This is a very broad definition...
Bwhaaaaaaaaaa they haven't been able to be trusted since the beginning of timeOver-broad definitions are an old trick.
Go back to the 1980s and read the first version of the original "assault rifle" ban legislation introduced by Howard Metzenbaum. It defined "assault rifle" so broadly that it included most rifles, a substantial percentage of shotguns, and 99.9% of semi-auto pistols.
I was much younger then and more naive but when I read that bill, it dawned on me that the people introducing gun control legislation weren't entirely to be trusted.
But yet those ass-wads can charge us a $200 tax stamp for a silencer and THAT'S ok?I understand defeating this before it happens is the best method, but even if it did happen, I have to wonder if it would pass Constitutional muster as being legal for them too tax an item at such a high rate. Also by such taxation, it would infringe upon all those but the most well-heeled at being able to own them. Reminds me of when poll taxes were used to restrict certain groups of people from being able to vote.
Another question that arose for me is, who is, or are the benefactors of said taxes? Could be a huge conflict of interest there.
Nope! I have always considered it an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, simply because paying a tax to exercise a right, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.But yet those ass-wads can charge us a $200 tax stamp for a silencer and THAT'S ok?
Nope! I have always considered it an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, simply because paying a tax to exercise a right, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.
Amen!Nope! I have always considered it an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, simply because paying a tax to exercise a right, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.
Sad, but true.Amen!
They don't put any requirements on having kids, like being able to provide for them and take care of them properly, but all you need is a vagina and you can pop out kids like a fucking Pez dispenser all at the tax payers expense.
Doesn't mean they won't try and make people have to take it to court to get it over-ruled.This is simply another Quisling, grandstanding. There is case law, cited in the original Miller case, and used as the original reason to dismiss the charges, that the government can not, "punitively," tax something out of existance.
Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
That's just sheer genius!
That reminds me of a joke:So when someone steals them, are they going to pay the tax and get a back round check
There is always a workaround. Why couldn’t gun shops take a clue from the breweries and sell a “token” which you can then exchange for a firearm. You aren’t buying a firearm, you are buying a token. A background check and 4473 could still be conducted to deliver the firearm.