SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteQuoteWell all right then - infringe upon everyone's constitutional rights equally.
Where in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets?
They are already taxed Jamille, this is just a case of piling on.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteThey are already taxed Jamille, this is just a case of piling on.
Oh okay, so your constitution limits the amount of tax that can be placed on a bullet? Can't seem to find that either.
Sorry about calling you Jamille... I misread or wasn't paying much attention so I posted it thinking it was Skyrad.
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhere in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets?
The Supreme Court has said as much.
You can't have a voting tax, because that would restrict the ability of poor people to vote. Likewise, if you tax the purchase of newspapers too heavily, you are infringing the right of free speech. And if you tax bullets too much, you infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteLikewise, if you tax the purchase of newspapers too heavily, you are infringing the right of free speech. And if you tax bullets too much, you infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
Was that part of the Supreme Court decision or your further interpretation of the voting tax issue?
I am asking because the parallel isn't even close. Taxing newspapers doesn't prevent the poor from exercising free speech, nor does taxing bullets prevent the right to bear arms.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteHere's a chance for you to show us your pro-gun side. The following is a quote yesterday from the news:
"Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York. 'I used gun control as mayor,' he said. But 'I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms.' He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting."So, kallend, please put on your pro-gun hat and tell us what is wrong with presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's statement. Let's see if you can do it. Just once, let's see you defend an incorrect statement against the 2nd Amendment.
Where was his error? Crime went down in NYC, as he said. Can you still buy a hunting rifle or shotgun in NYC? I'm sure a few people use handguns for hunting, which is the only error I can spot.
Well, it sure didn't take you long to fail that test. For someone who says that he is in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I'm surprised that you didn't spot the problem right away.
Rudy implies that every form of gun control should be acceptable under the 2nd Amendment, as long as it doesn't affect hunters.
That is false, because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
With that statement, Rudy Giuliani has proven himself to be ignorant about the 2nd Amendment.
Please try to learn this lesson, and to do better next time.
So, you feel that taxes by the county shouldn't be setup to help with the budget issues that directly impact the health of the population? Or, only taxes that don't infringe on your personal battles? Did you make a big stink about this when they setup any of the other Cook County taxes over the last 10 years or so?
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteQuoteWell all right then - infringe upon everyone's constitutional rights equally.
Where in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets?
They are already taxed Jamille, this is just a case of piling on.
Like gas, booze, tobacco...
Where does it say piling on is not allowed?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteWhere in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets?
The Supreme Court has said as much.
You can't have a voting tax, because that would restrict the ability of poor people to vote. Likewise, if you tax the purchase of newspapers too heavily, you are infringing the right of free speech. And if you tax bullets too much, you infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
Have you a SCOTUS ruling about bullet taxes being restricted? Who decides what is "too much"?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And if you tax bullets too much, you infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
Silliest argument yet. Sales tax is already applied to bullets. The constitution guarantees your right to bear arms - it does not guarantee your right to cheap commercially produced ammunition. It guarantees your right to free speech - it does not guarantee your right to free airtime, or free copying services at Kinko's. It guarantees your right to assemble peaceably to gripe about the government - it does not guarantee you a right to tax-free meeting rooms at hotels.
Claiming that a tax on bullets infringes on the second amendent is like claiming a hotel occupancy tax infringes on the first.
Silliest argument yet. Sales tax is already applied to bullets. The constitution guarantees your right to bear arms - it does not guarantee your right to cheap commercially produced ammunition. It guarantees your right to free speech - it does not guarantee your right to free airtime, or free copying services at Kinko's. It guarantees your right to assemble peaceably to gripe about the government - it does not guarantee you a right to tax-free meeting rooms at hotels.
Claiming that a tax on bullets infringes on the second amendent is like claiming a hotel occupancy tax infringes on the first.
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteQuoteHere's a chance for you to show us your pro-gun side. The following is a quote yesterday from the news:
"Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York. 'I used gun control as mayor,' he said. But 'I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms.' He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting."So, kallend, please put on your pro-gun hat and tell us what is wrong with presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's statement. Let's see if you can do it. Just once, let's see you defend an incorrect statement against the 2nd Amendment.
Where was his error? Crime went down in NYC, as he said. Can you still buy a hunting rifle or shotgun in NYC? I'm sure a few people use handguns for hunting, which is the only error I can spot.
Well, it sure didn't take you long to fail that test. For someone who says that he is in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I'm surprised that you didn't spot the problem right away.
Rudy implies that every form of gun control should be acceptable under the 2nd Amendment, as long as it doesn't affect hunters.
That is false, because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
With that statement, Rudy Giuliani has proven himself to be ignorant about the 2nd Amendment.
Please try to learn this lesson, and to do better next time.
I think you read rather more into his statement than was there. I didn't interpret it that way AT ALL. You failed to consider the punctuation and you failed to differentiate between direct quotes of what he said and commentary by the writer of the article.
But a nice try at obfuscation anyay.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,132
>So raise the tax on the traditional sins: Alcohol and Tobacco.
Don't forget prostitution (legal and quite taxable in some places.)
Once you get to this argument, though, you've already decided that taxing things people think are "sinful" is OK - now you're just working on the definition of what's sinful and what's virtuous. And on that scale, ammunition will lose out over, say, food, or water, or housing, or clothing.
Don't forget prostitution (legal and quite taxable in some places.)
Once you get to this argument, though, you've already decided that taxing things people think are "sinful" is OK - now you're just working on the definition of what's sinful and what's virtuous. And on that scale, ammunition will lose out over, say, food, or water, or housing, or clothing.
JohnRich 4
QuoteSo, you feel that taxes by the county shouldn't be setup to help with the budget issues that directly impact the health of the population?
Certainly they should, but not in areas where they infringe upon constitutional rights - those should be off-limits to taxes.
Then I feel they should tax ammo to help with that as I don't see how its anymore illegal than any of the other taxes in this countyQuoteQuoteSo, you feel that taxes by the county shouldn't be setup to help with the budget issues that directly impact the health of the population?
Certainly they should, but not in areas where they infringe upon constitutional rights.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
JohnRich 4
Quote>And if you tax bullets too much, you infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
Silliest argument yet. Sales tax is already applied to bullets. The constitution guarantees your right to bear arms - it does not guarantee your right to cheap commercially produced ammunition. It guarantees your right to free speech - it does not guarantee your right to free airtime, or free copying services at Kinko's. It guarantees your right to assemble peaceably to gripe about the government - it does not guarantee you a right to tax-free meeting rooms at hotels...
Go back and read what I said again. I highlighted the part that you seem to have missed in your zeal to counter my argument.
If a bullet was to cost, say $100, then that would infringe upon the right to bear arms. If you had to pay a $100 fee for the right to speak in front of your city council, that would infringe upon free speech. If you had to pay a $100 fee in order to vote in an election, that would infringe upon the right to vote.
Argue all you want about where to draw the line for "too much", but the principle itself has been validated by the Supreme Court, sepcifically with poll taxes. And any movement in that direction should be shot down, regardless of how trifling it may begin.
billvon 3,132
>Argue all you want about where to draw the line for "too much", but
>the principle itself has been validated by the Supreme Court, with
>poll taxes.
And the principle has been proven false by taxes on hotel meeting rooms and copier paper. Those are material things, and are far more similar to bullets than voting rights.
You can tax meeting rooms, copier paper, airtime sales and bullets without infringing anyone's rights. If the tax was excessive (as in your example) I would disagree with it just because it's absurd - that would actually _lose_ the government tax money _and_ discourage people from owning weapons, so it's a lose-lose situation. But a 25% tax? No problem constitutionally.
>the principle itself has been validated by the Supreme Court, with
>poll taxes.
And the principle has been proven false by taxes on hotel meeting rooms and copier paper. Those are material things, and are far more similar to bullets than voting rights.
You can tax meeting rooms, copier paper, airtime sales and bullets without infringing anyone's rights. If the tax was excessive (as in your example) I would disagree with it just because it's absurd - that would actually _lose_ the government tax money _and_ discourage people from owning weapons, so it's a lose-lose situation. But a 25% tax? No problem constitutionally.
QuoteQuoteWell all right then - infringe upon everyone's constitutional rights equally.
Where in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets?
The Supreme Court decision on poll taxes seems relevent here.
Where in your constitution does it say that you have a right to tax-free bullets?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites