• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gabby Giffords: Expanding Background Checks Only the ‘First Step’

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,779
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As House Democrats embark on an effort to expand background checks Gabby Giffords is making clear that it is only the “first step” in a larger push for gun control.
WRDW quoted Giffords describing an expansion background checks as “a critical first step toward strengthening America’s gun laws and making our country a safer place to live, work, study, worship and play.”

Secondly, Giffords’ admission that an expansion of background checks is only the “first step” is a critical one for gun owners to note. After all, such an expansion has proved insidious in places where it has been adopted, with background checks leading to registration, confiscation, and more.

Consider California, a state that adopted expanded background checks in the early 1990s. That was followed by gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws–via Gun Violence Restraining Orders–all of which are now partnered with a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a ban against buying more than one handgun a month, a requirement that would-be gun buyers first acquire a safety certificate from the state, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, and controls on ammunition purchases.

Moreover, even now California Democrats are pushing to expand the one-handgun-a-month ban to include long guns as well. This would be mean Californians could only lawfully buy one gun a month, regardless of gun type.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/08/gabby-giffords-expanding-backgrounds-first-step/

California imo would be a good model for many other states. A Safety Certificate is a great idea.

Although a citizen should be able to buy more than one handgun a month if they want.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,566
Reaction score
56,635
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Universal BGC laws are the first step toward establishing a need (compelling state interest?) for having universal gun registration laws. After all, how else would one (the state?) know that person A got gun B after passing a BGC?
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,779
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Universal BGC laws are the first step toward establishing a need (compelling state interest?) for having universal gun registration laws. After all, how else would one (the state?) know that person A got gun B after passing a BGC?

Personally, we need a federal database and registry. Tax those individuals that buy guns and use that money for gun safety.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,384
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Personally, we need a federal database and registry. Tax those individuals that buy guns and use that money for gun safety.

which is stupid since the the vast majority of damages from firearms misuse are perpetrated by people who cannot and do not buy guns legally. The registry is unconstitutional when applied to such people anyway.

its like taxing people who don't drink for the damage caused by drunk drivers
 

Tom Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
207
Location
TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/08/gabby-giffords-expanding-backgrounds-first-step/

California imo would be a good model for many other states. A Safety Certificate is a great idea.

Although a citizen should be able to buy more than one handgun a month if they want.
and now you know why most mass murderers flock to the western states. Hard to say no when you’re looking down a criminals weapon, knowing full well you gave up your right to self-defense ages ago.
 

VanceMack

Would you run into the fire?
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
84,808
Reaction score
37,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That seems like something a braindead person would say. "My shooter passed a background check. Clearly...thats why we need MORE background checks."
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,779
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
which is stupid since the the vast majority of damages from firearms misuse are perpetrated by people who cannot and do not buy guns legally. The registry is unconstitutional when applied to such people anyway.

its like taxing people who don't drink for the damage caused by drunk drivers

Actually, my city passed a tax on sugary drinks and it has raised $10 million for healthy foods and better education. They should honestly take it a step further and tax all sugary drinks including coffee/milk beverages.

A gun/ammo tax can be used for things that you like: Gun training and safety. I am guessing you are not opposed to that???
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,384
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually, my city passed a tax on sugary drinks and it has raised $10 million for healthy foods and better education. They should honestly take it a step further and tax all sugary drinks including coffee/milk beverages.

A gun/ammo tax can be used for things that you like: Gun training and safety. I am guessing you are not opposed to that???

I am against anti gun politicians trying to limit or tax a constitutional right and pretending that will decrease crime.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,566
Reaction score
56,635
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Personally, we need a federal database and registry. Tax those individuals that buy guns and use that money for gun safety.

Nonsense, we do not need to institute a "sin tax" for folks simply electing to exercise their constitutional rights.
 

VanceMack

Would you run into the fire?
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
84,808
Reaction score
37,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
use that money for gun safety.
What specifically does that even mean and what specific problem do you think you will solve???
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
15,686
Reaction score
8,846
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We have more than enough gun laws.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,779
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nonsense, we do not need to institute a "sin tax" for folks simply electing to exercise their constitutional rights.

My city has a tax on sugary drinks. It has raised over $10 million.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
28,384
Reaction score
17,853
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Actually, my city passed a tax on sugary drinks and it has raised $10 million for healthy foods and better education. They should honestly take it a step further and tax all sugary drinks including coffee/milk beverages.

A gun/ammo tax can be used for things that you like: Gun training and safety. I am guessing you are not opposed to that???

Gun/ammo taxes will never be used to encourage firearms ownership.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,779
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WTF does that have to do with guns, gun control or constitutional rights?

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the excise tax and special occupational tax in respect of firearms and to increase the transfer tax on any other weapon, and for other purposes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

“SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

“(A) Pistols.

“(B) Revolvers.

“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.
 

VanceMack

Would you run into the fire?
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
84,808
Reaction score
37,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

“SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

“(A) Pistols.

“(B) Revolvers.

“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.
So you are FOR imposing the new Jim Crow laws.
Shame on you....

(so glad I could use that line)
 

jdog21

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
766
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

“SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

“(A) Pistols.

“(B) Revolvers.

“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.

Ya we see it and its stupid.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,384
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
My city has a tax on sugary drinks. It has raised over $10 million.

1) there is no constitutional right to drink that stuff-though there is dubious validity for a government to interfere either

2) consuming lots of sugary drinks is deleterious to one's health without any real benefits


3) exercising one's second amendment rights help keep this nation free and using guns properly doesn't have any deleterious impact upon the user

4) the people who run your government should be thrown out of office for being control freak assholes
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
28,384
Reaction score
17,853
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

“SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

“(A) Pistols.

“(B) Revolvers.

“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.

Murdock v Pennsylvania:

"In a 5-4 decision, the Court held the ordinance was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas equated the power to impose a tax on First Amendment freedoms, such as the free exercise of religion, with the power of censorship. The tax did not just apply to the sale of books or religious pamphlets, but also to door-to-door preaching done in connection with solicitation of funds necessary for a religious sect to sustain itself. According to the Court, the requirement that individuals pay a fee in order to exercise their freedoms will inevitably lead to their suppression. Thus, the Court declared the license tax unconstitutional as applied to religious activities. "
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,384
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

“SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

“(A) Pistols.

“(B) Revolvers.

“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.

a 50% tax on cartridges is designed to destroy target shooting-it won't hurt crooks

anyone who votes for this should be indicted for treason and dealt with accordingly and pursuant to the punishment for felony treason
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
93,566
Reaction score
56,635
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5103/text

“SEC. 4181. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

“There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

“(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:

“(A) Pistols.

“(B) Revolvers.

“(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

“(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

“(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.”.

OK, you have provided information on a tax bill favored by demorats that is stuck in committee. I am not impressed.
 

jdog21

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
766
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Typical Democrats
Lets tax Beef and cattle owners more
Lets tax Gas and plastics more
Lets tax Guns and ammunition

Lets tax every commodity that the republican voter loves so we can give more money to the people who vote for democrats.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
44,413
Reaction score
15,295
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Last edited:

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,779
Reaction score
5,215
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
a 50% tax on cartridges is designed to destroy target shooting-it won't hurt crooks

anyone who votes for this should be indicted for treason and dealt with accordingly and pursuant to the punishment for felony treason

We already have in law a $750 million excise tax on the import of guns and ammunition.

Handguns are taxed at 10%
Other guns are taxed at 11%

There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

Articles taxable at 10 percent—

Pistols.

Revolvers.

Articles taxable at 11 percent—

Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4181

Are you saying that is unconstitutional?
 
Top Bottom