Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
This will be seen by the courts as a punitive extortion fee in order to exercise a Constitutional right, like charging a fee in order to engage in free speech. I think it will be rejected by the courts. Note the tax he proposed is in addition to the taxes already paid in firearm and ammunition sales. It will do nothing to solve gun violence.
Have you read the bill? Or do you have a link to it?
 
Found it.

California AB 28

The monies are to go into a fund to be used to promote various non-violence programs, ostensibly to various non-profits that apply for a grant to do 'something.' In other words, a slush fund. The way the legislation is written some later Assembly could divert the funds to any use, or just roll it into the general fund. <shrug>

There is a paragraph in the legislation that they are using to justify the act,

The excise tax on firearm and ammunition retailers proposed in this act is analogous to longstanding federal law, which has, since 1919, placed a 10-percent to 11-percent excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers. Revenues from this excise tax have been used, since passage of the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937, to fund wildlife conservation efforts that remediate the effects that firearms and ammunition have on wildlife populations through game hunting, particularly through grants to state wildlife agencies, and for conservation-related research, technical assistance, hunter safety, and “hunter development.”

The Pittman-Robertson act was lobbied for by sportsman and the funds go to the various states to promote wildlife research, habitat enhancements, and other general environmental measures. The legislation is in error in that Pittman-Robertson was enacted in 1937, not 1919. The monies have also been granted to the various states so the states can purchase critical habitats for wildlife. Bill Clinton has been the only president that hijacked the fund, his misappropriation was discovered, and corrected by congress. I hold no such optimism re. California, a state that has a distinguished history of being able to fuck up a wet dream.
 
I see that as the tax has been around since 1919 but has been used in its current fashion since 1937, so who knows where it went in the 18 years before.


"Hunter development" is certainly a nebulous term.
 
There have been only 53 school shootings so far this year. That's such a small number it's not worth mentioning. Two a week? Pah. Rookie figures.

Around twice as number of people are killed by one inanimate object as another, one is a scandal worthy of being called an 'invasion'. The other is good fun.
(Fentanyl/Firearms).

Yesterday's school shooting didn't feature in the above figure as nobody was actually killed. We don't count attempts.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/17-old-arrested-terroristic-threat-232103689.html
Do we at least count finger-gun threats?

:rolleyes:
 
A message to my "friends" so vested in protecting me under their comfort blanket of altruism:

It’s not an issue of me feeling safer because I own a gun.
It’s not an issue of you feeling safer for not owning a gun.
It’s an issue of you imposing your anxieties on my liberty.

It’s akin to saying, I am all for your right to freedom of religion, it’s just the communion I have issue with and wish to outlaw because it is condoned, institutionalized and ritualized cannibalism which is nothing more than a gateway to actual cannibalism and the breeding and consumption of small, succulent, children (which will fall hardest on minorities and females).

The more over-the-top the rhetoric is, the more is the hope of persuading just 51%, no matter how momentarily, of the people to say, “Okay, I’m not a gun person or a violent person or an unreasonable person with no common sense moral compass, so outlaw it.” Similarly, “Okay, I’m not a religious person or a cannibal, I am a reasonable, common-sense person who just wants to get along, so outlaw it.

“I, being a reasonable person with common sense, realize that the First Amendment is not an absolute. It’s just a general guide, not an enumeration of absolute rights. Regulation is clearly implied in it if you just know how to read it, but Conservatives are just so uneducated and vested in their guns, gawd and Bibles.”
 
Nor calls it, either. Them.


Best paint yer pointer finger orange, just to be "safe" . . . .
That would trigger the Trump haters worse than an actual gun. He's the clear and present danger.

Nobody they know owns a gun or would vote for him...
 
They can keep their bibles, i have my Ou'ran.


If the shit ever hits the fan . . . well, no, they say that's foolishness. I say, that's why it says "if" and not "when."
 
Does that mean Alfred E. Neuman (six-fingered and a mad magazine) is in violation of California law every time he points his fickle finger gun of irony?
 
As long as you stay on that side of the Appalachians, the gun-fearing people of the Midwest and West can rest feeling a little safer, so don't go all Daniel Boone on them...
 
It's okay to pickle your nose in traffic as long as you don't eat it.

Your car is your "safe space." A cone of visible invisibility.
 
For some reason I don't think mask and vaccine mandates are going to work this time around.
 
A fleeting and ephemeral moment of hope and change and now the media will get back to "normalizing" the voting public...
 
In other news the US Gov't has argued in an Alabama case that the government can restrict gun rights from anyone because the English Bill of Rights from before the US was founded prohibited Catholics from owning firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top