Supreme Court returns to firearms fray

[Taichiliberal]

You obviously don't travel in a lot of gun circles then if you don't hear complaints about rising gun costs and ammo costs.

But yet the focus here is about licensing fees...and until I introduced the obvious, NO ONE was putting this on par with gun/ammo pricing.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You pay for your licence to drive on government roads. You can drive all you want on private land without a licence.

Only if you are driving someone elses car....stop and think....someone without a license to drive buys a car to have on their property so they can drive around ONLY on that property. How do they get the car to the property? Dealership delivery? I mean, that's a hell of a lot of expense just to tool around on a limited space for no other purpose than joy riding....must be a rich person's endulgence.

I do this to point out the absurdity of the this type of attempt of yours to disprove the previous point I made.

You can also sell your home without having a real estate licence. But that home better be up to local, state and federal codes, least the buyer can later take you to court. Which is why professional real estate folks need a license, so in the event that any legal situations come up that the owner/buyer was NOT aware of. And you can fix your own plumbing without having to have a licence. As long as YOU are the owner, there is no legal stipulations...however, you go to someone elses house and fool around with the plumbing (or do it to your own house), and that guy (our you) sells the house and the new owner has problems, there can be legal recourse.

Again, to try and compare a license to perform a service or own an item to freedom of speech, religion or press is incorrect. And remember, GUNS are for KILLING. That is there only true purpose. That is not the case for cars, houses or plumbing.

No imagine that you had to pay for a licence before you could buy a plunger to unclog your toilet. That is closer to what we are talking about.

And as I explained above, that is an erroneous analogy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Violent crime rates are dropping because of BETTER law enforcement, NOT because a bunch of wanna be Charles Bronsons are running around with packing heat. Compstat is a useful tool that is proving successful in every state it's applied in.

But the fact that they are dropping, despite a huge increase in the number of CCW permits, shows that law abiding citizens being armed is not a threat and does not cause any "return to the Wil West" as is so often claimed it will.

"License fees go up for plumbers....so your analogy just doesn't make sense."

Licence fees go up for plumbers to have a plumbing business. They do not have fees for plumbers to simply have the means to do their job.

This discussion of taxes was brought up because there are those who see taxation as a way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. And that is what we are talking about.



"Remember, I never said anything about "badly priced", I just pointed to the general acknowledgement that the price of weapons have gone up over the years. No complaints about that, but complaints about the license to own/purchase/sell one? Seems that they go hand in hand to me."


Have you been around many people who are shopping for guns? I hear complaints all the time amoung my friends who hunt or shoot.

And there will be a huge complaint about a licence to own a gun. Just as there will be if the licences are required to buy or sell one of your own personal guns.

If I open a car lot and want to sell cars as a business, I will need a business licence. But if I decide to sell my personal car, I do not need a licence.

The same should hold true for firearms.



"Yes, because saner heads pointed out that you cannot tax the right to vote for an already established citizen. Which is my point....to compare the taxing/pricing of ownership of an item to the freedom of religion, the press or speech is just absurd. You pay for your driver's license, but you don't pay a tax to pray."

You are missing the point again. You pay for a licence to drive on government roads. You are not charged for a licence simply because you own a car. And you do not need a licence to drive on private property. It is the same as the other rights.




"It's not a threat....it's a logical deduction based on fact and history. Case in point: you have some jackasses toting guns to a town meeting/Presidential speech on healthcare. When no one else is doing that, the action is a meant to intimidate...plain and simple. There is NO need to give those of an even more moronic mindset cause to flex their potential. Add to this the documented cases of criminals using states with LESS stringent gun laws to purchase their wares to use in states with stricter rules, and that's appropo to what I am saying.Hasn't happened yet. And let's not give it a chance to happen by creating a atmosphere for it."

It is certainly not logical. The facts show that allowing law abiding citizens to have guns does not make violent crime rates go up. In fact, taking guns away from citizens has been shown to cause an increase in violent crimes.

Just who is intimidated by the person legally carrying a firearm in the area near the townhall/Presidential speech?? Is the President intimidated? I hardly think so. Are the members of Congress intimidated into changing there vote? I hardly think so. Exactly who is intimidated?

And on what do you base your assumption that someone is a moron? The fact that they carry a gun?

Also, there is plenty of documentation that criminals possess guns in nations that do not allow their private citizens to own them at all. So your claim that criminals would be disarmed if we had stricter gun laws is bogus.

Any gun purchase from a licenced gun dealer in the USA gets its background check done thru the same system. So anyone convicted of a felony cannot buy a gun anywhere in the US from a licenced gun dealer. So the fact that Florida has "shall issue" laws concerning CCW and New York does not has no effect on whether a criminal gets a gun in either state.

And the atmosphere for violence is created when the rights of the people are stepped on by those who claim to know better.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Two corrections: there have NOT been significant amount of SUCCESSFUL lawsuits (or unsuccessful ones, for that matter) over years to cripple the gun manufacturing industry to the point where they are forced to raise their prices. This is the same bogus claim used by the medical insurance industry...which stats show just wasn't the case. And "taxes on big manufacturers" can be equated on taxes on produce, toy makers, airline industry etc. This goes along with what I was saying.....I don't hear gunners complaining about the rise in cost of the weapons, yet I hear/read a lot of guff about licenses. Now you and I both know that EVERYTHING has gone up in price over the years....so the lack of complaint signifys to me that the whole license cost thing is a complaint borne more of political/social ideology than actual expenses.

The complaints being aired right now are against a future use of taxes to put the purchases of guns out of reach of people.

So essentially its an argument based on supposition and conjecture....not bonafide fact of what is per se, but what might be.

And there are some, like me, who dislike the use of taxation as a form of punishment for not following a certain party line. And that is also what this tax would be.

Your opinion is not fact, as I previously shown. Supposition and conjecture are not fact. My statements stand.

 

[WinterBorn]

And as I explained above, that is an erroneous analogy.

I made the argument to counter your trying to say requiring licences to drive on public roads is the same as requiring licences to own a gun. It is not the same thing. And it is not absurd. It is called freedom. And it is absurd to compare a driver's licence and the potential for requiring a licence simply to OWN a gun.

The same is true of the real estate licences. And the "But that home better be up to local, state and federal codes, least the buyer can later take you to court" has absolutely nothing to do with the licencing. If I sell my home and its not up to code, and a realtor sells a home that is not up to code, the buyers of BOTH houses have the same recourses.

The point is that those licences that you used as examples are not for plumbing and selling a home, it is for the business and/or professionals. Not for the average citizen. They were absurd comparisons.


"Again, to try and compare a license to perform a service or own an item to freedom of speech, religion or press is incorrect. And remember, GUNS are for KILLING. That is there only true purpose. That is not the case for cars, houses or plumbing."

Guns are tools, nothing more. There has been a standing offer of $100,000 to anyone who can prove a gun killed anyone without the direct interference of a human being. Guns do not kill without a person loading, chambering, aiming and firing the gun. And many, many guns are never used to kill. Target shooters all over the world enjoy their sport without harming a living thing. Hunters kill. But they do so in a sporting manner and do far more FOR the wild life than against it.


The main problem is the baseless assumption that owning a gun makes you dangerous or puts you closer to being a criminal. It is totally bogus.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your opinion is not fact, as I previously shown. Supposition and conjecture are not fact. My statements stand.

Your statement stand because you have not noticed anyone complaining about the rise in gun prices and because people here (in a thread about gun control in which taxation as a means of control was brought up) are complaining about the taxation of guns????

I hope you realize how ridiculous that is?

People have complained about gun prices since guns were invented. I have heard complaints at gun shows, in gun shops, and read articles in gun magazines about them.

But since you haven't heard these complaints, your statement stands.



Also, if a gun tax passes, it will be far harder to get it removed than it would be to defeat it. Discussion by gun owners and supporters of gun owners is an important part of this prevention.

 

[Taichiliberal]

But the fact that they are dropping, despite a huge increase in the number of CCW permits, shows that law abiding citizens being armed is not a threat and does not cause any "return to the Wil West" as is so often claimed it will.

There is no "huge" increase....all one has to do is compare the number of actual CCW permits to that of the general population of each state, county, etc. to see what I say is true. An increase in CCW has NOT reached a point of significance to the general population. Also, since there are LAWS regarding who receives such permits (background checks, etc.), we are NOT talking about something akin to buying a used car. What you've done here is a typical distortion/exaggeration most gunners use for an uniformed public that doesn't apply common sense and general information to a situation.

"License fees go up for plumbers....so your analogy just doesn't make sense."

Licence fees go up for plumbers to have a plumbing business. They do not have fees for plumbers to simply have the means to do their job. Are you saying that the general fees for a plumber's license have NOT gone up in the last 25 years? Sorry, that is not true....they may not be on the same rate increase, but both go up over time.

This discussion of taxes was brought up because there are those who see taxation as a way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. And that is what we are talking about.

And as I've explained, that is an erroneous assertion.



"Remember, I never said anything about "badly priced", I just pointed to the general acknowledgement that the price of weapons have gone up over the years. No complaints about that, but complaints about the license to own/purchase/sell one? Seems that they go hand in hand to me."


Have you been around many people who are shopping for guns? I hear complaints all the time amoung my friends who hunt or shoot.

And there will be a huge complaint about a licence to own a gun. Just as there will be if the licences are required to buy or sell one of your own personal guns. But that was NOT the focus of this thread, was it? Why are people not saying, "gun/ammo prices going up are a sneaky way to restrict my 2nd amendment rights? Seems it's okay to get financially screwed by gun makers, but not by the people who license the use of the product? Sorry, that just doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it. And complaints about licenses to sell your own gun is NOT the same as selling a car, because cars are NOT designed to kill. Now gunners not only don't want licenses, they don't ANY paperwork that the gov't can trace or regulate...which is just plain stupid, given the history of how criminals are always looking for easier ways to get guns.

If I open a car lot and want to sell cars as a business, I will need a business licence. But if I decide to sell my personal car, I do not need a licence. But you sure as hell need all the paper work that is consistent with owning a car..and if anyone is going to drive the thing outside of their backyard (let alone transport to their house)they need a driver's license. So any registration fees, etc, are going to be paid.

The same should hold true for firearms. Really? So you don't object to a required inspection of your gun, and subsequent a penalty if you are not up to standard? See, the comparison just doesn't stand up to snuff.



"Yes, because saner heads pointed out that you cannot tax the right to vote for an already established citizen. Which is my point....to compare the taxing/pricing of ownership of an item to the freedom of religion, the press or speech is just absurd. You pay for your driver's license, but you don't pay a tax to pray."

You are missing the point again. You pay for a licence to drive on government roads. You are not charged for a licence simply because you own a car. And you do not need a licence to drive on private property. It is the same as the other rights.

I am not missing the point....I am merely deconstructing the sections of the bridge you keep trying to build using facts and logic. You repeat yourself while ignoring how I rationalized how wrongheaded your analogy was. Let me speak plainly.....it's kind of absurd to buy a car for the sole pupose of toodling around on your property....never leaving it. Unless you're rich man indulging a whim, you've just spent a lot of money in addition to taking public transportation and/or having all your needs delivered to you. So your analogy becomes pure theory, and is not based in reality, and NOT comparable to licensing fees for gun ownership.




"It's not a threat....it's a logical deduction based on fact and history. Case in point: you have some jackasses toting guns to a town meeting/Presidential speech on healthcare. When no one else is doing that, the action is a meant to intimidate...plain and simple. There is NO need to give those of an even more moronic mindset cause to flex their potential. Add to this the documented cases of criminals using states with LESS stringent gun laws to purchase their wares to use in states with stricter rules, and that's appropo to what I am saying.Hasn't happened yet. And let's not give it a chance to happen by creating a atmosphere for it."

It is certainly not logical. The facts show that allowing law abiding citizens to have guns does not make violent crime rates go up. Because they are LICENSED and REGULATED....AND ARE RELATIVELY FEW TO THE GENERAL POPULATION. As I stated before, gunners who advocate as few laws and restrictions as possible for the sale, ownership and carrying of weapons would open a door that they may iwish they hadn't In fact, taking guns away from citizens has been shown to cause an increase in violent crimes. Again, a standard gunner exaggeration based on myopic research. IN New York City, with some the strictest gun laws around, a dense population and NOT a lot of CCW in the general population, what has lowered crime was the creation and application of COMSTAT under the Dinkins administration. Don't take my word, look it up.

Just who is intimidated by the person legally carrying a firearm in the area near the townhall/Presidential speech?? Is the President intimidated? I hardly think so. Are the members of Congress intimidated into changing there vote? I hardly think so. Exactly who is intimidated?
If those two clowns just came to the rally with placards and buttons like everyone else, they would be just another face in the crowd and may NOT have been air time for the news. But carry an open weapon, and you say "I've got a gun...so I'm serious about what I need to say. You SHOULD listen to me." And guess what? They got their way!

And on what do you base your assumption that someone is a moron? The fact that they carry a gun? No, by their convoluted logic and attitude that everyone will buy into their BS...plus their willful ignorance as to the potential dangerous fall out of their actions coupled with words. Why the hell do you brandish a gun at a discussion about health care? Last time I checked, part of healthcare is about saving people from gunshot wounds, NOT to inflict them.

Also, there is plenty of documentation that criminals possess guns in nations that do not allow their private citizens to own them at all. That's why they are criminals. No one stated the system would totally disarm criminals. So your claim that criminals would be disarmed if we had stricter gun laws is bogus. I made no such claim...again you use a tired gunners propaganda tactic of putting words into peoples mouths (or their keyboards). I pointed out the simple truth.....an example being crooks in NYC were getting their wares in Virginia, as the lesser gun laws their made it easier for them....this was brought out when the NYC mayor unsuccessfully tried to bring legal action against Virginia....LESSER criminal access to guns is the goal, total elimination of criminal gun traffic is a whole other smoke.

Any gun purchase from a licenced gun dealer in the USA gets its background check done thru the same system.So anyone convicted of a felony cannot buy a gun anywhere in the US from a licenced gun dealer. Not quite.....as an easy google search will show that you have dealers that don't forward the paperwork, or are not obligated to hook up to the federal system via a land line. Then you have all the hoop-la about gun shows, various state laws as to degrees of ID requirements to the dealer, etc. So the fact that Florida has "shall issue" laws concerning CCW and New York does not has no effect on whether a criminal gets a gun in either state. Nice try, but as I demonstrated previously here, there are distinctions as to what gunners are advocating regarding CCW, registration, licensing, etc. The fight against and for the lessening of gun laws across the country will make situations like the Virginia-NYC pipeline for illegal guns more common place. CCW has not ballooned to a criminal deterrent of major significance, and the rise in a license fee is no more denying 2nd amendment rights than the rise in gun/ammo prices.

And the atmosphere for violence is created when the rights of the people are stepped on by those who claim to know better.

Ahhh, the veiled threat that was previewed by the gun toting jackasses to health care meetings and subsequently by the Freedomwork zombies that brayed loudly in D.C. on 9/12/09. "Give us what we want, don't question us, or we'll shoot you". Sorry, but as I demonstrate here, that ploy is transparent in the light of ALL the facts of the logic derived from them.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Ahhh, the veiled threat that was previewed by the gun toting jackasses to health care meetings

Ah so anyone who exercises their natural born right to carry a firearm peacefully is a jackass.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your opinion is not fact, as I previously shown. Supposition and conjecture are not fact. My statements stand.

Your statement stand because you have not noticed anyone complaining about the rise in gun prices and because people here (in a thread about gun control in which taxation as a means of control was brought up) are complaining about the taxation of guns????

No, and I answered this incorrect synopsis of yours at least TWICE already. Go back, follow the chronology and see for yourself.

I hope you realize how ridiculous that is? You mean your pretending that this wasn't already addressed in spite of a recorded post to the contrary? Yeah, a pretty silly ploy on your part.

People have complained about gun prices since guns were invented. I have heard complaints at gun shows, in gun shops, and read articles in gun magazines about them.

We've done this dance...it was JUST ONE of your attempts to disprove my simple and accurate statements regarding license fees for guns. The posts show how I carefully explained why your analogies were wrong....we went back and forth as to why you didn't agree. As it stands, you could not logically or factually refute what I said...so repeating your claims ad nauseum is not going to magically remove those posts or make your statements any more or less valid than they were before.

But since you haven't heard these complaints, your statement stands.

See above responses

Also, if a gun tax passes, it will be far harder to get it removed than it would be to defeat it. Discussion by gun owners and supporters of gun owners is an important part of this prevention.

What "gun tax"? The point of our discussion was the rise in license fees, and how you and other gunners were contending it was an attempt to deny you your 2nd Amendment rights. Go back and read what has transpired, if you've forgotten this quickly. If you haven't forgotten, then please abandon this attempt to distort the discussion and what has transpired...you're attempts to ignore my previous exchanges can't work in leiu of the recorded, chronological posts

 

[Taichiliberal]

Ah so anyone who exercises their natural born right to carry a firearm peacefully is a jackass.

See EXACTLY what I wrote, then honestly discuss it to the context in which it was given.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=529875&postcount=47"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Supreme Court returns to firearms fray[/ame]

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

See EXACTLY what I wrote, then honestly discuss it to the context in which it was given.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Supreme Court returns to firearms fray

I argue not the context but the syntext as it possibly reveals a lack of objectivity on your part.

As for the fee and taxations guns ARE taxed from the manufacturer at a federal level. They are again taxed at the federal level when they are sold. Originally this tax was to fund wildlife preserves and other things of that nature. I cannot say that it happens differently now or not. I CAN however point to a historic example of taxes on guns being used to price them out of the common mans hands.

The National Firearms Act of 1934. It places a $200 tax on all machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devises (or any firearm with a bore diameter greater than .500 of an inch) and silencers. Now for many today, a $200 tax on a item is considered pretty large, especially when the item may only cost $600 (the lower level silencers). Back in 1934 however this was far out of reach of all but the richest men in America. Now it didn't make those arms illegal, but because so few were bought because of the tax, they were effectively reduced to tiny fringe communities.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that this tax is paid EVERY time the item changes hands.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
See EXACTLY what I wrote, then honestly discuss it to the context in which it was given.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Supreme Court returns to firearms fray

I argue not the context but the syntext as it possibly reveals a lack of objectivity on your part.

Then you have no argument...because I am pointing to FACTS and the logic derived from them.

I'll call anyone a jackass that brandishes a gun or rifle or semi-auto rifle to a public discussion/debate THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN LAWS IN ANY SHAPE, SIZE OR FORM. It the same as if you have someone waving a picket sign about legal marijuana at a rally about property taxes.....pretty stupid to do that. Now, if that picket sign carrier had a rifle slung over their shoulder, they damn sure would get more attention than they deserved! Call it fear factor,intimidation, psychological edge...but the guy is a jackass for doing so in a crowded venue were emotions can run high.

As for the fee and taxations guns ARE taxed from the manufacturer at a federal level. They are again taxed at the federal level when they are sold. Originally this tax was to fund wildlife preserves and other things of that nature. I cannot say that it happens differently now or not. I CAN however point to a historic example of taxes on guns being used to price them out of the common mans hands. and I never said anything that contradicts what you say here. My point was and is that on this particular thread the assertion was put forth that a rise in license fees was an attempt to deprive people of their 2nd Amendement rights. As you demonstrate, gun & ammo prices rise as well....but NO ONE HERE made a similar claim to that of the license fee. The schism speaks for itself.

The National Firearms Act of 1934. It places a $200 tax on all machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devises (or any firearm with a bore diameter greater than .500 of an inch) and silencers. Now for many today, a $200 tax on a item is considered pretty large, especially when the item may only cost $600 (the lower level silencers). Back in 1934 however this was far out of reach of all but the richest men in America. Now it didn't make those arms illegal, but because so few were bought because of the tax, they were effectively reduced to tiny fringe communities.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that this tax is paid EVERY time the item changes hands.

Well, 70 years later silencers are illegal, as with sawed off shot guns and machine guns for non-military or national security or law enforcement folk to have (I'm not sure what are the statutes for private security folk). What is available are a plethora of revolvers, automatics, rifles, shotguns, semi-auto rifles. So now the rich and powerful are NOT to have the weapons you specified as well. And again, this doesn't change my original point.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Well, 70 years later silencers are illegal, as with sawed off shot guns and machine guns for non-military or national security or law enforcement folk to have (I'm not sure what are the statutes for private security folk). What is available are a plethora of revolvers, automatics, rifles, shotguns, semi-auto rifles. So now the rich and powerful are NOT to have the weapons you specified as well. And again, this doesn't change my original point.

Uhhhh no.... all those items are still quite legal for any citizen to own.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ahhh, the veiled threat that was previewed by the gun toting jackasses to health care meetings and subsequently by the Freedomwork zombies that brayed loudly in D.C. on 9/12/09. "Give us what we want, don't question us, or we'll shoot you". Sorry, but as I demonstrate here, that ploy is transparent in the light of ALL the facts of the logic derived from them.

There is no veiled threat. I was correcting your statement of what creates an atmosphere of violence.



"There is no "huge" increase....all one has to do is compare the number of actual CCW permits to that of the general population of each state, county, etc. to see what I say is true. An increase in CCW has NOT reached a point of significance to the general population. Also, since there are LAWS regarding who receives such permits (background checks, etc.), we are NOT talking about something akin to buying a used car. What you've done here is a typical distortion/exaggeration most gunners use for an uniformed public that doesn't apply common sense and general information to a situation."

No huge increase? I think you are discussing a subject that you know little about.

Florida has a population of around 18 million. There are over 1 million have concealed carry permits. That is a huge number of people.

Since the early 1990s, 35 states have enacted "shall issue" laws fdor CCW permits, and yet the violent crime rates have gone down.

It is a significant part of the population in many states.




"Are you saying that the general fees for a plumber's license have NOT gone up in the last 25 years? Sorry, that is not true....they may not be on the same rate increase, but both go up over time."

I have said absolutely nothing of the kind. My point has never been about an increase in the price of a plumbing licence. My point is that a licence to be a professional plumber has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

All individuals should maintain the ability to shoot authority figures in the face.

This ability keeps would be tyrants in check.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wishful thinking on your part, there is NO way you can build a bridge on this case (religious groups and their exemption status)to apply it to the buying/selling of weapons (intra or inner state)....like I told you before, this country is NOT going to reinvent the wheel by returning the days of the Wild West and turn of the century urban society so any joker with the bucks can buy a gun whenever, wherever they want, carry it whenever and wherever they want, and sell it to whomever they want without any type of federal regulation. We're the UNITED STATES of America....that means there are going to be some common rules and regulations for all to adhere to. As for guns.....been there, done that. And the beat goes on.

then not only will anti gunners and liberals show their disdain for the rule of law, but any ruling that contradicts Murdock v. PA (to wit: no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for the enjoyment of a right protected by the constitution) will basically make the ussc and any lower court irrelevant.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, 70 years later silencers are illegal, as with sawed off shot guns and machine guns for non-military or national security or law enforcement folk to have (I'm not sure what are the statutes for private security folk). What is available are a plethora of revolvers, automatics, rifles, shotguns, semi-auto rifles. So now the rich and powerful are NOT to have the weapons you specified as well. And again, this doesn't change my original point.

you should really learn gun laws before talking like you do. silencers, shotguns less than 18", and machine guns are NOT illegal for citizens to own.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you should really learn gun laws before talking like you do. silencers, shotguns less than 18", and machine guns are NOT illegal for citizens to own.

Prepare yourself to watch him dance around his EXPLANATION and what he really MEANT.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Uhhhh no.... all those items are still quite legal for any citizen to own.

Actually, I was wrong in my blanket statement....but you are not 100% correct in yours. Case in point, silencers (or noise suppression devices).....it depends on what state you are in, as 35 states allow make it legal for the average joe. The catch is it's a whole set of different back ground checks for those that do allow it (if you pass the local police, state and federal background check). We're talking fingerprints, etc. It makes all the whining and foot stamping about the Brady Bill look like an I.D. check at your local dance club by a bouncer.

 

[Taichiliberal]

you should really learn gun laws before talking like you do. silencers, shotguns less than 18", and machine guns are NOT illegal for citizens to own.

Check this out:

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=530362&postcount=59"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Supreme Court returns to firearms fray[/ame]