Evil...

[bripat9643]

Actually, gun owners should just be made to carry liability insurance.

And yeah, the tax is good too.

I'll bet somewhere else in this forum you have claim that no one wants to take away our guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Meh. Unconstitutional.

But you wouldn't know about that.

You are merely a pimple on the ass of reason, and you just popped yourself.

Of course it is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't, and with a Democratic sweep around the corner because of the misdoings of your ilk, and SCOTUS won't say it is not.

You sound like you're high. Compose yourself and try to make sense, lol. It is not constitutional to require the people to pay the feds to exercise their constitutional rights. Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm is. Sowwy.

You are describing your inability to focus. I said insurance, not a tax. The first is certainly legal, as you well know. Now pay attention, please.

It doesn't matter what it is. You can't require it for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get it?

Who says you can't? You? If such a law is passed, it is legal and enforceable until the courts say it is not. Get ready.

Good point. I think if Republicans get the White House and keep the Congress, they should pass a $10,000 abortion tax. They should also have a $500.00 tax per ounce of marijuana sold in states that have legalized it be it recreational or medical.

If we are going to approve the idea of government being able to control us using taxation, it should go both ways, don't you think?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, gun owners should just be made to carry liability insurance.

And yeah, the tax is good too.

Most of us do have liability insurance.

It should be required.

Seriously, idiots who can't even go to the grocery store without their lil lollypop on their hip are just itchin' for a chance to blow someone away. They plan to shoot so they should plan to pay.

People who are shot/killed have families. They have parents, spouses and kids. You shoot someone - you owe should owe a pile of bucks to those people.

BTW, its always fun to poke at nutters like the OP and I was semi-kidding about the $1000 tax. I own a pile of guns and hate to think what I would have to pay. But, I don't swagger around, looking for a chance to shoot at someone.

But, a tax like that could be set aside to fund college, medical costs, etc for the families the nutters blow away.

You want the "right" to shoot at people? You can pay for it.

What a brilliant idea.

So I'm at a store and there is a criminal with a gun promising to kill the cashier if she doesn't hand him enough money. Realizing that she is likely to get killed no matter what she does, I pull out my firearm and kill the criminal.

So now I have to pay the family of the criminal I killed in order to save the life of the innocent cashier.

You liberals are so clever with your ideas. The real question is, why when we have a debate between good and evil, liberals always side with evil?

 

[Rustic]

I think there should be a tax on people who change their mind on what sex they think they should be…

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the law is legal until found not so.

No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.

What say you about this civil disobedience, Jake? This act was illegal. Just and right, but illegal nevertheless.

She was not talking about civil disobedience. She is talking about her willingness to violate any law with which she disagrees. That is now the rule of law operates. She has been moving over to a rule of man position for the last several years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the law is legal until found not so.

No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.

Do you not read? Says SCOTUS: "An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." Dumbass cowardly sheep.

SCOTUS makes the determination on constitutionality of laws, not you.

 

[mdk]

And the law is legal until found not so.

No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.

What say you about this civil disobedience, Jake? This act was illegal. Just and right, but illegal nevertheless.

She was not talking about civil disobedience. She is talking about her willingness to violate any law with which she disagrees. That is now the rule of law operates. She has been moving over to a rule of man position for the last several years.

I don't always agree with KG, but 'the law being the law' isn't a good enough reason in many instances.

 

[Rustic]

Anyone thinking that taxing a right is acceptable... Has been kicked in the head too many times.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think there should be a tax on people who change their mind on what sex they think they should be…

Another good one!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You misjudge her meaning, mdk. However, if she is willing to disobey peacefully and take the consequences, you can both go for it. If your states' PA law require you bake cakes for any customer because you hold yourself out as a bakery for the general public, and you don't want to bake cakes for gays, go right ahead and refuse.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...