the views of others on what is the right thing diverge to the

extreme.

Laws will always matter. They should be clear demarcation lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:38 PM

70. Like I said, you need those lines because the gun culture will push it to satisfy their needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:35 AM

208. There are no lines, just laws

They define legal and illegal conduct. Get on the wrong side, go to jail. Stay on the right side and things are fine, no matter what whiners say.

Which lines do you think the culture pushes and which needs are they trying to satisfy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:36 PM

32. At least your bigotry is openly displayed. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:16 PM

44. For your disappointment pleasure! Try this...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Note the party I.D. and the increase.

You are witnessing the death throes of the elitist gun-control outlook.

Hubert Humphrey, JFK, Eugene Debs and many others strongly supported the Second. Gun nuts, all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:17 AM

203. What is a "gun nut"?

Many Democrats and other liberals own firearms, myself included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #203)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:13 PM

237. they're pretty easy to spot on DU

just look at a DU'ers profile if you suspect one. if it shows that their favorite group is Gun Control/RKBA, they are a gun nut, imo. makes it very easy for me to place them on my ignore list too, in fact, most of the people on my ignore list have the Gungeon as their favorite forum, and there are a lot of them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:29 AM

9. Yep, that's the

mantra of the DU Gungeon crowd: Guns for everyone! The more guns floating around, the safer we will all be. Guns are the answer to all of America's social problems, because after we kill all of the bad guys, there will only be the good gun-carrier guys left and we know that they never shoot unarmed or innocent people.

I'm ashamed for DU that we have so many right-wing Republican trolls advocating more gun violence and the absolute Constitutional "right" to kill other Americans by standing their fucking ground, or protecting their fucking castle. And that theory that some have about giving them the Gungeon to play in ain't working. Lately, they've been everywhere, and they're stinkin' up the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:58 AM

12. Sad that you can't support Obama and the Democratic Party because they both support

 

RKBA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

15. Please see post 14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:35 AM

19. Please see post 18

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:03 AM

13. Awwww... someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:52 PM

36. Yep. Excellent post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:23 PM

46. You have been selling that smear for some time, bud...

You say:

"I'm ashamed for DU that we have so many right-wing Republican trolls advocating more gun violence."

Nice. No wonder the caliber (ahem) of gun-control thought is so small.

You seem to be saying: A gun prohibitionist can post anywhere (including the "Gungeon"), but pro-2A people can only stay in the Gungeon. Is that correct? Just checking on your "liberal" philosophy.

BTW, if you smell a "stink," (your words), check yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:32 AM

10. That wasn't a news article, that was a

propaganda piece. The "reporter" apparently did no research what so ever or else they would have found out that in-state guns sales between residents of that state are governed by STATE law, not Federal law and vary from state to state. For example CT does not require a back ground check for long gun sales between state residents, but DO require them for handgun sales between state residents and allow state residents to call the CT State police for the background check. (CT has it's own NICS database, although I presume that CT's NICS and the Federal NICS system shares data).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:44 PM

33. No factual evidence was presented as to whether this sale...

 

was in-state or inter state, and did or did not go through a dealer. Odd that, it's a pretty simple fact to research. My guess is they didn't publish that bit because the truth wouldn't support their agenda.

Irresponsible journalists are a danger to the public and should be background checked or banned outright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:48 PM

34. from the link provided on the news story

The daily beast provided a link tot he original story in the Tribune...

Smirnov got in a car in Surrey, British Columbia, in early April, stopped in Seattle to buy a .40-caliber handgun and ammunition, and arrived in the Chicago area about April 9, prosecutors say.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-14/news/ct-met-oak-brook-murder-0415-20110414_1_state-s-attorney-robert-berlin-death-penalty-oak-brook

I dont;' think it was made a point of in the daily beats article since it wasn't relevant to the central story.. that gun control groups dont' like sites like arm's list and one is suing them, since by armlists one admission, they dont' investigate or back ground check sales

I understand that ARMSLIST DOES NOT become involved in transactions between parties and does not certify, investigate, or in any way guarantee the legal capacity of any party to transact.


so the burden of making sure the transaction is legal is put entirely on the seller. Yes we can argue that the seller should be more responsible (but if it's true that private citizens can't access the back ground check system then how would they do that in a way where they wouldn't find it easier to just not check?)

And the point of the law suit is that regardless of the responsibility of the seller, arms list may facilitate irresponsible gun sellers so has some accountability as well.

From what I can gather, the criticism of this article is that if the sale was done intra state then it's legal.

But if the point of back ground checks is to make sure people who shouldn't have guns can still get them if they buy them a certain way, (since apparently from one person who has sold guns, there is no need for a back ground check on some sales) then isn't that by definition exactly the legal loop hole the brady campaign says it is?

So if this was done intra state or inter state is not relevant It's still a legal loop hole that lets people who shouldn't have guns get guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to booley (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:11 PM

35. Arrgh, my bad, I skimmed to fast and didn't see the link.

 

Definitely an illegal sale.

But there's no loophole. It's a specific construction of law that private Citizens aren't allowed to use the NICS. IIRC, this was insisted on by the Brady team. I'm very willing, even eager to change that. Open the system to the public and even make its use manditory, no problem. But it's not a "loophole".

Edit: Not sure that can be done at the Federal level as a requirement, as intrastate sales aren't interstate commerce, thus not subject to Federal regulation. However, Federal law changes could open the NICS to the public, then the states could make its' use manditory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:28 AM

167. Needs to go through FFL - record keeping, oversight, responsibility, etc.

Privacy as well. Too easy for folks to use system to snoop on people and see if they have a record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #167)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:22 AM

205. And there are ways to avoid that which have been discussed here numerous times.

 

But since your goal is actually to end all Civilian posession of firearms, that's not something you care about.

Have a great day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #205)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:27 AM

206. If you really care when you sell a weapon, go through FFL. It's really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:04 PM

37. We'll eventually get meaningful gun control because the country is turning Blue, Democratic.

In the meantime, these kind of lawsuits need to be encouraged to be launched en masse. The goal being to make that firearm and accompanying ammunition as expensive as possible for the "end user" or purchaser of handguns and assault rifles, which is almost uniformly either (a) a criminal or (b) some right-wing NRA gump with Red Dawn fantasies or (c) cop-wannabes like George Zimmerman who like to strut down to the local Wal Mart with a pistol perched in their pants because it makes them feel tough.

In fact, when the House of Representatives turns Blue, which it will at some point, I would encourage the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate to fund NGO's to legally go forward with as many lawsuits as possible against the merchants of death in the gun industry. Also: a $100 per round ammo tax, which would make your average box of .40 caliber ammo cost upward of $5,000 per box. It would be a delight to hear the NRA squeal about such a progressive and socially-responsible tax.

These are stop-gap measures until meaningful gun control legislation can be enacted, and new members of the Supreme Court not in the Scalia-mold all of our "law-abiding gun owners" just luuuvvv can be appointed by a Democratic president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:38 PM

39. You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?

Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner found that taxing printer's ink and paper was an infringement of the first amendment's protection of freedom of the press.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:15 PM

43. Baloney - there is a federal excise tax on ammo right now, as well as state taxes.

Didn't know that before you posted, eh?

Well now you know: I guess that means you're going to run right out and get yourself one of them "2nd amendment lawyers" ( ) and sue the Federal government to get that tax repealed, right? Right?

Funny stuff.


Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:31 PM

47. Yes, I knew about the excise tax. Why would you think I didn't?

It also doesn't just cover guns and ammunition. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Pittman-Robertson was passed in 1937, and covers sporting goods, bows, arrows, hunting equipment, hunting licenses.. not *just* guns and ammunition.

You should run right out and talk to a constitutional lawyer about 'fundamental rights' and 'strict scrutiny'- it might help improve the quality of your posts.

Wait, who am I kidding? Of course, it wouldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:36 PM

50. No, you didn't know about the tax, by your own admission:

"No, you can't restrict a fundamental right (Sic) by taxation"

Either that, or you were simply ignoring the plain facts as they stand now.

But go ahead: go get you a lawyer and challenge that ammo tax that is "restricting" your "fundamental right" right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:39 PM

51. *cough* It hadn't been ruled a fundamental right until McDonald confirmed it.

Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (excuse the pun.)

And I love how you leave out "just because you don't like it." -- which changes the meaning altogether.

Transparently ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:07 PM

60. Now comes the subject-changing: no on is talking about McDonald. We are talking about

your false assertion above that Congress does not have the power to impose a tax on ammunition, doubly laughable since they already do.

"Really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel...Transparently ridiculous."

And here we enter the stage every "pro gun progressive"* eventually gets to in a debate when the facts overwhelm him: Projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Oh, well: anytime you're ready to return to discussing the issue under debate instead of trying to change the subject, let me know.


*( )


Edit: smiley-man added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:22 PM

62. No, you just ignored the part of my statement that you didn't like..

Here, let me highlight it for you:

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.


Hence my reference to strict scrutiny in post #47.

Care to actually read what folks have posted before responding? It might make you look less foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:28 PM

65. No: you just ignore the fact that Congress has power to tax ammunition. When it was pointed out

that there was, in fact, a tax on ammunition RIGHT NOW, you just attempted to change the subject. Nice try, but it's a no-go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:15 PM

76. Please point out me refuting that "Congress has no power to tax ammunition"

I have to wonder if you need to get a vision check-up.

Here it is again, since you seem to have missed it- again:

"No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:49 PM

101. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Handy link, for those who wish to confirm it themselves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:52 PM

105. *yawn*

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.


From the same post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:55 PM

107. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass

constitutional muster. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:45 PM

96. I've addressed the "right now" portion, repeatedly. (presumptively constitutional before challenge,)

I'm not changing the subject- you just can't seem to go past schoolyard shenannigans to try to make your point.

*yawn*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:48 PM

100. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Own them or edit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:10 PM

110. I own all my words. Even those that are chopped into bits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #110)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:12 PM

112. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--Full quote, un-chopped. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Nice try, but nada.

Own your words or edit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to X_Digger (Reply #115)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

116. No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to X_Digger (Reply #118)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:24 AM

165. So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:35 PM

68. You need to go back and reread what X-Digger said in post 37:

There is no claim there that firearms and ammunition can not be taxed, obviously there is a wide range of permissible taxes and fees already applied to firearms-related paraphernalia.

What is likely to be found unconstitutional is the intentional use of taxation as a tool to restrict, limit, infringe on, or de facto ban a civil right or liberty - which is why your proposed $100/round tax would never fly, although general sales taxes and so on are perfectly OK.

What worries me most about these discussions - for example, the ammo-tax proposal in Chicago - is not that they would ever pass, but rather that the battle over a proposal like this would endanger the Pittman-Robertson Act, a tax which I support (although I fear that as shooting sports become less centered on hunting and the outdoors, general support among firearms owners might wane)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:41 PM

72. No, I don't; the simple fact of the matter is that

even if Congress raised the tax to a million dollars a round, that tax would be upheld by the courts. The taxing power in this government is invested in Congress, just FYI.

It is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:22 PM

77. Then why were poll taxes ruled unconstitutional in some places before the 24th amendment?

Free hint: it rhymes with Mourteenth Muhbendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:26 PM

78. Non responsive. We are talking about Congress's power to tax ammunition, not "poll" taxes.

Please try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 PM

80. We're talking about congress' power to tax. Which you keep falling back on, as though it's absolute.

Taxes must be constitutional, just as any other action congress takes. Otherwise, why pass the sixteenth amendment, if all congress had to do was pass a law with "Income Tax, Cause We Say So!" stamped across the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:34 PM

83. You are the one that said Congress could not tax ammo; I pointed out it could and does. You keep

attempting to change the subject. It's not gonna work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:36 PM

85. Still waiting.. third time asking..

Please find me saying that congress has no power to tax ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:38 PM

88. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Third time telling. But, then, you knew that already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:39 PM

90. No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:43 PM

94. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass

constitutional muster. There's still time to edit your opening reply to me, BTW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:52 PM

106. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Own them or edit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:19 PM

121. No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #121)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:21 PM

125. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #126)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

129. *yawn*

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #129)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:24 PM

132. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #132)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 PM

135. What is this, you think you'll be right if you post last?!? LOL

Too funny. If you represent the caliber (pun intended) of opponent gun rights supporters face, it's a walk in the park.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 PM

138. And back to Projection we go. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #135)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:25 AM

166. Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:41 AM

211. The present tax is

because it is not designed to be so onerous as to deter gun owners from buying ammo.

Taxes have to be constitutional - it is not a hard concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #211)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

222. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

It's not a hard concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #222)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:29 PM

224. They didn't affirm poll taxes

your problem is that you will not be able to hide your intent. If your stated intent is to restrict the exercise of a civil liberty then it is unconstitutional.

So tell me - what is the intent of your tax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #224)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:41 PM

225. The discussion is not about poll taxes; quit trying to change the subject. I am telling you again:

Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it, "intent" notwithstanding.

Now if you don't want to believe that, fine: but it is a fact. And when that tax is raised - and one day it will be - you and your fellow pro-NRA shills in the gun lobby can get a legal team and challenge it.

I want all of DU to take note of this back-n'-forth right here: in the midst of this horror today, here is a Gungeoneer still in a thread trying to argue about his precious "civil liberty" to own assault rifles and the like, instead of giving it a break for even 24 hours. . It truly is the height of insensitivity and utter callous indifference to the dead in Connecticut. X 100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #225)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:47 PM

226. I posted before the shooting was announced. You replied 3 hours later - after the shooting.

why did you engage with me unless you wanted to continue the discussion?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #226)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:50 PM

227. Keep at it: I want all of DU to see this garbage. Again:

I want all of DU to take note of this back-n'-forth right here: in the midst of this horror today, here is a Gungeoneer still in a thread trying to argue about his precious "civil liberty" to own assault rifles and the like, instead of giving it a break for even 24 hours. . It truly is the height of insensitivity and utter callous indifference to the dead in Connecticut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #227)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:52 PM

228. So why did you resume the conversation?

it is almost as if you wanted to use the shooting to score cheap points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #228)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:55 PM

229. I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going

to wade in and argue my pro-NRA talking points; just TODAY."

Instead, here you are still trying to "score cheap points" of the cheapest kind: discussion board chatter in the midst of a tragedy. You simply don't care, as do none of your buddies among our "pro gun progressives"*.

Again, keep kicking this up for DU to see: they need to see what we are dealing with here in this absolutely callous gun lobby and its shills and supporters.


*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #229)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:59 PM

230. Why in the face of such tragedy was my question that important that you couldn't ignore it?

you seem to have some pretty fucked up priorities.

Since you seem to lack the self discipline to stop talking to me, this is my last post on the matter. Stop fixating on me and think about those poor kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #230)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:03 PM

231. I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going

to peddle the pro-NRA line ad nauseam." But noooooooooooo: here you are, still carrying on about your precious "civil liberty" to tote an assault rifle around, or strut into Wal Mart with a high capacity magazine pistol perched in your pants.

GO. AWAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #231)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:07 PM

233. You answered after the shooting. You wanted to continue the conversation.

you could have ignored it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #233)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:11 PM

235. I answered your unsolicited question; you chose to keep the argument going. And are continuing to do

so. But keep at it: I want all of DU to see what "the Gungeon" and its denizens are truly all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #233)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:14 PM

238. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #230)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:05 PM

232. You INITIATED the conversation; hell, my post above wasn't addressed to you! But keep

peddling that pro-NRA line in the face of this tragedy: I want all of DU to really and truly see what "the Gungeon" is truly all about. And it's not pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #232)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:09 PM

234. You had the first post after the shooting was announced.

you are trying too hard here. All you are doing is making yourself look stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:13 PM

236. NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply

chose another day to peddle pro-NRA talking points. But no: here you are still at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #236)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:15 PM

240. A question posted before the shooting was announced.

I take it though that today is a fine day to way the bloody shirt? Give it a rest - you are pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:14 PM

239. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230.

And yet here your are...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #239)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:16 PM

242. Right now we are merely trading insults

not talking gun stuff - I figure that it is ok.

Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #242)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:18 PM

245. "Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to you, isn't it?

Even on a day of a horror like this it's all just one big fun & games to our Gungeoneers. I'm glad the rest of DU is getting a good look at a representative of the Gungeon today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #245)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:20 PM

248. You can always stop talking to me. Correct?

no - DU is getting a good look at you. And it is not a pretty sight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:16 PM

241. Once again: I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought

"today, I'm not going to peddle the pro-NRA line."

Yet here you are, still at it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #241)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:18 PM

244. And you could have ignored me considering a massive tragedy just occurred

but no - the most important thing on your mind was to come back three hours later to provoke a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #244)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:20 PM

247. NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply

said "today I'm not going to peddle the pro-NRA line." But you have made your choice: and it's the same ones our "pro gun progressives"* always do.


*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #247)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:21 PM

249. But why were you even thinking about me at such a time?

that's what I don't get. All those kids get killed and your reaction is to resume a conversation with me? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #249)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:22 PM

252. No one was "thinking about" you: I answered your unsolicited question. You chose at that time

after the shooting, to continue to peddle pro-NRA talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #252)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:25 PM

255. So while watching coverage of a horrific tragedy

you thought the proper thing was to resume a thread that has been dead for 3 hours. Really? And then after you resume the thread, you attack me for answering back.

You came looking for a fight. Please be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #255)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:26 PM

258. NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply

moved on. But here you still are. Glad DU is getting a look at one of our "pro gun progressives" at work on a day like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #249)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:28 PM

261. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230.

And yet here he still, peddling pro-NRA talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #244)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:31 PM

264. "Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:17 PM

243. You INITIATED the conversation; my post above wasn't even addressed to you.

And here you are STILL, showing the rest of DU what "the Gungeon" is really and truly all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #243)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:19 PM

246. Before the shooting. You came back 3 hours after the shooting to pick a fight. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #246)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:21 PM

250. I "came back" and answered your unsolicited question. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #250)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:22 PM

251. But you didn't have to.

and since you resumed the thread, why is it my responsibility to end it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #251)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:23 PM

253. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #251)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:25 PM

254. But go right ahead and keep peddling those pro-NRA talking points: the rest of DU is getting

a good look at what the Gungeon is really all about: callous indifference to human life, in the name of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #254)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:26 PM

257. You being disingenuous is not a NRA talking point

have you lost track of what our posts are actually about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #257)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:27 PM

259. You wanting to continue an argument about taxes on ammo from the NRA point of view

is precisely the textbook definition of peddling an NRA talking point. And on a horrific day like this to boot.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #259)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:12 PM

265. No - you did. Who posted first after the shooting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #265)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:20 PM

266. I answered your unsolicited question; you are still here at it, peddling NRA talking points. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #265)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:21 PM

267. "Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, on why he continues to

peddle pro-NRA talking points on a tragic day like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #265)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:22 PM

268. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. Too eager to keep the NRA talking points

going to stand by his avowed word. Typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #257)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:28 PM

260. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #257)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:29 PM

262. "Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to our Gungeoneers,

even on a day like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #251)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:30 PM

263. "Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day.

I'm glad the larger audience of DU is getting a chance to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #246)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:25 PM

256. "this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:31 PM

48. Keep slicing. Take "your" tax to court, and the court will throw it out...

Just like courts throw out "voluntary" school prayer, "inter-denominational prayer," "moments of silence," etc. They know who the actors are and their intent -- esp. when the intent is telegraphed as you have done (not that many are paying attention).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:23 PM

63. Wrong: YOU take the tax that is imposed on ammo RIGHT NOW to court, and try to

get it tossed. You don't seem to be paying attention to the discussion to date: your friend upthread is asserting that Congress has no power to impose a tax on ammunition, despite the fact that there is such a tax imposed right now. All my proposed tax would be is an increase on what is already levied, not a new tax.

So, the onus is on you and your friend to rustle you up some lawyers, file a lawsuit against the Federal government, and get that tax voided!

Of course, the first court it hit would simply be laughing for all the five seconds it took the judge presiding to dismiss the suit and gavel the proceedings closed, but you guys go right ahead and give it a go: go to court and get that "unconstitutional" tax that is imposed RIGHT NOW tossed out.

Funny stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:36 AM

209. No onus on me, no desire to overturn present tax...

If a tax like the one you propose is enacted, however, it WILL be challenged, and successfully. It's all about intent, and the courts know "your" intent. The reason for the present tax is conservation programs - the main reason few disagree with it. The tax is also imposed on fishing gear and motorboat fuels. Intent here is also clear. I'll save my lawyer money; you can spend yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #209)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:20 PM

223. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

If you and your fellow NRA supporters don't think so, when that tax is raised to the levels I suggested you'll have to go court and spend legal fees to get it overturned; it will not be, overturned, however, as any such raise of the tax to even $100 a round would be upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #223)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:49 PM

269. Keep wishing. Cause that's all it is.nc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #269)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:51 PM

270. So you say; but that day is coming. Get over it. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:33 PM

49. Interesting, you didn't post a link to summary of the case - but, then, not really:

it would have rendered your reply bogus right out of the gate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

First off, this was a state tax, not Congress; second off the problem with the tax was that it was targeted at "a select few newspaper publishers"; an $100 a round ammo tax would not face that burden as it would apply to all ammo purchases on the civilian, non-LEO market equally; third off, even the Scalia Court's flawed 2nd amendment jurisprudence would not interfere with such a tax, since the government would be able to show that no real constitutional burden is being imposed on gun owners by such a tax that would outweigh Congress's constitutional authority to impose it.

Money quote: "On its face, this ruling finds that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. The state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers."

In other words, the problem was not the tax but the way it was applied unequally. Your reply is FAIL all around. Sorry.

Meaningful gun control is coming to a future Blue America, my friend: bank it. In the meantime let us hope more of these kinds of lawsuits are filed, and won. It would be great to bankrupt the NRA and violence industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:53 PM

52. Ooh, he can google.. but can he read?

Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation.
.

By creating this special use tax, which, to our knowledge, is without parallel in the State's tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. We then must determine whether the First Amendment permits such special taxation. A tax that burdens rights protected by the First Amendment cannot stand unless the burden is necessary to achieve an overriding governmental interest.


The court's problem was with "targeting" the press, not general businesses:

When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government.


Further, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional.


Fish in a barrel, I tell ya.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=460&page=575

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:03 PM

59. And where's the part about how they can't tax ammunition? Oooooh, that's right:

they do tax ammunition right now, and, further, the case cited nothing to with either Congress's taxing power or the fact that the Feds and the states tax ammo right now.

"Fish in a barrel," indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:19 PM

61. Discrimination was legal before it wasn't..

Now that we have precedent that the second protects a fundamental right, applicable to the states and localities via the fourteenth amendment, watch the unconstitutional laws get smacked down. MD's recent smack down* is one of many in the pipeline.

And the fact that something is being taxed now has no bearing on whether or not such a tax is constitutional. Poll taxes were still being levied even *after* the passage of a constitutional amendment *specifically* prohibiting them. Of course, just like Chicago and their smacked down handgun ban, they didn't *call* them poll taxes anymore. It took cases to brush them away once and for all.

* http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/maryland-gun-permit-law-struck/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

64. We're not talking about "discrimination": we're talking about Congress's power to impose a tax

on ammunition, a power you claim Congress does not possess. Oddly enough, Congress doesn't agree with you: there is a tax imposed on ammunition RIGHT NOW.

My advice to you is to retain a lawyer, and file a lawsuit to get that tax you don't believe Congress has the right to levy tossed. See how far that get's you.

We'll be breathlessly awaiting the results....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:34 PM

67. Still ignoring what I actually said?

It doesn't help you to argue against a position I never took.

Dog help me, you must be intentionally ignoring my statement.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.


And re 'discrimination'- that was an analogy.. something that I would think any person at DU would have knowledge of. Many things (taxes {see poll tax}, regulations {see Loving}, city ordinances {Chicago gun ban}) are legal until they aren't.

That's how these things work. A government (federal, state, local) oversteps their bounds, someone brings a case, the court rules the (tax, regulation, law, ordinance) as unconstitutional, incompatible with state law, etc etc- and the law, tax, regulation, etc is struck down.

Wipe your hands if you're going to make me hold it, leading you through this, they're clammy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:38 PM

71. I say Congress has the constitutional authority to tax ammo, you say they don't. Go get you a

lawyer and sue the Feds to get that tax tossed. You won't, because you know the tax IS constitutional under Congress's taxing authority, and would be even if the tax was raised to a million dollars a round.

It is that simple. Sorry your attempts to change the subject are not working out for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:46 PM

74. Propose the law in your state legislature, let's see what the courts say

I happen to like the PR act, it funds national park land in my state, along with public shooting ranges.

But we already have the precedent, taxing the exercise of a right without a strong enough reason (printer's ink), or intentionally to suppress exercise of the right, is not constitutional. "suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:33 PM

82. Again trying to change the subject; not gonna happen. Again, Congress has the power to tax

ammunition, contrary to your assertions, and could tax it a hundred or a million dollars a round if it wanted to. You claim it has no such taxing authority; the onus is on you to retain an attorney and sue to get that tax squashed. You will not because the tax would be upheld as constitutional.

No matter how many times you try to change the subject, it's not going to succeed. Deal with the issue under discussion, or go find another discussion to have somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:35 PM

84. Mein Gott in Himmel! I have claimed no such thing.

Feel free to find it.. I'm already waiting in one sub-thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:37 PM

87. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Asked & answered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:41 PM

92. No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

I can do this all night. Feel free to ignore the full statement. It only makes you appear childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:47 PM

98. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass

constitutional muster. It is a plain as that.

"It only makes you appear childish."

Now we're back to projection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:49 PM

102. "Regardless of motive?" Now you've stepped out onto a ledge.

Congressional action passed with the intent to deprive people of the exercise of a right.. you're sure about that, are you?

"Regardless of motive", you say? You sticking with that? That your final answer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:51 PM

104. Congress could raise the tax on AMMO to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass

constitutional muster, period.

Again, attempts to change the subject will simply not work here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:24 AM

164. So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:33 PM

66. So, what's stopping you? Get you a lawyer and sue the Feds! If you are so confident that

the courts will strike a tax on ammunition down, why wait? Get in court and get it struck down now!



Of course, you won't do that because you well know that even if Congress raised the tax to a million dollars a round, not my modest $100, the courts would still defer to Congress's taxing authority. That's why neither you nor any other "law abiding gun owner" has worked up the gumption yet to file such a frivolous suit.

Funny stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:37 PM

69. Why should I? I don't mind paying it.

It funds more wildlife protection than the sierra club and the world wildlife fund combined.

Just think, all those ebil hunting licenses, and all those icky guns and ammo- they pay for more conservation than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:42 PM

73. Hey, you're the one who made the claim that such a tax is unconstitutional. It's not, of course:

and if Congress raised the tax to $100 a round, you would STILL pay it - if you wanted to legally purchase ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:08 PM

75. Let's try this one last time..

I'm tired of holding your hand..

Before something was ruled unconstitutional, it was presumptively constitutional. With me so far? For example, before Loving v. Virginia, laws against interracial marriage were presumptively constitutional. (Not in all jurisdictions, mind you, Loving was just the straw that broke the camel's back, at the federal level.)

If we were in Alabama in 1964, a court in Alabama would say that such laws were constitutional. In 1968? unconstitutional- even though such a law was on the books at the time. Even after Loving, some states (such as Alabama) maintained unconstitutional anti-miscegenation laws. Any substantive challenge would have resulted in them being struck down as well, given the precedent of Loving. But without that direct challenge, such laws remained on the books.

That's what's happening with many state laws like Maryland's concealed carry licensing scheme. Given the precedent of McDonald, the laws are being ruled invalid. But until a court actually makes that determination, on a per-law basis? They remain on the books. Obviously a state legislature, or congress in the case of federal law can get ahead of that process and propose changes to the law without a challenge. For example, congress could repeal DOMA.

Until someone with standing chooses to make a case against the PR Act, or congress repeals it, it stands. Would you have argued in 1969 that Alabama's anti-miscegenation laws were likewise constitutional? Of course not. Precedent had been set with Loving, just waiting for a case to challenge the law in AL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:30 PM

79. Let's not. You claim Congress has no power to tax ammunition, Congress claims it does, and taxes

ammunition accordingly; further, you won't put your money where your mouth is and sue Congress in Federal court to get that tax squashed; consistent with all this, you keep trying to change the subject - indeed, now you are talking about something totally unrelated to the issue at hand, in an attempt to deflect from the reality that the facts are not on your side.

What you need to do is either get back on the topic at hand, or find another discussion to have with someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:32 PM

81. I have claimed no such thing.

Feel free to find a non-butchered quote of mine saying that.

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:36 PM

86. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

All too easy; more fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:38 PM

89. Did you actually read the body?

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.


If you can't tell the difference between what I said, and what you claim I said.. I have to wonder about your grasp of the english language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #89)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:40 PM

91. Ahhh, the old "I didn't mean what I typed" defense. Sure. There's time to edit your post on DU3,

FYI. Pro-tip.


Edit: See how I did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:43 PM

93. I won't rise to the bait..

Anyone perusing this thread can see you chopped my quote in #50

Here that is, before you edit it, or self-delete:

No, you didn't know about the tax, by your own admission:

"No, you can't restrict a fundamental right (Sic) by taxation"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:44 PM

95. I plainly quoted your own words back to you un-edited and un-"choppped": there's still time to edit

your opening reply that plainly showed you stating that you think a congressional levy on ammunition was unconstitutional, since this embarrassment for you has arose....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:46 PM

97. You removed six words. Still time for you to edit. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:47 PM

99. Nope: quoted you directly, YOUR words. Either own them or edit them. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:50 PM

103. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Handy link for folks to confirm I "removed" nothing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

You must think most DU'er don't know how to maneuver their way up and down a thread...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:03 PM

108. Here's a link showing you removing six words..

From post #39:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014334436#post39

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation just because you don't like it.


When you quoted me in post #50

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014334436#post50

"No, you can't restrict a fundamental right (Sic) by taxation"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #108)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:11 PM

111. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Of course, you were implying I "removed six words" from the quote in your subject line in #39. Bait & switch games rarely turn out well, my friend: Pro tip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:13 PM

113. Are you seriously saying you didn't read the body of the post you're regurgitating?

I gave you more credit than you deserved, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #113)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:14 PM

114. Trying to change the subject again: I would too, were I you. Own your words or edit them. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to X_Digger (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:17 PM

119. All that dodging and back-pedaling tiring you out, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to X_Digger (Reply #113)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:19 PM

122. BTW, Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

If you don't think so, why waste your time here? Why aren't you on the phone with a lawyer getting your case ready?

To ask the question is to answer it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:21 PM

124. Your recycling material.. I've already said I don't mind paying it..

.. because it funds wildlife conservation.

*yawn*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

128. And right on cue, here comes the Projection again. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:23 PM

131. I shouldn't be surprised you've ran out of material..

I'm surprised it took this long, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #131)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:25 PM

134. You've been "out of material" since your opening reply was proven false. Link:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 PM

137. *snort* Please keep regurgitating. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #130)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:24 PM

133. *yawn* still time for you to edit this one..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #133)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 PM

136. No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:28 PM

139. This is tickling me to no end..

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #139)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:29 PM

140. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

But if you don't think so, why are here posting easily disproved nonsense, rather than out retaining a lawyer?

We know why....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:31 PM

141. *yawn* Because I *like* the PR Act.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #141)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:33 PM

143. No, it's because Congress has the right to tax ammo to its heart's content, and there's not a court

in the land that would stop them from doing just that.

It really is that simple, and even you acknowledge it by not going and getting a lawyer to stop something you have stated is "unconstitutional."

Funny stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #143)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:53 PM

146. Telepsychic, are you?

Any other things you'd like to tell me what I think?

Sorry, had to step away for a bit.. where were we? Oh right..

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #141)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:34 PM

144. So, if Congress did raise to $100 a box you'd be okay with it because of the "PR Act"? Great!

That's progress!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #144)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:54 PM

147. Have you stopped beating your wife? (my standard reply to loaded questions.)

No, I'm fine with it where it is, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:06 AM

151. Good: at least you now concede Congress CAN tax ammunition, after all those posts to the contrary

above. Oh, well: progress has been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #151)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:10 AM

154. Take your imaginary victories anywhere you can.

Of course, I told you I like the conservation efforts that the PR Act provides way back in post #74-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014334436#post74

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #154)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:16 AM

160. Not a bit of it: you declared such taxes "unconstitutional" in this reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Now you claim they can be levied. In other words, you changed your mind. Progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #160)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:18 AM

162. I never claimed ammo taxes can't be levied..

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #162)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:32 AM

168. Yes, you did.

"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #168)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:36 AM

171. *yawn*

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #171)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:41 AM

175. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:08 AM

153. Of course, if Congress raised it to a $100 a round you'd have to be "fine with it," too, or find

another hobby: such a tax increase on ammo would be perfectly constitutional. Contrary to what you said here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #153)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:12 AM

155. No, congress would have to justify such an increase to meet the burden of strict scrutiny.

Why do you think no moron has actually proposed such legislation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #155)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:35 AM

169. No, it wouldn't. Congress could raise it to a MILLION dollars a round, and the courts

would find it constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #141)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:35 PM

145. Also, this post, where X_Digger claims Congress can't tax ammo, even though Congress does:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:56 PM

148. If I thought you seriously didn't understand, I'd feel sorry for you.

Good thing I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:00 AM

149. Uh-huh: now comes another dodge. Typical. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #149)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:02 AM

150. Feel free to continue to misquote me. It only makes you look foolish.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:07 AM

152. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Quoted you precisely. Here's a link to your precise quote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:12 AM

157. *yawn*

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #157)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:14 AM

158. Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it.

It really is that simple.

Link to post where X_Digger declares a congressional tax on ammo "unconstitutional":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #157)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:20 AM

163. I am quoting the complete sentence from your subject line; you can quit pretending anything is being

left out any time now: it's not fooling anybody.

And I've always provided the link to the entire post in any event, of course:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:12 AM

156. You initiated this entire sub-thread by claiming that my tax proposal was "unconstitutional": when

it was shown that Congress is taxing ammo RIGHT NOW, you then started playing semantics games. That, and trying to change the subject non-stop. But the bottom line is that Congress could tax ammunition at $100 a round (my initial projected proposal once the House goes Blue), and it would be upheld as constitutional by the courts.

I understand that perfectly: your reply above is yet another species of dodge and obfuscation.

Edit: link to post where X_Digger declares taxing ammo to be "unconstitutional":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #156)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:16 AM

159. All laws / taxes / regs are constitutional until they aren't. That's not semantics, that's history.

Why wait for the house to turn blue? Talk to your state legislator, make it happen!

The following is an example of using your own *cough* logic *cough*:

The fact that you haven't done so means you acknowledge that it would be unconstitutional to do so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #159)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:17 AM

161. So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #161)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:35 AM

170. Now who's dodging? LOL!

I never claimed that *any* or *all* taxes on ammo are unconstitutional. That's a straw man of your own making.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. *
also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Justifications and effects actually matter. When a legislature passes legislation that infringes on a right, and it's challenged in court, the state has to justify it. The level of justification required ('standard of review') differs depending on the right.

Here, have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

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.

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, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.


So "because you don't like it" would not be a compelling government interest, therefore such an increase would not pass strict scrutiny, and therefore would be unconstitutional.

As to whether I think the PR act, were it proposed today, would pass constitutional muster? With the precedent of McDonald on the books, unlike in the 30's when it originally passed? I doubt it. But until it's challenged and a court rules one way or the other, it's presumptively constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #170)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:38 AM

173. And you dodge again. Answer the question put to you:

is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not?

Yes, or no. Quit dodging and playing semantics games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #173)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:44 AM

177. All legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional until they're ruled as not. (procedure aside)

What is it about that statement that you can't seem to wrap your head around?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #177)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:12 AM

198. Dodge, dodge, dodge. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #170)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:43 AM

176. BTW, you did declare such taxes "unconstitutional" (link below with money quote):

"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words, words he will neither own nor edit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #176)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:46 AM

179. No, actually, I didn't declare such taxes unconstitutional.. just your proposal..

because you don't like the right.

See strict scrutiny.

And..

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #179)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:53 AM

182. My "proposal" is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed: my proposal would

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #182)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:55 AM

186. Circular reasoning- by that *cough* logic, no law would ever be unconstitutional because it passed.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #186)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:16 AM

199. No, it is not "circular reasoning": I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" is.

In any event, you have refused to answer the straightforward question put to you, and here's why: because an honest answer would have required you to say "YES." And to have once given that answer unravels your entire participation in this sub-thread since your very first reply to me above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #199)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:42 AM

207. "is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed" -- therefore, any law that is implemented

is constitutional because it was implemented.

Completely circular, to evaluate a law's constitutionality based on the law passing (a pre-requisite of being called a law.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #207)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:18 PM

221. NO, it is not: again, you simply do not grasp the concept of what it means to engage in "circular

reasoning."

But at this point I am so heart-sick of what the gun lobby and it's shills and supporters have again wrought today in this country that it feels a bit revolting and disgusting to even have to share a discussion board conversation with one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #179)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:54 AM

184. Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay?

Last edited Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #179)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:59 AM

191. Up, or down? Do you need me to repeat the question?>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #145)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:37 AM

172. *yawn*

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

Congress passed legislation that was later found to be unconstitutional- film at 11!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #172)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:39 AM

174. Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you.

Quit dodging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #172)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:45 AM

178. The law taxing ammo - no matter how high the rate was increased - would never be found

unconstitutional. Congress has that taxing power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #178)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:48 AM

180. Congress's taxing power isn't absolute. What gives you the notion that it is? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #180)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:50 AM

181. Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you.

How hard can it be to type "yes" or "no"? Yet another dodge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #181)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:53 AM

183. *yawn*

All legislative acts are presumptively constitutional.

Just like Chicago's handgun ban was constitutional- before it was ruled as not.

Just as Maryland's arbitrary issuance of concealed carry permits were constitutional- before they weren't.

Hell..

Just as Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional- before they weren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #183)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:55 AM

185. Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay? It's not a hard question,

Last edited Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

really. Bear down real hard and I think you can manage either a "yes" or a "no."


Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #185)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:58 AM

190. It is constitutional until it isn't.

*yawn*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #190)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:00 AM

193. So, more semantics games. Dodge, dodge, dodge! Typical. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #190)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:02 AM

194. "It is constitutional until it isn't" - Pretty much sums it up your bizarre pretzel-logic throughout

this thread.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #183)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:56 AM

187. But this entire sub-thread was started by your insistence that such taxation was "unconstitutional":

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #187)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:59 AM

192. I made no such insistence.

No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. *
also mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=335300

And with that, I'm done. It's midnight here, work starts early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #192)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:03 AM

195. "You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #192)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:05 AM

196. "And with that, I'm done." - You were done a long time ago, as the facts are on my side.

As shown.

"It is constitutional until it isn't" <---Funny stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #180)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:58 AM

189. Yay, or nay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #172)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:58 AM

188. Yes, or no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:23 AM

200. Here's the bottom line of this entire sub-thread, from stem to stern:

You ultimately refused to answer the straightforward question put to you regarding the constitutionality of the tax on ammo, and here's why: because an honest answer would have required you to say "YES, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL." And to have once given that answer unravels your entire participation in this sub-thread since your very first reply to me here where you said:

You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?"

All too easy, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:41 PM

40. We certainly wouldn't want "undesirables" to be able to afford to buy dangerous weapons

 

And we all know who they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:19 PM

45. I see now why you quietly self-deleted that reply where you promised to ignore my posts.

Smooth move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:34 PM

55. Bullshit. I never promised I would ignore your posts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:59 PM

57. Sure you did. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:22 PM

127. Everyone knows that you are a master baiter, and I'm not going to fall for it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:31 PM

142. Good thing you self-deleted that post, ain't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread