pullbangdead said:
[quote author=rocketparrotlet link=1235498818/0#9 date=1235522769]Ugh... I hate it when they try to take away Constitutional rights. But this isn't. You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them more.
Also, the "damn libs" approach is not the right one. And this is not taking away Constitutional rights, either. You still have the right to bear arms, they're just trying to tax them all. Simply because a liberal president is in office does not mean that we are now a socialist country. A bit o' government knowledge might help you to understand that better if you don't already. We are a republic! Not a "true democracy", not a socialism, not a communism, not a dictatorship, not an oligarchy, not a monarchy, not a tyranny, etc. etc.
I think that if you go way too far left, you are becoming just like the right. Right-wing policies generally support military and governmental power over the power of the people. Left-wing policies generally support increased freedoms, with the penalty of increased taxation. However, too far to the left, and restrictions are quite similar to those in the far right (just over different issues.) Taxing is not restricting freedom...
-Mark
Were you talking to me?
I certainly know that this is a "republic". If you want to be really technical, it's not a pure republic either. It's more a "representative democracy", but even the most learned academics have a hard time giving the US government 1 title only, because it's so complicated. A bit o' government knowledge might help you to understand that better if you don't already.
And of course the US is not becoming instantly socialist because of 1 president. But a liberal-leaning president and a liberal majority in congress, with the possibility of replacing supreme court justices in the near future, does have the possibility of changing the entire outlook of the court. The Heller decision on gun rights was a 5-4 vote, so one justice could make a BIG difference in that case. I'm not blaming "the libs" or whatever, and I never said the word socialist. But one of our 2 parties has a history of wanting to limit gun rights and increase gun laws, and that party currently has the power to pass *almost* any law that they want bad enough right now. Really, the only thing in their way right now is a republican senate filibuster, but that may only happen for extreme bills.
As far as this bill not limiting gun rights, that's just scary. If you have to apply to the government, then the government has the ability to reject you. By my definition, that means it's not a right. And taxing IS restricting freedom. You already have to pay sales tax on guns and ammo. AND, you already have to pay extra excise taxes on guns and ammo. Why tax it more? Maybe for keeping people from owning guns if you make them too expensive? Taxing is CERTAINLY used as a tool to keep people from certain activities, and excessive taxing certainly DOES limit freedoms.
And you "left is more freedom with more taxes, right is the opposite" is way too simplistic. The left most certainly does try to encroach on 2nd amendments rights, and leaders from BOTH sides have recently proven they are more than willing to violate 4th amendment rights when it suits them.
And for your later post asking for a direct politician quote that says they want to confiscate guns, you'll never find one, because they're politicians. They know that saying that would be political suicide; they would never be elected again in most areas, and say goodbye to a presidency anytime in their future. So they tiptoe around it. But go read the bills they have signed onto and voted for, read their histories. Many sites tabulate these things for you, and I think many politicians are a lot more against guns than you seem to think. Obama, for instance, filled out a questionnaire and checked that yes, he would support banning all semi-automatic weapons before he ever became a senator. How's that?
----------------------------
[highlight]And for other posters (DTMF, I think), there's also a BIG difference between driver's licenses and tracking every gun purchase and attaching it to your address, photo, thumbprint, all that. Sure, you have to get a license to drive a car,[/highlight] but that's a
privilege to drive on state-maintained roads, and the system is run by the states. This is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, and a federally-maintained database.
And wow privacy protection! A database of who you are, all your personal info, even your fingerprints, and a list of expensive items that you keep in your house all the time, all in one place! That's a NIGHTMARE for privacy implications, I hadn't even thought about that.
[/quote]
here in california you already have to have a basic firearms safety cert to buy handgun's .and you have to have a valid state i.d or a state d.l to purchase a firearm . and good luck finding a free place to shoot your gun's . the 2nd amendment has already been trampled on by our government . thats old new's . Q what are you willing to do about it how far would you go to protect your own right's
@dave im already one step ahead of you
now where did i hide the map :
[highlight]We bring in millions of dollars of tax revenue to the state.[/highlight]
