Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Austin_Bill, Apr 28, 2020.

  1. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Bubba
    Even you know your explanation on Census Bureau wanting names of people buying holsters was silly.

    It wasn't the Treasury Dept buying ammo. It was specifically the IRS.
    Which agency under the Dept of Treasury uses ammo for daily use??
    Other than the ATF which has its'own ammo budget.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2022
  2. mb227

    mb227 de Plorable

    Good for them on the raffle.

    The problem isn't the gun. The problem is the individual who misuses a tool...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    The IRS thing is the most scary to me even though there are many aspects to the idiot bill I dislike. Ever been audited? I have three times and not as a high earner. First was a genuine error on my part claiming my daughter as a dependent after a divorce decree said I couldn’t. I tried because I provided way more than 1/2 her support. They had a copy of divorce decree to show me.
    Going before the IRS is scary as h*** because you are nothing in front of them. Btw, my income that first time was $7,000 per year as a Med Tech in EL Paso. Next at $15,000/ year I missed a dividend payment on employee stock payout, then they denied a side business calling it a ‘hobby’. So yeah, the idea the IRS will become a well funded Gestapo bothers me. Even though I’m now retired and taxes are relatively easy I hate it for everyone else. Dealing with them is no fun.
     
  4. mb227

    mb227 de Plorable

    We can really only hope that Sinema holds out or that Mancin has a change of heart now that he sees how he has agreed to screw over his home State...

    At least with this compared to Obummercare, the horrid stuff is coming to light BEFORE it goes to a vote as opposed to after...
     
  5. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    I want to wish them the best of luck on their visit.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Interestingly, but not surprising, stuff just keeps coming out all the time. The way they write these things it takes weeks to just get through the first reading.
     
  7. EDT

    EDT 1,000+ Posts

    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Ducking moron:

     
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
    • poop poop x 1
  9. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Hot Hot x 1
  10. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    mc
    Thank you. That is a powerful and sobering statistic.
    Didn't want to give it a like but I think it is important you posted.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life 5,000+ Posts

    Is he setting us up for a govt takeover? Anyone who disagrees is a threat/terrorist, if you want to fight the govt you don't have the power. If this **** doesn't scare the crap out of you then you're just not paying attention.

    I can't believe half the country is falling right in line with this ****.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    VolH
    I don't believe it is half our country.
    I Do believe it is All Demx pols and nearly all Demx media.
     
  13. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 1,000+ Posts

    Well, the Democrat half anyway.

    There's this strange theme that Democrats go into with regards to private gun ownership and the government.

    They claim that citizens owning guns isn't an impediment to a dictatorship (despite every dictatorships confiscating firearms as one of their first steps once in power), then say more or less "I'd just order you to be bombed from the air or a nuke dropped on you, so don't even try, just give up your guns without a fight".

    As if that's anything but a reason to re-sight things in.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2022
  14. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 1,000+ Posts

    Back on topic of the 2A, not various random neighbors of Barry and what gun they own.

    The Supreme Courts Bruen 2A decision (it should be named the NYSRPA case - why should the State Cop who enforced an unconstitutional law get to be famous, not the NY State Rifle and Pistol Association) cannot be over emphasized.

    If I was coming up with my best case scenario going into that case, I'd wish up a 6-3 decision, written by the best Justice of the 20th century, Mr. Clarence Thomas, that imposed a Text and History requirement for any gun grabbing law, and that even got Roberts on board. And that's what happened.

    The actual case was with regards to NY's "may (if we like you or if you bribe us) issue" pistol carry law, which the court, correctly, slapped down and threw in the trash pile. There's no subjective issuance of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, be they 2A rights, or saying search and seizure laws only apply if the government likes you.

    But beyond that case, the Text and History requirement, along with what appears to be a willingness by the SC to take and decide 2A cases more often than once per census (last 2A case that was decided (not mooted) was 2010), will mean the death bell for many an anti-gun law.

    What the courts have done over time, created out of thin air, is what's called a level of scrutiny aspect for rights guanteeded by the Constitution. If they are rights the courts like, like abortion, about gays, or freedom of the press that's liked by the ruling class (so Wash Post and NYT, but not say Project Veritas), the level of scrutiny is what's called strict, where there's very little chance that a law against it won't be struck down.

    For rights guanteeded by the Constitution that the courts don't like, such as the 2A, they went to what's called intermediate scrutiny. Which for the courts meant for the 2A - any combination of fees, waits, rationing, permits, restrictions on what you could buy, were OK if at the long end of all that, you could (finally) go home with a pistol, that never left your home.

    They got away with this by doing what's called a balancing test, where they weighted 2A rights with whatever the state government said they needed to keep people "safe", and what do you know, with almost no exceptions, the state always won. Note that this balancing test isn't done for other rights guanteeded by the Constitution, just for the 2A.

    Justice Thomas trashed that idea, which wasn't what the previous SC ruling on the 2A (the Heller decision) said anyway, but this time he got the red pen out and wrote things in bright red ink that the above intermediate scrutiny and balancing test was not was was allowed for the 2A. That, like the 1A, any law that restricted this right guanteeded by the Constitution had to be in place at the time of the writing of the Constitution, not added years later.

    So what does this, and the fact that the SC tossed out and remanded down to Circuit level four other 2A cases to be re-decided based on the new (but really Heller level) standard? It means that most gun laws passed in the last 40 years, since the Democrat party began their war on private gun ownership, will eventually be thrown into the rubbish pile where they belong.

    Bans on semi-auto rifles and shotguns are going away - two separate, Democrat appointed Federal judges in Colorado have put injunctions on local government bans on semi-auto rifles, based on the new (old) standard of Text and History.

    Magazine capacity bans will go away as well - there's no history of them, nor of gun rationing where you can only buy one per month or such.

    Laws against ownership or purchasing of firearms by fully legal adults aged 18-21 will hit the rubbish pile too - again, there's no history of such laws in early America.

    Now this won't happen overnight - it's not like the gay marriage decision in 2012(?) which had about 90% of the lower courts agreeing with the concept, so they're all willing foot soldiers to utilize the SC's decision in their own rulings. Most judges are anti-gun - all Democrat ones are, and probably half of Republican ones as well. But eventually, the courts will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into guaranteeing the 2A means what it says, regardless of their personal preference.

    Now all that said, the prime battleground for gun rights isn't the courts, it's the legislatures. If bad gun laws are not passed, then they don't have to be tossed out. And 2A groups should not fall into the trap that the baby butchers did with Roe, where they placed all their eggs in the SC's basket, and didn't do the work they need to at a state level to ensure that laws they didn't want didn't get passed to begin with.

    And lord knows, if 5 leftist ever get on the SC, all gun rights rulings will be overturned and they'll be on board with banning and confiscating's everything that isn't a single shot .410. But till then, the NYSPRA decision is a huge win for the 2A, for gun right's groups, and couldn't have been achieved without the election of D Trump, who reshaped the court into a conservative image.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2022
  15. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Good thing there are gun restrictions in Canada:

    (CNN)Canadian authorities are searching for two men in connection with a mass stabbing Sunday that left at least 10 dead and 15 injured across multiple crime scenes in Saskatchewan in western Canada
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Facing Addiction

    Facing Addiction 250+ Posts

    It could have been much, much worse. Those two men could have been shot by a NRA card carrying white cisgender male. Oh the horror....
     
  17. EDT

    EDT 1,000+ Posts

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page