17 dead in Parkland Florida high school shooting

[Kernen]

Taking steps to make exercising a constitutional right more difficult is infringement. You don't get to tax prayers, or have a special newspaper tax to the best of my knowledge. The government has to offer some sort of service to go with it to be classified as a fee and not a tax. Otherwise, it's punitive and likely not legal.

It’s remarkable how so many seem to forget that it’s not meant to be easy to limit constitutional rights.

The American system is viewed as cumbersome and flawed because it is inherently designed to be difficult to operate. Madison wrote it in one of the federalist papers (I can no longer remember the number, somebody tap in if you remember). He argued that a system that was cumbersome and inefficient was insulated from tyranny, as it gave plenty of opportunity to resist it. Case and point.

[Kernen]

Taking steps to make exercising a constitutional right more difficult is infringement. You don't get to tax prayers, or have a special newspaper tax to the best of my knowledge. The government has to offer some sort of service to go with it to be classified as a fee and not a tax. Otherwise, it's punitive and likely not legal.

By that logic isn't having to pay to purchase one infringement?

Not really. You pay to purchase any good. But your money is going to the purveyor, not the state. The state intervening in a manner different than any other similar good is an as-applied violation of the right. There's a difference between commerce and taxation, after all.

[Ors Might]

Taking steps to make exercising a constitutional right more difficult is infringement. You don't get to tax prayers, or have a special newspaper tax to the best of my knowledge. The government has to offer some sort of service to go with it to be classified as a fee and not a tax. Otherwise, it's punitive and likely not legal.

By that logic isn't having to pay to purchase one infringement?

Hey, you’re talking to a guy who wants to make mandatory gun ownership and training a thing. From what I understand, it’s not infringement technically. Essentially, you have the right to acquire a firearm with as few restrictions as reasonably posssible as per the Supreme Court. However, since guns are made by private individuals, you have to buy them from those individuals. Basically, capitalism.

[Ors Might]

It’s remarkable how so many seem to forget that it’s not meant to be easy to limit constitutional rights.

The American system is viewed as cumbersome and flawed because it is inherently designed to be difficult to operate. Madison wrote it in one of the federalist papers (I can no longer remember the number, somebody tap in if you remember). He argued that a system that was cumbersome and inefficient was insulated from tyranny, as it gave plenty of opportunity to resist it. Case and point.

I for one am glad that Trump can’t revoke any amendment that he doesn’t like.

[Northern Davincia]

Orwell called he said 1984 was a not a how to guide.

Remember, the second you lose your guns the entire world will become an Orwellian dystopia. -nod-

You are correct on this.

[Kernen]

The American system is viewed as cumbersome and flawed because it is inherently designed to be difficult to operate. Madison wrote it in one of the federalist papers (I can no longer remember the number, somebody tap in if you remember). He argued that a system that was cumbersome and inefficient was insulated from tyranny, as it gave plenty of opportunity to resist it. Case and point.

I for one am glad that Trump can’t revoke any amendment that he doesn’t like.

As much as I wish certain amendments, or parts thereof, could be revoked or changed by fiat, it isn't gonna happen. Not in my favor.

I'm looking at you, Religious Freedom. #MandatoryAtheism

[Ors Might]

I for one am glad that Trump can’t revoke any amendment that he doesn’t like.

As much as I wish certain amendments, or parts thereof, could be revoked or changed by fiat, it isn't gonna happen.

I'm looking at you, Religious Freedom. #MandatoryAtheism

Look on the bright side. At the very least Pence can’t electroshock us into religious belief. What would the christianized version of Reek be?

[Kernen]

As much as I wish certain amendments, or parts thereof, could be revoked or changed by fiat, it isn't gonna happen.

I'm looking at you, Religious Freedom. #MandatoryAtheism

Look on the bright side. At the very least Pence can’t electroshock us into religious belief. What would the christianized version of Reek be?

Like I said, I know it won't pan out in my favor, so I'm not about to vote for it. But I dare to dream.

[Esternial]

By that logic isn't having to pay to purchase one infringement?

Not really. You pay to purchase any good. But your money is going to the purveyor, not the state. The state intervening in a manner different than any other similar good is an as-applied violation of the right. There's a difference between commerce and taxation, after all.

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm not in a position to watch US TV news (nor do I really want to do that to myself), but in my own little bubble I'm getting two contradictory stories at the moment. One is that this is not going to change anything, and the same 'thoughts and prayers' BS that happened after the other large shootings will play itself out. The maybe more interesting one is that there is a large enough number of media-savvy kids and parents involved in this one that they can keep the issue on the boil.

Logic with the latter is that polls consistently show large support for the sort of sensible gun control measures that the pro-gun-funded politicians refuse to implement. There is some tip-over point where for a politician the extra TV ads funded by pro-gun contributions aren't worth the cost of opposing controls. The reason that tip-over point hasn't been reached yet is that the debate isn't being had on the substance of the specific policies, but about BS hypothetical arguments about the second amendment or whatever, which are themselves a pretty recent invention and far from the concerns of most people (certainly when compared to the literal fear of having your kids not come home from school). But that's not just the fault of the pro-gun side - it's also the fault of those who want those measures implemented. There's not much sense going out and saying "these things happen because Americans have too many guns" (no matter how true I might personally think that is), because you immediately put everyone who buys into gun culture into defensive mode and no conversation is going to happen.

What needs to happen is a large enough advocacy group calling for specific policies likely to have an actual effect and shown to have large public support. That is about media strategy and having the right messenger. Getting a few great speakers and ambassadors out of an event like this might be the best chance there is to finally slow down the rate of this insanity.

The other side has had great speakers, ie Obama, pushing the cause in the past. This is just one of those issues where things probably aren't going to change. While yeah polling says people might be okay with more measures those people don't care much about the issue and it gets sidelined a lot whereas the side that doesn't want new measures only cares about this issue and votes accordingly. There's easily millions of single issue gun rights voters who don't want to budge because they gain nothing if they do and there's several organizations with millions of members (NRA and GOA being the most relevant but there's one or two other large ones) that exist to help organize that community everywhere from the local to federal level.

I know the term gets thrown around a lot but this is one topic that's just a culture war thing. When both sides are totally opposed there's not much chance of meeting in the middle.

[Grinning Dragon]

So here's an idea cribbed from the imgur comments section: Tax gun and ammo purchases to fund mental health services.

This is already a thing, there are Federal excise taxes on new firearms and ammo, archery/gear purchases, plus state and local taxes on goods and services. At the Federal level those taxes pump millions of dollars into wildlife conservation programs. Unless you are suggesting a special additional taxation, then no, that is punitive and unconstitutional.

[Northern Davincia]

Not really. You pay to purchase any good. But your money is going to the purveyor, not the state. The state intervening in a manner different than any other similar good is an as-applied violation of the right. There's a difference between commerce and taxation, after all.

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

Unlike tobacco and alcohol, guns are good.
Also taxation is theft.

[Kernen]

Not really. You pay to purchase any good. But your money is going to the purveyor, not the state. The state intervening in a manner different than any other similar good is an as-applied violation of the right. There's a difference between commerce and taxation, after all.

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

Guns are taxable, but it has to be in accordance with other items of a similar class. Specifically, recreational objects. Really, they're no different than skis or a baseball glove for the purposes of taxation. They don't deserve special tax breaks.

Taxes on alcohol and tobacco stem from a very different historical place, but at the end of the day, booze and smokes aren't constitutional rights, and so they aren't worthy of similar scrutiny. I'll change that tune when you pass the next amendment that guarantees my right to a Cuban and a bottle of really peaty scotch.

You can tax the manufacturers and the distributors, but when that starts interfering with the consumer's right, you get into a bit of a difficulty.

Ammo is a bit different. It already is taxed at a different rate, iirc.

[Kernen]

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

Unlike tobacco and alcohol, guns are good.
Also taxation is theft.

Alcohol and tobacco are fucking great.

[Esternial]

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

Unlike tobacco and alcohol, guns are good.
Also taxation is theft.

Alcohol isn't inherently bad. When used in moderation it has plenty of (recreative) advantages.

[Ors Might]

Not really. You pay to purchase any good. But your money is going to the purveyor, not the state. The state intervening in a manner different than any other similar good is an as-applied violation of the right. There's a difference between commerce and taxation, after all.

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

There’s a slight difference here between guns and drugs, though. Drugs are for the most part protected by a modernist interpretation of the constitution, one in favor of the concept of bodily autonomy. Guns are more of a “hard right” sort of thing. The second amendment isn’t the least bit vague about the right to bear arms not being infringed.

[Esternial]

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

Guns are taxable, but it has to be in accordance with other items of a similar class. Specifically, recreational objects. Really, they're no different than skis or a baseball glove for the purposes of taxation. They don't deserve special tax breaks.

Taxes on alcohol and tobacco stem from a very different historical place, but at the end of the day, booze and smokes aren't constitutional rights, and so they aren't worthy of similar scrutiny. I'll change that tune when you pass the next amendment that guarantees my right to a Cuban and a bottle of really peaty scotch.

You can tax the manufacturers and the distributors, but when that starts interfering with the consumer's right, you get into a bit of a difficulty.

Ammo is a bit different. It already is taxed at a different rate, iirc.

Hmm good to know. I do understand that guns warrant different treatment due to their inclusion in the constitution, but I suppose there are other ways to tax guns and gun use - like focusing on ammo.

Perhaps taxing specific firearms wouldn't be that much of an infringement, as one can always buy a gun that isn't taxed to such an extent. This might already be the case, I don't really keep tabs on the American gun debate and legislation all that much.

[Kernen]

Guns are taxable, but it has to be in accordance with other items of a similar class. Specifically, recreational objects. Really, they're no different than skis or a baseball glove for the purposes of taxation. They don't deserve special tax breaks.

Taxes on alcohol and tobacco stem from a very different historical place, but at the end of the day, booze and smokes aren't constitutional rights, and so they aren't worthy of similar scrutiny. I'll change that tune when you pass the next amendment that guarantees my right to a Cuban and a bottle of really peaty scotch.

You can tax the manufacturers and the distributors, but when that starts interfering with the consumer's right, you get into a bit of a difficulty.

Ammo is a bit different. It already is taxed at a different rate, iirc.

Hmm good to know. I do understand that guns warrant different treatment due to their inclusion in the constitution, but I suppose there are other ways to tax guns and gun use - like focusing on ammo.

Perhaps taxing specific firearms wouldn't be that much of an infringement, as one can always buy a gun that isn't taxed to such an extent. This might already be the case, I don't really keep tabs on the American gun debate and legislation all that much.

Lemme throw a wrench into your world-view. Certain classes of weapon are given special tax rates. Class 3 weapons need a hefty (2k) tax stamp to be transferred. I don't know what Class 2 weapons get taxed at. $200 per transfer, I think. But those rate special attention from the legislature, as they make up a small group of weapons with special features that are considered more dangerous. In total, those classes include automatic weapons manufactured post-1984, short-barrelled shotguns and rifles, and explosive devices.

They're much different than a semi-automatic rifle with an overall barrel length of 18". There is no reason, even considering the merits of sporting, to have some of those weapons. There are reasons to have, say, an AR-15

[Esternial]

So if the government taxes gun suppliers and as a result gun prices go up, that would technically be legal?

Honestly I feel guns should be able to be taxed. There's a tax on tobacco and alcohol, no?

There’s a slight difference here between guns and drugs, though. Drugs are for the most part protected by a modernist interpretation of the constitution, one in favor of the concept of bodily autonomy. Guns are more of a “hard right” sort of thing. The second amendment isn’t the least bit vague about the right to bear arms not being infringed.

Aye that's a fair point, but I still feel that's the way it "should" be - though I realize that's not the way it is and won't be.

Workarounds are always possible, I imagine. I honestly don't think Americans' love for guns should be threatened, but I can't think of a way to limit these occurrences that isn't as straightforward as gun control (and mental health support).

[Washington Resistance Army]

Hmm good to know. I do understand that guns warrant different treatment due to their inclusion in the constitution, but I suppose there are other ways to tax guns and gun use - like focusing on ammo.

Perhaps taxing specific firearms wouldn't be that much of an infringement, as one can always buy a gun that isn't taxed to such an extent. This might already be the case, I don't really keep tabs on the American gun debate and legislation all that much.

Lemme throw a wrench into your world-view. Certain classes of weapon are given special tax rates. Class 3 weapons need a hefty (2k) tax stamp to be transferred. I don't know what Class 2 weapons get taxed at. $200 per transfer, I think. But those rate special attention from the legislature, as they make up a small group of weapons with special features that are considered more dangerous. In total, those classes include automatic weapons manufactured post-1984, short-barrelled shotguns and rifles, and explosive devices.

They're much different than a semi-automatic rifle with an overall barrel length of 18".

No such thing as class 3, all NFA items (minus AOW's which are all sorts of funky and have their own rules) have a flat $200 transfer tax. If I'm not mistaken SCOTUS has said before that it's skirting the bounds of legality but allowed, though Hughes might not be with more recent court precedent.

[Kernen]

Lemme throw a wrench into your world-view. Certain classes of weapon are given special tax rates. Class 3 weapons need a hefty (2k) tax stamp to be transferred. I don't know what Class 2 weapons get taxed at. $200 per transfer, I think. But those rate special attention from the legislature, as they make up a small group of weapons with special features that are considered more dangerous. In total, those classes include automatic weapons manufactured post-1984, short-barrelled shotguns and rifles, and explosive devices.

They're much different than a semi-automatic rifle with an overall barrel length of 18".

No such thing as class 3, all NFA items (minus AOW's which are all sorts of funky and have their own rules) have a flat $200 transfer tax. If I'm not mistaken SCOTUS has said before that it's skirting the bounds of legality but allowed, though Hughes might not be with more recent court precedent.

Oh hell, did they change it? Or am I applying the explosives stamp to firearms?

[Ors Might]

There’s a slight difference here between guns and drugs, though. Drugs are for the most part protected by a modernist interpretation of the constitution, one in favor of the concept of bodily autonomy. Guns are more of a “hard right” sort of thing. The second amendment isn’t the least bit vague about the right to bear arms not being infringed.

Aye that's a fair point, but I still feel that's the way it "should" be - though I realize that's not the way it is and won't be.

Workarounds are always possible, I imagine. I honestly don't think Americans' love for guns should be threatened, but I can't think of a way to limit these occurrences that isn't as straightforward as gun control (and mental health support).

I’ll extend an olive branch and say that maybe some gun control measures could work, even if their constitutionality is debatable. However, in addition to mental health reform, I’d prefer we go the way of increased funding towards research on why people do these sorts of crimes, economic reforms to help pull people out of poverty, and an end to initiatives that put people in jail unnecessarily. Gun violence isn’t a symptom of gun ownership so much as it is a symptom of the other causes of crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No such thing as class 3, all NFA items (minus AOW's which are all sorts of funky and have their own rules) have a flat $200 transfer tax. If I'm not mistaken SCOTUS has said before that it's skirting the bounds of legality but allowed, though Hughes might not be with more recent court precedent.

Oh hell, did they change it? Or am I applying the explosives stamp to firearms?

You might be thinking of the destructive device FFL fees which are $2,000 to apply for the license. NFA has always been $200, except AOW's which have a $5 transfer tax for some odd reason.

[Wysten]

Aye that's a fair point, but I still feel that's the way it "should" be - though I realize that's not the way it is and won't be.

Workarounds are always possible, I imagine. I honestly don't think Americans' love for guns should be threatened, but I can't think of a way to limit these occurrences that isn't as straightforward as gun control (and mental health support).

I’ll extend an olive branch and say that maybe some gun control measures could work, even if their constitutionality is debatable. However, in addition to mental health reform, I’d prefer we go the way of increased funding towards research on why people do these sorts of crimes, economic reforms to help pull people out of poverty, and an end to initiatives that put people in jail unnecessarily. Gun violence isn’t a symptom of gun ownership so much as it is a symptom of the other causes of crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

Or we could not release the name of the shooters.

[Ors Might]

Oh hell, did they change it? Or am I applying the explosives stamp to firearms?

You might be thinking of the destructive device FFL fees which are $2,000 to apply for the license. NFA has always been $200, except AOW's which have a $5 transfer tax for some odd reason.

On that note, I don't understand why a good deal of people tend towards hefty fees to be registrated. Just seems like additional barriers for the poor.