Justice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons

[squidvt]

Justice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons.

This is down right scary and the sad thing is I really think this could happen. I'm not sure where it will go.. but just goes to show you how important elections are!

 

[jbombelli]

Then it's no obstacle to banning ANY weapons the government deems to be too much for us to handle.

 

[Sean]

Then it's no obstacle to banning ANY weapons the government deems to be too much for us to handle.

Exactly, this is the type of comment you get when someones personal opinion shows through.

 

[jbombelli]

Exactly this is the type of comment you get when someones personal opinion shows through.

You got a problem with what I said? Spit it out. Point out what's wrong with it. Tell us all about it.

 

[mrjarrell]

Exactly this is the type of comment you get when someones personal opinion shows through.

Like Justice Scalia already having his mind made up about issues he's supposed to be ruling on this session?

 

[jedi]

Then it's no obstacle to[STRIKE] banning [/STRIKE]taxing ANY weapons the government deems to be too much for us to handle.

FTFY banning is such a harsh word and legally the .gov can not do it to firearms without a huge legal battle and/or cultural shift. However as the current court has shown us (ie. Affordable Health Care Act) taxing they can and will do.

No need to ban a firearm.
Just tax the firearm at the time of sale via a new special dangerous item tax. Plus impose a new yearly tax to maintain a certificate that you can handle the dangerous item. Also a tax on those "mini exploses" you and I call ammo. I think a $500 one time sale tax, a yearly $250 certificate tax per item and say a $1 ammo tax should work wonders to bring in more money as well as begin to "ban" (opps I mean tax) firearms. If those numbers are too low we can always increase them later you know.

 

[jbombelli]

FTFY banning is such a harsh word and legally the .gov can not do it to firearms without a huge legal battle and/or cultural shift. However as the current court has shown us (ie. Affordable Health Care Act) taxing they can and will do.

No need to ban a firearm.
Just tax the firearm at the time of sale via a new special dangerous item tax. Plus impose a new yearly tax to maintain a certificate that you can handle the dangerous item. Also a tax on those "mini exploses" you and I call ammo. I think a $500 one time sale tax, a yearly $250 certificate tax per item and say a $1 ammo tax should work wonders to bring in more money as well as begin to "ban" (opps I mean tax) firearms. If those numbers are too low we can always increase them later you know.

What do you call it when they refuse to allow you to pay the tax, and charge you with a crime for not paying it?

A ban by any other name ...

 

[Sean]

You got a problem with what I said? Spit it out. Point out what's wrong with it. Tell us all about it.

LOL Easy I was referring to Steven's comment and his personal opinion shining through not yours.

 

[jedi]

Then it's no obstacle to banning ANY weapons the government deems to be too much for us to handle.

What do you call it when they refuse to allow you to pay the tax, and charge you with a crime for not paying it?

A ban by any other name ...

ssssssshhhhhhh it's not a ban. It's a tax. Remember that is what the SC said.

& yes I fully understand where you are going with that line but alas the don't care.

Oooohhh loook over there!
It's the results of Danicing with the Stars! Also KFC has a new menu item coming out.

 

[jbombelli]

LOL Easy I was referring to Steven's comment and his personal opinion shining through not yours.

LoL. It looked like you were attacking my comment.

 

[tv1217]

We really ought to bring back tarring and feathering.

 

[cobber]

We really ought to bring back tarring and feathering.

It was good enough for the founders!

"Don't tar me bro!"

 

[Bunnykid68]

LoL. It looked like you were attacking my comment.

I tried to hit it with a stick, no effect.

 

[wolfts01]

FTFY banning is such a harsh word and legally the .gov can not do it to firearms without a huge legal battle and/or cultural shift. However as the current court has shown us (ie. Affordable Health Care Act) taxing they can and will do.

No need to ban a firearm.
Just tax the firearm at the time of sale via a new special dangerous item tax. Plus impose a new yearly tax to maintain a certificate that you can handle the dangerous item. Also a tax on those "mini exploses" you and I call ammo. I think a $500 one time sale tax, a yearly $250 certificate tax per item and say a $1 ammo tax should work wonders to bring in more money as well as begin to "ban" (opps I mean tax) firearms. If those numbers are too low we can always increase them later you know.

Maybe we can get together and re-enact the Boston tea party in protest to unfair taxation. Only it would be a 'gun party' and I imagine it wouldn't end very well.

We could always try to secede from the Union...

 

[jedi]

It was good enough for the founders!

"Don't tar me bro!"

 

[Ted]

We really ought to bring back tarring and feathering.

8A only prevents the government from doing it. The citizenry is free to redress grievances against government tyranny.....and their supporters.

 

[jbombelli]

I tried to hit it with a stick, no effect.

You probably need to hit it harder.

 

[tv1217]

I don't always hit things, but when I do, I prefer Tubo de plomo

 

[Rocket]

"Automatic"

Justice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons.

This is down right scary and the sad thing is I really think this could happen. I'm not sure where it will go.. but just goes to show you how important elections are!

Too bad The decision makers don't know the difference between a NFA regulated tool and a non regulated tool. So If they do Ban "Automatic" weapons will the BATFE give back their owners $200 each? But either way they will be ignoring the 2ndA. I love it when the "Educated Eliete" open their mouths and prove they do not know poo.

 

[Ted]

Too bad The decision makers don't know the difference between a NFA regulated tool and a non regulated tool. So If they do Ban "Automatic" weapons will the BATFE give back their owners $200 each? But either way they will be ignoring the 2ndA. I love it when the "Educated Eliete" open their mouths and prove they do not know poo.

After reading former Justice Stevens's commentary, he knows significantly less than poo.