• Omgboom
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    I’ve been saying for years this was going to be what happens, instead of common sense gun laws they are just going to tax the shit out of it. Which sucks for law abiding responsible gun owners who just want to hunt or defend themselves. This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      26 days ago

      The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court – the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA’s idea here, but it’s all going to come down to implementation.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      26 days ago

      Tbf, define “refuses.” Suppressors, SBS, SBR, 1932; Background Checks, 1968; Full auto ban, 1986; AWB, 1994-2004, expired, little to no measurable impact on crime.

      And yet they push and push to get the AWB back despite the fact that those guns make up less than .01% of our gun deaths, why would I think that rounding down that .01% would be “enough” and they wouldn’t then progress to handguns which are demonstrably the highest contributing type of arms? Frankly there has been those compromises in the past and yet they continue to push already, it wouldn’t make sense for them to stop pushing for the 99.99% once they get the .01%, they just know the “well handguns for protection I understand but those assault weapons are automagical murder machines” crowd won’t go for it yet.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        26 days ago

        National firearm registry. Have all the guns you want, but be accountable for them.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          26 days ago

          Ehhh no thanks. States like NY and CA which publish a “steal guns from me” list with your name and address are not exactly privacy friendly. I mean, “what if the database got hacked,” but also what if CA and NY just publish them as public knowledge without the need to “hack,” because they do. Furthermore, there’s already 600,000,000 unregistered firearms in ~50% of the populations hands most of whom refuse to register, it’s not even effective enough to make a difference. And with that whole AWB thing, they can’t really take them all right now, but with a registry they could, and that’s why they push for it so hard. Those of us who see this writing on the wall are hesitant to give them the power they seek.

    • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      26 days ago

      And sucks even more for POC because statistically they don’t have the monetary means that white people do. So higher taxes mean less legal guns for POC… Oh, wait, the law is working the way it’s intended.

    • CoCo_Goldstein@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      25 days ago

      This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table

      Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a ‘reasonable compromise’ on gun ownership and some ‘common sense’ gun control legislation.

      What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      25 days ago

      How often do people really defend themselves with lethal force?

      Are your criminals weird or something? Do they shoot people at every opportunity?

      No, defending property doesn’t justify lethal force.

      • Omgboom
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        I live on a farm, an hour from town. The sheriff response time is about 45 minutes usually. Meth heads roam around looking for stuff to steal. There’s also wild dogs, Coyotes, and also wild pigs that will kill you given the opportunity. I truly hope that I’m never in a position where I have to take a human life. But having a gun is a necessity out here, even if you only have to fire a warning shot to get the crackheads to scatter. I also hunt, not even just for sport, game meat is a not inconsequential portion of our food supply. Wild pigs are a very real concern, they will gore you before you can even blink, and they can run at close to 40 MPH.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          25 days ago

          I absolutely get hunting rifles we have a lot of them here and as far as I know they are rarely used or crime.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          Maybe don’t let those wild pigs in when they ring your doorbell? Even if they huff and puff

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            Even if they huff and puff

            Be careful - there’s a correlation between huffing, puffing, and houses being blown down.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      27 days ago

      I don’t get how it’s even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don’t see how forcing a cost can be.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          I would consider it an infringement, do any other rights include a fee? The only reason some states haven’t made it prohibitively expensive is that it is more likely to go to the courts.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      27 days ago

      Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.

      • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        With respect, that’s bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much… which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          26 days ago

          The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans

          Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.

          • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you’re effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.

            Don’t pretend that it is both sides who refuse to “negotiate”, when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              26 days ago

              Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.

              I mean, this is a succinct description. You’re saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.

              • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                26 days ago

                Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            there’s already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              25 days ago

              Bringing up bans on military hardware actually supports the slippery slope argument very strongly. You’re already thinking about bans.

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            26 days ago

            No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.

              • SeaJ@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                25 days ago

                “Lots of people” are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don’t mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let’s see how close to a majority that is.

      • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        26 days ago

        Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible.

        Can you elaborate? This is demonstrably false so I figured I’d give you the opportunity to explain what you meant with such a ridiculously simplistic and nonsensical statement.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          26 days ago

          It’s a generalization but absolutely true. I’m not going to get drawn into a “aha! But this one Republican dude in New Hampshire supports restrictions on guns therefore you are wrong” bullshit fest.

          • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            26 days ago

            Sounds like you think truth is just a feeling. I tend to look for collections of objective facts to garner truth but I get that your way is less challenging.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              26 days ago

              If I suspected you might be actually conversing in good faith, I’d expend the effort. But I’ve seen this kind of rhetorical trap before. It’s not quite sealioning, but similar.

              • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                26 days ago

                Yet you’ll expend the effort to explain why you won’t expend any effort to make an actual point- lol.

                I’m starting to think maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about at all ;)

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  25 days ago

                  Big difference between saying “ha I’m not falling for that” and finding sources. The former requires little effort.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        26 days ago

        Am Democrat. Do not want bans.

        I’m fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          26 days ago

          Did you know it’s already a felony to not report a stolen gun? If they track it down that far they’d be more than “questioned.”

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              In most states, not just CA. And even most without a “duty to report” lets call it, can and will punish you if an unreported gun is used in a crime. Besides, not reporting a criminal stole your gun a good way to get falsely imprisoned for murder which usually people don’t want to do, so even without laws requiring one to do so or not specifically enumerating punishment for not reporting if it is used in a crime, it is still seen as a generally good idea to prevent said false convictions.

              I didn’t downvote you, can’t answer for them.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  You’d have to look into state laws and previous cases where a gun purchase being tied to some murder got someone convicted. I’m not going to hunt it down to prove it to you but you’re free to spend your time doing so.

                  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    26 days ago

                    I mean a source for most states saying there is a duty to report a stolen firearm and that there is halting for failure to report it. I was able to find a list of states where it is indeed illegal but that is only 11.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          I’m fine with permits after training

          Does it include half of Russia? Because if you have wrong chromosome, you will be trained with weapons even if you actively avoid it.

          they need to question the registered owner.

          Also what to do if owner is too dead for this?