Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j9u7do5 wrote

Could one of you ammosexuals please explain to me how this is a violation of 2nd amendment rights but the fact that books are taxed isn't a violation of 1st amendment rights?

5

BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ua7cz wrote

books are normal 6.35% tax guns and ammo 6.35% + 11% already, without the bill.

25

MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j9ubcx5 wrote

I've never seen police respond to someone bringing a book into a school.

−19

BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ucmc2 wrote

what?😂 we’re talking of law abiding citizens forced to pay ADDITIONAL unlawful taxes on the guns they use responsibly to fund programs to prevent your little brother from walking into school shooting kids in the face. thats like adding taxes to alcohol because a minor got caught drinking at a party. so because he drank as a minor and broke the law we should pay additional taxes to fund a D.A.R.E program?

geez talking with connecticut far left dems is like trying to teach a brick wall to play basketball. some of you guys in here have no problem making yourselves sound brainless all on your own!😂

14

MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j9udozz wrote

> thats like adding taxes to alcohol because a minor got caught drinking at a party.

Uhhh, we already do that? There are taxes on alcohol above and beyond the 6.35% specifically to deal with harm alcohol causes.

geez talking with connecticut alt-reich cons is like trying to teach a incontinent golden retriever to play basketball.

−9

BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ue3rk wrote

and uhhhhh theres already 17% guns and ammo tax. you’re goin in circles dude dont get dizzy now🤪

16

WedSpassky t1_j9uj0bx wrote

Tax guns/ammo more. They kill people and cause irreparable harm to countless innocent Americans every year.

−14

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9umazv wrote

Gangs do this but you’re not ready for that conversation

12

WedSpassky t1_j9umiz1 wrote

Really? Gangs shoot up schools? Japan has gangs - why aren’t there more shootings in Japan. Like I said - you’re a fucking nitwit. Go play with your guns dumbass - too stupid to do anything else.

−9

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j9un2yw wrote

No but there’s more gang related violence than there are school shootings in this state.

Stick your head further up your ass so your head comes back out of your mouth. There’s more legal gun owners in the suburbs but hardly any crime. All the gang shootings are in the cities.

10

Viceversa10 t1_j9v8htk wrote

Ban abortions. They kill thousands of babies a year. Ban cars. They kill thousands of people a year. Ban breathing. It causes cancer and you die. Ban smoking cigarettes and weed. They cause cancer and kill you. Ban walking. You can fall and die. Ban knives forks and spoons they are weapons that can kill others.

Shall I keep going?

2

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uclyp wrote

What if the government decided to put a tax on everything you posted to social media?

10

SnooMemesjellies7469 t1_j9wb0ba wrote

"Ammosexual.". Funny. Not original, but funny.

I'm not aware of any specific "book" tax. If you mean sales tax, ammunition is already subject to that.

Grow up and move out of your mom's basement. Shower off and get the stink of mildew off you, first.

0

GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9v9wum wrote

It's obviously not an infringement of the 2A. Folks who get outraged about this are reacting not so much to the tax itself as to what they perceive as the legislators' motives. If hypothetically they'd set the tax at $5 per round, I think it would be easy to see their viewpoint.

For comparison, machine guns are still legal to own in most of the US. The National Firearms Act of 1934 decided to tax them instead of banning them. The tax, $400, is negligible today, but at the time it was the equivalent of over $4K in present-day dollars. It was ample to keep poor and minorities from owning these guns, while it was barely an inconvenience to the wealthy.

* And they went the taxation route because they believed at the time that a ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional. They were explicitly trying to reduce ownership of machine guns without ever resorting to a ban.

** What really cut down their availability was the 1986 ban on manufacture or importation of machine guns for civilian use. All machine guns in circulation today were manufactured pre-1986.

−1

TreeEleben t1_j9wn6iq wrote

The government has capped the number of legal machine guns, the cheapest is over $10k. They're banned from anyone who isn't rich. Taxing ammo beyond normal sales tax is solely intended to make practice and recreational shooting too expensive for most people.

4

gewehr44 t1_j9vl461 wrote

An onerous tax would 'obviously' be an infringement. The question is where that line is? After Bruen, these taxes might be struck down.

3

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yehpt wrote

Doesn’t infringe on anything. You still are able to keep and bear arms. Can’t afford the bullets? Oh, well. You could always make your own.

−1

gewehr44 t1_ja1ul72 wrote

Could the govt tax newspapers so that every copy cost $100?

2

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja2hjxq wrote

Yeah, if they so chose.

0

gewehr44 t1_ja5i709 wrote

Disagree. Under Murdock v pa the state cannot tax a right. Taxing something that is a right to make it unaffordable would be unconstitutional. See also poll taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania?wprov=sfla1

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja5mfn2 wrote

Touché. Fortunately ammunition isn’t a right.

1

gewehr44 t1_ja6vjmo wrote

I forgot someone else wrote about this:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/02/gun-controllers-have-it-all-figured-out/

The idea that ammunition isn't included is laughable. There are a number of court cases that should be decided this year that will shed some more light on this topic

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7nind wrote

Why would ammunition be a right? Not mentioned at all. I fear you will be disappointed with the results of those court cases.

1

gewehr44 t1_ja7phfv wrote

The right to keep and bear arms is not just about guns. It also includes knives & other implements useful for self defense. In Caetano v Massachusetts, stun guns were deemed to be protected by the 2nd. Claiming that the people can own arms but not the means to make them useful is a 'too clever by half' interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts?wprov=sfla1

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja7q5q2 wrote

But not ammunition.

1

gewehr44 t1_jaa3n5p wrote

This is about carrying ammunition

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/heller-wins-against-dc-ammunition-restrictions/

1

CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_jachrce wrote

Another article full of likely. But no decision.

1

gewehr44 t1_jadr2x3 wrote

If it's so obvious then, why hasn't any state passed legislation banning ammunition? I don't think it's even been proposed.

1

GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vth2v wrote

Agreed. 3c doesn't seem like much if you're shooting rifle calibers, but since I normally shoot .22, and I remember when the round itself cost 2c, I'd find it outrageous enough to do all my shopping out of state.

−2

interiorcrocodemon t1_j9v7m0r wrote

It doesn't matter, it doesn't fix anything. It's meaningless fake action.

It's kinda funny 2a people are even upset because of how insignificant it is.

But it's dumb. Have some balls to do something that actually makes a difference. Mass shootings statically went way down with the last assault weapon ban. The majority are done with ar15s.

I don't care why it works but it does so let's do it again.

If you want a gun so bad get a Pistol or shotgun or something not used to mass eliminate people on the regular.

−9

GlamorousBunchberry t1_j9vbsbj wrote

>It's kinda funny 2a people are even upset because of how insignificant it is.

In that sense it's a bit like pat-downs in the airport: it's kind of infuriating to know that not only is this chungus feeling me up, but also that it's doing absolutely nothing to make anyone even a little bit safer.

7

interiorcrocodemon t1_j9velma wrote

Agreed but it's just proof democrats won't actually enact gun control. They'll just make political gestures so they can say 'look, we tried, donate to our next campaign and maybe then?'

3