Law POTWR 2019 Vol 4: Repeal Or Respect The 2nd Amendment?

[Cubo de Sangre]

One of the poll choices should’ve been to repeal SOME of the frivolous laws and expand gun rights.

There’s no good reason I have to be limited to a 10rd mag or not allowed to have a collapsible stock or flash suppressor on my rifle.

Sorry, bro.

 

[spamking]

So you are okay with the information being available, just not being actionable? It's kind of inevitable that the information will be abused at some point.

It's already actionable to a point. The state of Oklahoma already knows I own a handgun because I have a permit to carry. And the Feds already know I own/deal in firearms because I've paid the stupid tax fee for two suppressors and have had my FFL since 2015.

But I do agree that additional specifics would likely lead to abuse.

 

[nhbbear]

Keeping and bearing requires acquiring. Purchasing is absolutely a right.

I am not suggesting otherwise, but being able to afford a firearm is nowhere close to being a right. And a modest tax on a weapon that costs several hundred dollars could go a long way to help with gun violence. If I decide to buy a new gun, I have little issue with paying an extra twenty dollars to go towards decreasing gun violence. Whether that pays for more education, more police, raises for police to try and help fill empty positions-hell, we have at least 15 spots we can’t fill. For every new officer we get, two retire or quit. It takes six months to do a background check, then hire the officer, and then it is a year before they can actually contribute after they finish the academy and training.

People simply don’t want the job anymore. There is way too much bullshit that goes along with the job, and people just don’t want to deal with that for low pay. Hell, I am almost ready to call it, and I have 3.5 years left before I secure pension.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I am not suggesting otherwise, but being able to afford a firearm is nowhere close to being a right. And a modest tax on a weapon that costs several hundred dollars could go a long way to help with gun violence. If I decide to buy a new gun, I have little issue with paying an extra twenty dollars to go towards decreasing gun violence. Whether that pays for more education, more police, raises for police to try and help fill empty positions-hell, we have at least 15 spots we can’t fill. For every new officer we get, two retire or quit. It takes six months to do a background check, then hire the officer, and then it is a year before they can actually contribute after they finish the academy and training.

People simply don’t want the job anymore. There is way too much bullshit that goes along with the job, and people just don’t want to deal with that for low pay. Hell, I am almost ready to call it, and I have 3.5 years left before I secure pension.

Not being taxed out of the ability to exercise a right isn't the right of the government.

How much more blood do you wanna draw?

http://munitionsgroup.com/firearms-ammunition-excise-tax/

In the first half of 2017 alone, companies paid almost $350 million in Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (“FAET”). That is a big number.

FAET applies to the manufacture, production, importation, and sale of firearms, shells, or cartridges. FET itself stands for “Firearms Excise Tax”. A taxpayer is liable for FAET if it manufactures or produces a taxable product in the United States or imports a taxable product into the United States from a foreign source.

FAET is calculated by multiplying the sale price of the taxable product by the applicable tax rates. The applicable tax rates are:

• 10% of the sale price of pistols and revolvers;
• 11% of the sale price shells, cartridges, and firearms other than pistols and revolvers.

Sorry about the diminishing workforce. I'd never be a cop. Unless I could work vice, undercover. But I digress.

 

[nhbbear]

Not being taxed out of the ability to exercise a right isn't the right of the government.

How much more blood do you wanna draw?

http://munitionsgroup.com/firearms-ammunition-excise-tax/



Sorry about the diminishing workforce. I'd never be a cop. Unless I could work vice, undercover. But I digress.

I am not suggesting a big tax, and there should be a tax for every firearm and ammunition that each company sells-tax that hits the manufacturer, not the purchaser , but we all know that those greedy assholes will simply raise their prices to pass the bill onto the customer.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I am not suggesting a big tax, and there should be a tax for every firearm and ammunition that each company sells-tax that hits the manufacturer, not the purchaser , but we all know that those greedy assholes will simply raise their prices to pass the bill onto the customer.

The excise tax is already on the manufacturer. And yes, they can't just lose money because of it an continue to do business. I'm under the impression there is already small margins in firearms.

If there's a compromise to be found, it's in accessories. I could support an excise tax there, but not 10%. Maybe 3%, depending on the plan that needs funded.

 

[spamking]

I am not suggesting a big tax, and there should be a tax for every firearm and ammunition that each company sells-tax that hits the manufacturer, not the purchaser , but we all know that those greedy assholes will simply raise their prices to pass the bill onto the customer.

Didn't folks use the "poll tax" argument against requiring voter ID? I see this idea much the same . . . passing costs on to the consumer is great for the big dealers/manufacturers. I've pretty much given up trying to do much more with my FFL than sell a few parts here or there to folks I've sold to in the past and supplementing my "habit". There isn't quite as much profit out there as a lot of folks think.

 

[Dolomite]

Chances of yet another poll option?

• I'm sending my Benchmade back and asking the CEO to cut it up!

 

[nhbbear]

Didn't folks use the "poll tax" argument against requiring voter ID? I see this idea much the same . . . passing costs on to the consumer is great for the big dealers/manufacturers. I've pretty much given up trying to do much more with my FFL than sell a few parts here or there to folks I've sold to in the past and supplementing my "habit". There isn't quite as much profit out there as a lot of folks think.

I really wish we could tax the manufactures, but they would just pass it on to the consumer because they are greedy. But a tax of a few dollars per hundred dollars for the guns could do great things for reducing gun violence. Like i said, increasing the number of police, paying for criminals to be locked up for gun violence, helping to pay the medical costs of gunshot victims. There are a lot of ways these taxes could help.

 

[jlagman]

Chances of yet another poll option?

• I'm sending my Benchmade back and asking the CEO to cut it up!

Or, use your Benchmade to cut up a Yeti cooler, then send it back to be cut up.

<{ByeHomer}>

 

[N13]

 

[Gregolian]

Or, use your Benchmade to cut up a Yeti cooler, then send it back to be cut up.

<{ByeHomer}>

I'm not a huge fan of how Benchmade got used in that Social media post but at the same time I think the guys going after them are fucking idiots and I don't usually say that about like MAC on YouTube and shit.

I say that about Yaeger all the time.... dude acts like he was a Green Beret when he was never even in and how his opinions on firearms should be gospel.

"All pistols should be Glocks and all Glocks should be 9mm"
"Even for a sidearm while hunting bears?"
"Well, um....."
"What happens if I have 4000 rounds of .45 ACP sitting around?"
"YOU AREN'T A TRAINER YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT"
"You mean like YOUR employee that stomped on a LOADED PISTOL to prove a point and it went *bang* and blew up a customer's truck door?"

 

[jlagman]

I'm not a huge fan of how Benchmade got used in that Social media post but at the same time I think the guys going after them are fucking idiots and I don't usually say that about like MAC on YouTube and shit.

I say that about Yaeger all the time.... dude acts like he was a Green Beret when he was never even in and how his opinions on firearms should be gospel.

"All pistols should be Glocks and all Glocks should be 9mm"
"Even for a sidearm while hunting bears?"
"Well, um....."
"What happens if I have 4000 rounds of .45 ACP sitting around?"
"YOU AREN'T A TRAINER YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT"
"You mean like YOUR employee that stomped on a LOADED PISTOL to prove a point and it went *bang* and blew up a customer's truck door?"

Yeah, a bit of facetiousness on my part. I get discontinuing support for a certain brand or product for political reasons, but to go out of your way to destroy shit you paid money for, only to score YouTube or social media points is stupid.

 

[Gregolian]

Yeah, a bit of facetiousness on my part. I get discontinuing support for a certain brand or product for political reasons, but to go out of your way to destroy shit you paid money for, only to score YouTube or social media points is stupid.

I like MrGunsNGear's response to it. Basically boiled down to "I'm not happy with what happened but it seems like Benchmade got used as well without their knowledge. To the idiots destroying your knives, send them to me... I'll destroy them"

James Yeager and like the VSO Gun Channel guys are fucking idiots about this.

 

[Higus]

A thought, or broad generalization:

People who support the 2nd Amendment are concerned with defending themselves against criminals, foreign invaders, and domestic tyranny
People against the 2nd Amendment are concerned with the effects of criminals, terrorists, and mentally ill people with easy access to firearms

I'm not sure how to reconcile both groups. I believe people have a right to defend themselves, but I also know that as a society we have not been good at preventing people using firearms illegally. I also don't think there are many examples in history that would show privately armed populace would be an effective deterrent against foreign invaders when other factors are considered. I also don't think that well armed private citizens are a deterrent against domestic tyranny, especially in this country. Ironically, it's as likely that well armed citizens SUPPORT a tyrannical government than fight against it.

Going to have to research this train of thought; hopefully I can build on it or throw it away later in the week. Looking for input.

 

[Gregolian]

A thought, or broad generalization:

People who support the 2nd Amendment are concerned with defending themselves against criminals, foreign invaders, and domestic tyranny
People against the 2nd Amendment are concerned with the effects of criminals, terrorists, and mentally ill people with easy access to firearms

I'm not sure how to reconcile both groups. I believe people have a right to defend themselves, but I also know that as a society we have not been good at preventing people using firearms illegally. I also don't think there are many examples in history that would show privately armed populace would be an effective deterrent against foreign invaders when other factors are considered. I also don't think that well armed private citizens are a deterrent against domestic tyranny, especially in this country. Ironically, it's as likely that well armed citizens SUPPORT a tyrannical government than fight against it.

Going to have to research this train of thought; hopefully I can build on it or throw it away later in the week. Looking for input.

I think the Revolution is a great example of expelling foreign invaders as private citizens.

The revolution in Texas though the US Army was involved and could be argued an aggressor also had plenty of private citizens involved in that too.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I also don't think that well armed private citizens are a deterrent against domestic tyranny, especially in this country.

With domestic tyranny it's not force on force. It's force against apathy. The government is by the people. If they get motivated then shit changes. What'll help motivate them is emboldened individuals and groups. Waco changed government protocol. The Bundy stand-off shit wouldn't happen with knives. Beating tyranny domestically isn't about taking out the Navy or Air Force. If there's real tyranny then a well-armed citizenry will absolutely prevail.

 

[spamking]

A thought, or broad generalization:

People who support the 2nd Amendment are concerned with defending themselves against criminals, foreign invaders, and domestic tyranny
People against the 2nd Amendment are concerned with the effects of criminals, terrorists, and mentally ill people with easy access to firearms

I'm not sure how to reconcile both groups. I believe people have a right to defend themselves, but I also know that as a society we have not been good at preventing people using firearms illegally. I also don't think there are many examples in history that would show privately armed populace would be an effective deterrent against foreign invaders when other factors are considered. I also don't think that well armed private citizens are a deterrent against domestic tyranny, especially in this country. Ironically, it's as likely that well armed citizens SUPPORT a tyrannical government than fight against it.

Going to have to research this train of thought; hopefully I can build on it or throw it away later in the week. Looking for input.

Add watching both Red Dawn films to your research . . .

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I also don't think that well armed private citizens are a deterrent against domestic tyranny, especially in this country.

You can think that, but you would be

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
The Battle of Athens was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption and voter intimidation.

This is an instance of an armed citizenry defeating a tyrannical government and restoring order in the 20th century.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

but we all know that those greedy assholes will simply raise their prices to pass the bill onto the customer.

I really wish we could tax the manufactures, but they would just pass it on to the consumer because they are greedy.

You're aware that every single successful company in the history of all Humanity passes every single cent of taxes charged to them onto their customers, correct?

When the tax bill becomes higher, that becomes part of that company's cost of doing business.

A company isn't going to accept less profits just because some people think they should.

Also, why do you consider the company to be greedy for simply passing on a cost that was imposed upon them?

Why do you not consider the politicians who imposes this new tax and those eager to receive this new unearned tax money as greedy?