schmellba99 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

"California will become the first state in the nation to impose an excise tax on gun and ammunition sales under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Starting next July, the state will collect an 11% tax on retail sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition."


Gavin calls it a sin tax:

"This is not a general income tax, it's not a corporate tax, it's from my perspective more of a sin tax,"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-enacts-first-statewide-gun-and-ammunition-tax-in-u-s-a36201f8




Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but you can't afford to.

If you are conservative, my rec would be to leave Cali asap.

---

It takes much more training to achieve the professional licensing needed for my trade than it does for any basically untrained person to acquire a firearm.

I am not sure how much sense that makes.

---

How does training law abiding citizens on firearms prevent criminals from using guns in crimes?

Can you show us the statistics on gun deaths due to law abiding citizens misusing guns because of lack of training?

Thanks.

---

Your comment, while showing a good command of talking points, is ultimately irrelevant.

The ONLY factor that matters is the presence of guns, on a population wide level, as a dummy variable/binary predictor of firearm related crime? If you minimize that factor, firearm related crime will minimize.

That being said, the law of the land is the 2nd Amendment. Knowing, and more importantly, given the above as the unfortunate starting point, it should be a civic duty to own a firearm and be trained with it. This training should also include tests of mental fitness and regularly reporting for duty to ensure the original meaning of the founders is implemented. Treating these as a given, those who don't meet the qualifications for a militia should not be allowed to own a firearm.

---

Except that's not true, but keep believing in fairies and unicorns.

---

By mathematical definition its true.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

CNN, lol

Troll

---

https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/

Says exact same thing.

As does multiple Federalist Paper essays.

Well regulated means well trained and prepared in the 1791 definition.

Its crystal clear.

---

Well regulated means "in good working order" - as in, the militia (which, by US statute are citizens) should have firearms in good working order. I.E. - well maintained and functioning and ready for use.

---

That is not what it meant.

Where do you get this nonsense?

---

I study history, not some CNN revisionist version of it.

"Well regulated" was in common use long before the Founders decided to use it when they drafted 2A - and the common, well established vernacular is that it basically meant "in good working order". Similar terms used at the times include:

well regulated horses
well regulated drawing rooms
well regulated fire departments
well regulated markets

...and a bunch of others. All with the same connotation and meanings - that the subject behind "well regulated" was well functioning, orderly and operated in the manner in which it was intended or designed to operate.

The well regulated comment also did not apply only to the firearms to be supplied by the civilians in the event the militia was called up for service, but it was also meant to apply to the civilians/militia themselves - as in "able bodied" and capable of providing service.

It should be noted that even the Founding fathers had disagreements on the militia, having a standing army and what role the government should play in organizing the militia whenever it was called into service. But what none of them disagreed on was that firearm ownership by citizens was a fundamental right, and really a duty by the citizens, to ensure both outside nations could be held at bay and to ensure that tyranny within our own borders could be held in check.

The idea of "regulated" meaning "controlled by the government" or similar did not occur until around the turn of the 20th century. It was decidedly not what the vernacular of the late 1700's meant by any historical account.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

"California will become the first state in the nation to impose an excise tax on gun and ammunition sales under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Starting next July, the state will collect an 11% tax on retail sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition."


Gavin calls it a sin tax:

"This is not a general income tax, it's not a corporate tax, it's from my perspective more of a sin tax,"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-enacts-first-statewide-gun-and-ammunition-tax-in-u-s-a36201f8




Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but you can't afford to.

If you are conservative, my rec would be to leave Cali asap.

---

It takes much more training to achieve the professional licensing needed for my trade than it does for any basically untrained person to acquire a firearm.

I am not sure how much sense that makes.

---

How does training law abiding citizens on firearms prevent criminals from using guns in crimes?

Can you show us the statistics on gun deaths due to law abiding citizens misusing guns because of lack of training?

Thanks.

---

Your comment, while showing a good command of talking points, is ultimately irrelevant.

The ONLY factor that matters is the presence of guns, on a population wide level, as a dummy variable/binary predictor of firearm related crime? If you minimize that factor, firearm related crime will minimize.

That being said, the law of the land is the 2nd Amendment. Knowing, and more importantly, given the above as the unfortunate starting point, it should be a civic duty to own a firearm and be trained with it. This training should also include tests of mental fitness and regularly reporting for duty to ensure the original meaning of the founders is implemented. Treating these as a given, those who don't meet the qualifications for a militia should not be allowed to own a firearm.

---

Except that's not true, but keep believing in fairies and unicorns.

---

By mathematical definition its true.

---

You are batting .000 on this thread.

Not surprising though.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

"California will become the first state in the nation to impose an excise tax on gun and ammunition sales under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Starting next July, the state will collect an 11% tax on retail sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition."


Gavin calls it a sin tax:

"This is not a general income tax, it's not a corporate tax, it's from my perspective more of a sin tax,"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-enacts-first-statewide-gun-and-ammunition-tax-in-u-s-a36201f8




Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but you can't afford to.

If you are conservative, my rec would be to leave Cali asap.

---

It takes much more training to achieve the professional licensing needed for my trade than it does for any basically untrained person to acquire a firearm.

I am not sure how much sense that makes.

---

How does training law abiding citizens on firearms prevent criminals from using guns in crimes?

Can you show us the statistics on gun deaths due to law abiding citizens misusing guns because of lack of training?

Thanks.

---

Your comment, while showing a good command of talking points, is ultimately irrelevant.

The ONLY factor that matters is the presence of guns, on a population wide level, as a dummy variable/binary predictor of firearm related crime? If you minimize that factor, firearm related crime will minimize.

That being said, the law of the land is the 2nd Amendment. Knowing, and more importantly, given the above as the unfortunate starting point, it should be a civic duty to own a firearm and be trained with it. This training should also include tests of mental fitness and regularly reporting for duty to ensure the original meaning of the founders is implemented. Treating these as a given, those who don't meet the qualifications for a militia should not be allowed to own a firearm.

---

Except that's not true, but keep believing in fairies and unicorns.

---

I mean it is true. If there weren't any guns, there wouldn't be any gun crime.

There would just be knife crime, acid crime etc instead.

It's just a really stupid hypothetical that is being presented as the solution to a completely different argument. You are never going to get rid of guns, especially now that 3D printers exist. Just like banning drugs just increased drug crimes. Or taxing imports and exports higher increases piracy and smuggling.

Usually people who want to ban guns are just scared of them. I'm sure this guy is the same.

---

And most of them have never held a gun in their lives, much less shot one.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

"California will become the first state in the nation to impose an excise tax on gun and ammunition sales under a measure signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Starting next July, the state will collect an 11% tax on retail sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition."


Gavin calls it a sin tax:

"This is not a general income tax, it's not a corporate tax, it's from my perspective more of a sin tax,"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-enacts-first-statewide-gun-and-ammunition-tax-in-u-s-a36201f8




Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but you can't afford to.

If you are conservative, my rec would be to leave Cali asap.

---

It takes much more training to achieve the professional licensing needed for my trade than it does for any basically untrained person to acquire a firearm.

I am not sure how much sense that makes.

---

How does training law abiding citizens on firearms prevent criminals from using guns in crimes?

Can you show us the statistics on gun deaths due to law abiding citizens misusing guns because of lack of training?

Thanks.

---

Your comment, while showing a good command of talking points, is ultimately irrelevant.

The ONLY factor that matters is the presence of guns, on a population wide level, as a dummy variable/binary predictor of firearm related crime? If you minimize that factor, firearm related crime will minimize.

That being said, the law of the land is the 2nd Amendment. Knowing, and more importantly, given the above as the unfortunate starting point, it should be a civic duty to own a firearm and be trained with it. This training should also include tests of mental fitness and regularly reporting for duty to ensure the original meaning of the founders is implemented. Treating these as a given, those who don't meet the qualifications for a militia should not be allowed to own a firearm.

---

Guns are illegal in Mexico. LOTS of gun crimes

Guns are legal in the US. Much fewer gun crimes.

So, we know that laws that prohibit guns don't alter the equation...

schmellba99 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

CNN, lol

Troll

---

https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/

Says exact same thing.

As does multiple Federalist Paper essays.

Well regulated means well trained and prepared in the 1791 definition.

Its crystal clear.

---

Well regulated means "in good working order" - as in, the militia (which, by US statute are citizens) should have firearms in good working order. I.E. - well maintained and functioning and ready for use.

---

That is not what it meant.

Where do you get this nonsense?

---

I study history, not some CNN revisionist version of it.

"Well regulated" was in common use long before the Founders decided to use it when they drafted 2A - and the common, well established vernacular is that it basically meant "in good working order". Similar terms used at the times include:

well regulated horses
well regulated drawing rooms
well regulated fire departments
well regulated markets

...and a bunch of others. All with the same connotation and meanings - that the subject behind "well regulated" was well functioning, orderly and operated in the manner in which it was intended or designed to operate.

The well regulated comment also did not apply only to the firearms to be supplied by the civilians in the event the militia was called up for service, but it was also meant to apply to the civilians/militia themselves - as in "able bodied" and capable of providing service.

It should be noted that even the Founding fathers had disagreements on the militia, having a standing army and what role the government should play in organizing the militia whenever it was called into service. But what none of them disagreed on was that firearm ownership by citizens was a fundamental right, and really a duty by the citizens, to ensure both outside nations could be held at bay and to ensure that tyranny within our own borders could be held in check.

The idea of "regulated" meaning "controlled by the government" or similar did not occur until around the turn of the 20th century. It was decidedly not what the vernacular of the late 1700's meant by any historical account.

---

Well regulated means well prepared. Well trained. Disciplined. Capable.

The practice of the militia undergoing training upon reporting for service flies in the face of that talking point. Your CNN revisionist history is absolutely incorrect

Has the NRA made a statement about this yet?

Wgas

Just because they're usually quick to mobilize the impending litigation. Surely someone's filing a lawsuit soon on this BS.

Artorias said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Taxing alcohol is not prohibition

---

Is alcohol protected by the Constitution?

---

Think of the endless new revenue streams for the govt!

Tax for speaking in public
Tax for attending church
Tax for protesting
Tax for voting
Tax for refusing to house soldiers
Tax for pleading the 5th
Tax for requesting a speedy trial
Tax for not having cruel and unusual punishment

---

Don't forget:
Tax for failure to post a Pride flag.
Tax for inadequate recycling.
Tax for ICE vehicles you own.
Tax for watching Fox News.
Tax for not replacing your gas furnace or cooktop.
...

jrdaustin said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Taxing alcohol is not prohibition

---

Is alcohol protected by the Constitution?

---

Think of the endless new revenue streams for the govt!

Tax for speaking in public
Tax for attending church
Tax for protesting
Tax for voting
Tax for refusing to house soldiers
Tax for pleading the 5th
Tax for requesting a speedy trial
Tax for not having cruel and unusual punishment

---

Don't forget:
Tax for failure to post a Pride flag.
Tax for inadequate recycling.
Tax for ICE vehicles you own.
Tax for watching Fox News.
Tax for not replacing your gas furnace or cooktop.
...

---

One, two, three, four
One, two (one, two, three, four)
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk) I'll tax your feet
(Taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for
(Ah, ah, Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more
(Ah, ah, Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes (taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me (taxman)

TA-OP said:

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3401119/replies/65651115

I was recently told that "shall not be infringed" is a lazy meaningless response. You guys apparently can do better.

---

That's not at all what you were told. The only thing worse than your constitutional knowledge is your reading comprehension.