Biden to tax away your guns


I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.


This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Exactly ... There has been a case that involved a city taxing paper and ink because the local newspaper kept printing stories about what a crook the mayor was ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
So the Supreme Court said you couldn't tax someone for the Constitutional right to vote but they will allow the fucking government to tax you for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Really?

You stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats think that is how it is going down?
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.


This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.


This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Exactly ... There has been a case that involved a city taxing paper and ink because the local newspaper kept printing stories about what a crook the mayor was ... :auiqs.jpg:

.


I hope he does this soon...........we only have until Thomas retires to get this done...
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.


This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

You are a dumb human being.....taxing to end a Right is not the same as a sales tax that is general on all products....
 
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

To the militiamobile!
Its funny to you. Then we watch what happened in cities for several months and it is not that funny. When the Politicians turned away from taxpaying people living in their own governed areas. People rioting, politicians not doing a thing to defend their citizens and police neutered. The triple play of anarchy. And you continue the Prog agendas. Just a few nukes...a few nukes...
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.


This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

You are a dumb human being.....taxing to end a Right is not the same as a sales tax that is general on all products....

Taxing to end a right? No right is being taken away. If you want to own those guns, pay up the tax. If not, you can still own all kinds of guns that are not "modern sporting rifles".
 
This is not an unproven theory, already some states have passed so many twisted gun control laws basically you can't own a gun or they have rendered it utterly useless for home defense even. ASSHOLE Dems can't muster the support of the people for gun control so they do an end run around the 2nd amendment.
 
Taxing to end a right? No right is being taken away. If you want to own those guns, pay up the tax. If not, you can still own all kinds of guns that are not "modern sporting rifles".

It's not about 'Taxing to end a right" ... It's about taxing something in a way that it violates a person's ability to exercise that right.
It wouldn't just apply to the firearm, but the ammunition as well.

But hey, if they make it so only government, wealthy people and criminals have firearms, you've got nothing to worry about ... Right?

.
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.


This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

You are a dumb human being.....taxing to end a Right is not the same as a sales tax that is general on all products....

Taxing to end a right? No right is being taken away. If you want to own those guns, pay up the tax. If not, you can still own all kinds of guns that are not "modern sporting rifles".

Moron, banning guns is taking away a Right. You asshats tried to use Poll Taxes to keep Blacks from voting, now you want to use taxes to take guns away from people.......you are vile.

Those rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment...by name, you doofus....

Notice...when Scalia wrote this there were only 5 million AR-15s in private hands...now there are over 20 million...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

OK, this is too funny. It is a two hundred dollar tax, and a registration, for...

"a modern sporting rifle".

Now what is this thing, called "a modern sporting rifle". Is my gopher gun a "modern sporting rifle"? My deer gun? What about my duck gun? Bird gun, well, which bird? So I looked some more.

View attachment 418152

There are your "modern sporting guns". You got a SCAR and a Vector. All perfect for blinking soda cans.

And all those owners are going to line up to register their guns and pay the two hundred bucks.

LMAO

As always the ATF will make a few examples so mind shatteringly fascist that the bulk of gun owners will fall into line, at least on the surface. Tens of millions of us have already bowed down to registration—in some states registration with multiple agencies at both state and federal levels.
Which is why that unconstitutional organization should have been disbanded decades ago.

Soon.
Who? The NRA??
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
Lol here we go again with this democrats and guns shit.

Here’s the real truth republicans don’t want to admit: they LOVE anti-gun rhetoric. Why? Because it indulges their child-like fantasy of “defending liberty and standing up to big gubmint!”. They, of course, would totally puss out if it actually came to pulling the trigger, but the fantasy itself gives them a hard-on. An actual mature adult doesn’t obsess over the subject.
 
Y'all gun fetishists try this shit every time.

Has it ever worked?
Every fuckin' election--that's why they keep doing it.

Far as I can see the only way it "works" is to sell more guns to the Gullibles.

Seems to me if said yahoos are too stupid to get that they're being played for chumps over and over and over, that should be the intelligence test that disqualifies them from playing with death machines.
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
Lol here we go again with this democrats and guns shit.

Here’s the real truth republicans don’t want to admit: they LOVE anti-gun rhetoric. Why? Because it indulges their child-like fantasy of “defending liberty and standing up to big gubmint!”. They, of course, would totally puss out if it actually came to pulling the trigger, but the fantasy itself gives them a hard-on. An actual mature adult doesn’t obsess over the subject.
Did Joe say he was taking ar15s or not?

:dunno:
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

It is worse than that OP, much worse. But it is a good start to the destruction of the 2A.

The reps need to form a nationwide militia and state chapters. No registration / no confiscation.

Biden teacher nazi party llr.jpg

Each AR magazine will also need a $200 tax stamp and has to be engraved with it own serial number. That cost more $$.

Biden wants to bankrupt gun and ammo companies by taking away liability protection

He also wants to stop any ammo, guns and gun parts sales mail order.

There is a lot more to Biden's list. It is an all out war on guns. And even if you want to buy a $200 tax stamp, you will most likely need a gun trust as many jurisdictions wont sign off for individuals NFA paperwork. Gun trusts cost $$.

And all this presupposes Biden keeps the stamp at $200. There was talk to raise it to $1000 or more as it has not been raised since the 1930's.
 
Last edited:

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
Lol here we go again with this democrats and guns shit.

Here’s the real truth republicans don’t want to admit: they LOVE anti-gun rhetoric. Why? Because it indulges their child-like fantasy of “defending liberty and standing up to big gubmint!”. They, of course, would totally puss out if it actually came to pulling the trigger, but the fantasy itself gives them a hard-on. An actual mature adult doesn’t obsess over the subject.
Did Joe say he was taking ar15s or not?

:dunno:
Lol I don’t even give a shit either way.
 

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.
Lol here we go again with this democrats and guns shit.

Here’s the real truth republicans don’t want to admit: they LOVE anti-gun rhetoric. Why? Because it indulges their child-like fantasy of “defending liberty and standing up to big gubmint!”. They, of course, would totally puss out if it actually came to pulling the trigger, but the fantasy itself gives them a hard-on. An actual mature adult doesn’t obsess over the subject.
Did Joe say he was taking ar15s or not?

:dunno:
Lol I don’t even give a shit either way.
We know. So, fuck you. I hope you don't get ass raped then murdered in your gunless state.
 

Forum List

Back
Top