Constitutional measures that can be taken for gun control, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:21 PM by OmegaLogos

reply to post by xedocodex

Explanation: Which sacred cows are you trying to protect?

The

politicians ...Or ... We The People?

Personal Disclosure: I reserve the right to be shot by anyone for any reasons and for them to face a fair and speedy trial of their peers and possibly face the death penalty if found guilty of any crimes.

Having extended that right to others 1st ... I can now claim it as my own right!

Fair is Fair ok!

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:22 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I doubt any of them would pass the current SCOTUS, thankfully the make up of the SCOTUS will be changing soon. Good chance Obama will appoint at least one this term. And hopefully Hillary runs in 2016, and she will appoint at least 2 more.

The Constitution says the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed, not the right to PURCHASE arms shall not be infringed. No law will be passed saying that people can't own guns, they can own as many as they want, but that doesn't stop the government from regulating the sale of guns and imposing high taxes on them.

None of these can pass with the current make up of Congress anyway, but these are valid options if the Dems can get control of the House again.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:25 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
If any of these are done.... there will be blood.

Well, something will be done about gun control, it is inevitable.

And I really don't think there will be blood, using guns to kill a politician to protest gun legislation is just kind of proving the point of needing gun legislation. Good luck with that.

A good team of lawyers is all we need. Write your reps, go to meetings ect.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:27 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I doubt any of them would pass the current SCOTUS, thankfully the make up of the SCOTUS will be changing soon. Good chance Obama will appoint at least one this term. And hopefully Hillary runs in 2016, and she will appoint at least 2 more.

The Constitution says the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed, not the right to PURCHASE arms shall not be infringed. No law will be passed saying that people can't own guns, they can own as many as they want, but that doesn't stop the government from regulating the sale of guns and imposing high taxes on them.

I cant believe I am hearing words like this come out of a fellow americans mouth.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:30 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by seeker1963

So you have nothing to add except silly pictures?

All the options above are valid and Constitutional. People are so worried about going after their guns, but it won't be the guns, it will be the ammo.

The Federal government has the right to taxation and to regulate commerce.

What if they wanted to regulate the sale of paper and ink so the local couldnt print under the freedom of press?

edit on 10-1-2013 by Logarock because: n

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:37 PM by onthedownlow

reply to post by xedocodex

Hey, we could all smash our weapons into plowshares- and then we could farm for the collective. Lets not stop at pissing on the US Constitution, lets piss on our flag, too. We could turn the field of blue into red, and the stars could all be little syckles. Oh yeah, your right to post your opinion freely, we can tax that, too. five bucks a letter?

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:40 PM by ganjoa

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Aw shucks Wrabbit - I kinda like the idea of #1 AS PRESENTED by the OP.
Then we could have fully automatic guns, anti-aircraft & anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, artillery - all kinds of neat stuff that is currently NFA restricted - as long as you manufacture your own stuff.
Same goes for ammo - flechette 12GA shells, depleted uranium, incendiary ammo, steel cased AP rounds - the list of fun stuff is endless!!!

Seriously, the only proposal that would stand the constitutional challenge would be taxation and even then something like a tax $10 per round could never meet any kind of reasonable test IMO.

ganjoa

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:46 PM by GoOfYFoOt

Sure....And then let's pass a law, that says everyone is entitled to say whatever they want to, under the 1st amendment, which protects free speech. But, none of your words, thoughts, writings or gestures, can in any way, be seen by, read, heard or felt, by another human being! No exchange of ideas, information, or knowledge in any form, may legally be conveyed, to another individual, BY LAW!

You still have the right to say it. But, you will be imprisoned or killed, if anyone else receives it...

Now, do you understand how senseless your post is?

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:47 PM by PassiveObserver

In light of Americas Obesity problem I think it is time to ban cheeseburgers, and limit the number of fries per order.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:51 PM by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by ganjoa

Then we could have fully automatic guns, anti-aircraft & anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, artillery... flechette 12GA shells, depleted uranium, incendiary ammo, steel cased AP rounds - the list of fun stuff is endless!!!

ganjoa

Right?!!! ALSO, just imagine all of the cool, NEW stuff that would be invented, if they managed to take away what we have now!!!!!

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 05:53 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by Masterjaden

TOO bad these are NOT constitutional AT ALL!!!!!!

An infringement is exactly that. Anything that infringes on these rights. You cannot heavily tax firearms in a way that infringes on the ability for the common man to obtain them. You cannot tax AMMO in a way that would restrict the average man to obtain them.

Hell, the restrictions that have already done this to an extent barely survived judicial review and they shouldn't have.

Besides, it is not firearms that are guaranteed, it is ALL arms, AMMO is armament...

so MASSIVE FAIL on your so called constitutional measures that can be taken...

And who says they aren't Constitutional? You?

To bad your say means nothing in our system. Guess what, if any of these were passed into law, they would be Constitutional until a time the SCOTUS would say otherwise. And all of you are saying they would be unconstitutional, but none of you are elaborating how.

The Infringment only applies to KEEPING and BEARING arms, not your ability to purchase a gun and/or ammo. Taxing guns/ammo isn't an infringement on KEEPING or BEARING arms, neither is banning the sale of ammo. You can make your own, you won't get aressted for it, no infringement at all.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 06:00 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by OmegaLogos

I agree ... and US Citizens can legally butcher/slaughter/kill oppressive tyrants under the 2nd ammendment!

You may want to re-read the 2nd Amendment and the entire Constitution.

It specifically defines treasonous acts as warring against the United States. There is no right to rebel in the Constitution, a common mistake.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 06:31 PM by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Same goes for ammo - flechette 12GA shells, depleted uranium, incendiary ammo, steel cased AP rounds - the list of fun stuff is endless!!!

Seriously, the only proposal that would stand the constitutional challenge would be taxation and even then something like a tax $10 per round could never meet any kind of reasonable test IMO.

ganjoa

You can't buy flechette rounds? Er... Oh. You can't get the green tip penetration .223 and tracers? .. Oh. You do realize those are State by State restrictions, right?

shhh.... nvm.

Taxing can simply be done by taxing the products higher than they already are for imports (Glock, H&K, Beretta, most AK- variants, Steyr, FN.... and on and on) and taxes on domestic ones in some other creative new fee/tax. I don't see where the Super Court can say it can't be done since it IS done on everything from fuel to cigarettes to spray paint as it is.

Thats the BAD part... I don't see this as a GOOD thing, mind you. I just don't see how it wouldn't be legal.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 06:34 PM by swoopaloop

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the second amendment.

After reading it, read your original post again.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 07:22 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by Logarock

Any moves that would limit the abiltiy to exercise the amendment, prohibitive taxation, would be an infringment. Just ask a lawyer.

Guns and ammo are already taxed, the prices and taxes are already "prohibitive" to a portion of the population, so your argument really doesn't really pass.

And the taxes would be to make guns/ammo less prevelant, not to make them non-existent. Instead of being able to drop a few hundred dollars and have a gun with ammo, make it more of an investment. Similar to the level of a car, you are going to have to drop tens of thousands now to purchase a gun and ammo. It's not prohibitive, look at all the cars on the streets.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 07:37 PM by bl4ke360

Originally posted by xedocodex
Now, these are pretty extreme, but they are constitutional and would solve the problem of guns being so prevalent in our society.

1) Ban the sale of firearms and/or ammo. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to purchase firearms, only that you can own them. So they are fine to ban the sale of firearms to the general public, but impose no penalty for actually owning one. If you want to build your own gun, knock yourself out, no one is going to infringe on your right to build your own and own it.

Isn't the point of all this to reduce crimes and injuries? When people's home-made guns explode in their hands because they're not professional gunsmiths, what would the point be? All it would do is make them more dangerous. Other than the fact that all of your suggestions are unconstitutional, you clearly didn't think of the consequences of this.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 08:48 PM by xedocodex

reply to post by solomons path

As Jaden noted above, you cannot tax a right, so most of your idea is not constitutional. You are right about commerce and you already pay those taxes when you purchase said items. The problem is the anti-gun people want the US to view defense as a privilage, not a right. And, as in all areas, submit that privilage to the state (LEOs, military). Your option is to abolish the second . . . but, that will expose them for what they are.

Guns and ammo are already taxed, so yes it is perfectly Constitutional to tax them more. I think they should push high taxes on ammo.

As far as your example, I wouldn't think the point would be to kill an opposed ideology. If it ever came to that point . . . The purpose of killing said politician would be to remove one link in the chain of tyranny, and you are right about proving a point.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but the fact that you and other pro-gun people so easily jump to killing people as a solution is the main reason we need to do something about gun control.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 09:49 PM by xedocodex

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I doubt any of them would pass the current SCOTUS, thankfully the make up of the SCOTUS will be changing soon. Good chance Obama will appoint at least one this term. And hopefully Hillary runs in 2016, and she will appoint at least 2 more.

The Constitution says the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed, not the right to PURCHASE arms shall not be infringed. No law will be passed saying that people can't own guns, they can own as many as they want, but that doesn't stop the government from regulating the sale of guns and imposing high taxes on them.

I cant believe I am hearing words like this come out of a fellow americans mouth.

Which words exactly?

I would love for you to elaborate as to why you can't believe a fellow American is expressing their opinion.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 10:23 PM by Wolf321

Is the author of this thread an elected politician? Are you by chance Harry Reid?

This is exactly how the US got in the mess it is in. Politicians looking for ways to try and find technicalities to exploit the people and destroy liberty.

I don't understand people in America who say and think like this. We are the only nation on the planet created for the sole purpose of securing freedom. Yet people like you run around say, "No! We should not be free. We should emulate the rest of the world and restrict freedom and inalienable human rights."

Why do people who hate freedoms so much want to stay in a country that exists to support freedom?? Why not just move to some nation that is already running under socialism, communism, monarchy or dictatorial utopia that you want to see America become? Why go through the trouble or elections and process to remake what already exists elsewhere?

I can only assume you don't want those who would be left in the US to be here free and happy, and just want to see everyone in the world dragged down to some common level of misery and unhappiness.

reply posted on 10-1-2013 @ 10:37 PM by JBlitzen

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I doubt any of them would pass the current SCOTUS, thankfully the make up of the SCOTUS will be changing soon. Good chance Obama will appoint at least one this term. And hopefully Hillary runs in 2016, and she will appoint at least 2 more.

The Constitution says the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed, not the right to PURCHASE arms shall not be infringed. No law will be passed saying that people can't own guns, they can own as many as they want, but that doesn't stop the government from regulating the sale of guns and imposing high taxes on them.

I cant believe I am hearing words like this come out of a fellow americans mouth.

Which words exactly?

I would love for you to elaborate as to why you can't believe a fellow American is expressing their opinion.

He would, except that he only has the right to FREE SPEECH if he can afford to exercise it and can afford the permit required for it and is granted the permit. His FREE SPEECH desire, however, wasn't deemed sufficient to justify the state's granting to him of that FREE SPEECH permit. Thus, constitutionally, he's prohibited from responding to you. And we did it all constitutionally, right?

This is the future you advocate.

And that's why people like us have guns. Because there are people like you.

Does that help clear it up?

edit on 10-1-2013 by JBlitzen because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^