Let me guess, this is a massive violation of the second amendment and oppresses all Americans everywhere.
This is California. 60% of the population will readily support this. The other 40% think that murder is one of their Constitutional freedoms. Thankfully, they are the minority and can continue to move themselves to Florida, Tennessee, Texas and other minor 'murican ethnostate dictatorships. The rest of us rational freedom-loving Californians bid them adieu.
Bye felicia
This is almost too perfect for them because, while not everyone who believes taxation is theft is an ammosexual, all ammosexuals believe that taxation is theft.
Heh, ammosexual. I’m totally using that!
It’s the only thing that explains their willingness to ignore history and facts and just go with their emotions on every aspect of this issue.
Only unmitigated sexual lust could explain why in every debate they say such absolutely stupid shit like “well cars kill just as many people, should we ban cars?”
I remember my first boner.
The irony of left-wing bigotry never fails to astound me.
That’s because you’re too dumb to know what bigotry is!
Yes, even the expats living in countries with extremely restrictive gun laws.
Ha, the “I’d rather be Russian than Democrat!” … okay… check out their gun laws.
Just helps oppress the rights of the marginalized to defend themselves.
It’s the California way. Market solutions and getting guns out of the hands of minorities.
Are you in California? Are you marginalized? Trying to understand your perspective. Move around be, if you’re marginalized, you should be worried about gun toting Nazis in the central valley, inland empire, deep redwoods, central coast, OC, etc… Tell me about your AR taking on the US military if tanks come down your street. It’s just not real. That’s a fantasy. Vote for decent people that represent you and your interests to pass legislation to protect you with that military. From Nazis. With guns. Or be the gun obsessed dude and fantasize about cosplaying cowboys.
The only time some care about the “marginalized” is when guns are involved. They care when the “marginalized” have guns, because higher percentages of marginalized groups tend to be involved in crime, or when they don’t have guns, because suddenly they need to defend themselves.
Removed by mod
Guns are already taxed under 2A.
Taxing them more is legal as long as the taxes aren’t so high that it infringes on rights.
In other words a 5 or 10% tax wouldn’t violate 2A but a 1000% tax certainly would.
If you still don’t believe guns are taxable, refer to sales tax.
Whoa now! I never said they couldn’t/shouldn’t be taxed. But we OK with a 200% markup on that tax?
California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition
This law serves two purposes:
Be seen to be “doing something”, always a winner. Tack on “for the children”, a tack conservatives are winning with.
More taxes on the poor. And that’s really the meat of it. It’s appalling how liberals (and I include myself in that definition) are quick to defend the poor, but abhor the notion of them defending themselves.
Further reading:
Removed by mod
Rather a 200% increase is reasonable depends on current taxes.
It’s 11%. Which would increase the current cost of a 9mm round from. .48 to about.53 cents.
They used 200% to get you wound up just like you’re trying to bait me with all the “but the poor!” nonsense.
It’s 5 cents.
-
The individual right was decided by a 5-4 court decision along party lines 2 centuries after the fact. It’s not as clear cut as freedom of speech
-
Poor people and people of color are disproportionately victims of gun violence. You may come back with “good guy with a gun” but in most altercations more guns equals more deaths.
-
While Reagan’s gun law in California was racist, it wasn’t what killed the Panthers, FBI assassinations did. Even if black people had all the guns in Texas they still wouldn’t be able to challenge the state.
Even free speech as we know it today was a product of modern Supreme Court decisions from the Warren Court.
Until then we still enforced anti sedition laws!
-
The courts held for two hundred and fifty years that there was no individual right. Only because we have three illegitimately installed Supreme Court justices did a court of law hold otherwise.
The reason it took thos long and basically coup is because the proposition is utterly ridiculous.
I’ll let it go right now, never argue for reasonable gun policy again, if you can find a single original document written in America prior to 1776 in which the phrase “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right. Because even though 95% of the pre-1776 usage clearly refers to proper warfare, you will find that the other 5% is at best ambiguous and in zero cases express.
Reading an individual right into it a revisionst history and lies. That federalist society hacks and bootlickers have been clambering for it for the last fifty years does not negate the actual history of this nation and the development of western jurisprudence.
Here’s is just one absurdity: if the express purpose of the second amendment is “security of the state,” how does reading in an implied, individual right advance the interest of state security, when the express language “bearing arms” and “well-regulated militia” adequately and directly achieves the purpose?
Another absurdity is that the express purpose of the bill of rights was to codify existing rights, and even today everyone agrees that the bill of rights did not create new rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of western, natural law, and for the most part, English common law. Guess what? They regulate guns in England and in every other western nation as we have done in America for 250 odd years.
Called it.
Removed by mod
It’s almost as if I’m not interested in rebutting someone who called me a racist when I didn’t even say anything about race. I know that must be hard for you to accept. Much like it’s hard for you to accept that a tax on guns is legal.
Removed by mod
But how can I fend off the king of England now?!
Just phone in the French. They’ll hate on the English for free.
This had me laughing out loud. Lol
Remind him of Brexit and he’ll self destruct in shame.
Ask him about whether he would let prince andy hang out with his grandkids, unsupervised?
Before I judge… What am I missing about this comment? Why downvoted? A random jab at a pedophile?
Probably downvoted by pedos.
Hahahaha I’m really trying to grock the Lemmy voting patterns
all semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology.
That means each bullet would have a unique marking making it easier for law enforcement to trace the gun it was fired from back to its owner.
Nice end-run around the Constitution. This technology does not exist, and cannot exist. Anyone wanting to argue that needs to stop watching stupid cop shows.
Well agree it doesn’t exist but to say it can’t exist is silly
Perhaps they’re talking about stamping the firing pin, somehow. Are you aware of the forces at work at the tip of a firing pin? A “micro” stamp won’t survive 2 shots.
each bullet would have a unique marking
Yeah, stamped in lead. The material that flattens, deforms, shatters on impact. This is as dumb as the Batman scene where he extracts shards from the wall and magically reconstructs the bullet.
Or maybe they don’t know what a bullet is and they meant the shell/casing? And we’re going to micro stamp the billions of shells produced annually? And what does that get us? Doesn’t tell you anything about the exact gun that fired it. Aaaand we’re back to stamping the firing pin.
Let’s ignore physics and pretend this is still technically feasible. Stamping any sort of unique ID on a firing pin, bullet or shell is going to be wildly cost prohibitive. Which is the exact point.
Legislate impossible tech, or in a magical world where possible, make it so no one but the rich can afford it. This bill would effectively make every gun and shell illegal in CA.
NYSRPA vs Bruen decision by the Supreme Court will invalidate this law just as it recently did to their magazine capacity law. They are literally wasting the citizens tax dollars with this legislative performance because any lawyer knows that it will get overturned after seeing the many recent rulings on the topic. A couple of federal district courts even ruled that you can be an illegal drug user and retain 2A rights based on Bruen this year, because that restriction does not fit the historical context of gun control laws. Microstamping obviously fails that test even harder.
Could be that this train was already in motion before the Bruen decision. Not a good look for us folks interested in increasing gun safety while also respecting the bill of rights’ intent.
while also respecting the bill of rights’ intent.
Well-regulated militia? The thing we did away with when we created a standing army? That intent?
Don’t forget the other part, “in order to protect security of the state…”
It literally says right in it that the purpose is not self defense. Reading an individual right into it goes beyond the express purpose.
And contrary to the poster above, yes, we are going to consider ignoring the Bruen decision because It is so obviously founded upon historical lies that anyone can verify if they were even making a half of an attempt to be unbiased.
Rogue Federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan keep exciting the decision to strike down gun laws that have existed in some cases for hundreds of years. It will be reversed in due course. A lot of people will die in the meantime.
And it wasn’t considered an individual right until Scalia showed his true colors with the Heller decision.
My guy can’t even quote the Second Amendment correctly.
Well I was paraphrasing from memory but let’s parse it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Contrary to your prior posts, well-regulated means regimented. It means they’ve practiced and had training. That there are officers leading the men. This is simply based on the language used at the time the words were written. There is no dispute about this in academics or anywhere else.
The second clause tells us the purpose of the entire amendment: security of a free state. State security is another word that has changed meaning over the years. Today we understand it as “national security.” Back then, in context, these words specifically meant the freedom of a state to perpetuate itself, within nonconsentual interferrwnce by a repressive federal government. Nothing to do with freedom of individuals from any government, only the freedom.of a state government from a federal one.
Bear arms, again, prior to 1776 there are zero documented uses of the term that refer clearly to an individual right to carry guns. Rather 95% of the usage refers expressly to formal warfare, the other 5% is ambiguous, 0% refer clearly to an individual right.
Oh, and also, there is zero dispute that the bill of rights was not meant to expand any rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of natural law and traditions of western jurisprudence, i.e. English common law. England regulated guns. So does every other western country. So have we in America for almost three hundred years, until Heller.
And then there is infringe. There is no dispute that narrowly tailored restrictions on time, place, and manner, do not infringe enumerated rights.
The framers considered a version of the amendment that would have included an express individual right, but it was soundly defeated at the convention. You would note also that zero original state constitutions went on to an express individual right.
So you see it is your opinions that are abhorrent to reality. You are revising history to suit your lies. I’m sorry you got tricked but you did. Maybe you didn’t go far enough in school. Maybe you were just a gullible person. Maybe you’re just scared and you cling to anything you think might make you safer without actually thinking about it.
I do know also that people are getting fucking tired of burying their kids and if you don’t get on board with some reasonable restrictions, the tide will turn against you overwhelmingly.
To infringe is to encroach upon. Any restrictions that come close to preventing the people (everywhere in the Bill of Rights referring to the general population of the United States) from keeping and bearing arms encroach upon that right, and therefore infringe upon it.
What right does the Second Amendment prevent from being infringed upon? Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the military to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people. I am a people. You are a people. Let’s look at everywhere else a right is protected from government interference:
1st Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Are you saying that this is not an individual right?
4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Is due process not an individual right?
9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This one is conveniently forgotten by authoritarians and statists who don’t realize that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people, rather than granting them.
10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Again, one of the most important amendments that is conveniently forgotten or ignored by those wishing to deprive the people of their rights.
It is nonsensical to think that “the people” in the Second Amendment would be a generalized right (whatever that means) and that it would refer to individuals everywhere else. What a ridiculous and indefensible position to take.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The technology to “make it easier” to trace the gun exists.
Simple patterns can tell you the make of the weapon, for example.
Great, now only the rich can commit gun crimes… /s
This seems like a really cool thing to put onto law, but I wonder 1.) If it’ll actually survive federal review, and 2.) If it’ll make a meaningful difference in the amounts of gun violence in the state. I feel cynical for saying this, but I just feel like the central role guns play in the American mythos makes it really hard to solve this cultural problem with taxation and educational campaigns.
I don’t think there’s really a lot the feds could do here aside from saying states imposing their own commerce taxes is unconditional somehow, which would hurt red states A LOT more than California being annoyed at being micromanaged.
It’s a noose. Education funding Directly tied to how many guns and ammunition is sold? L O L. that’s some comically villainous stuff
Wow, a completely sensible and rational take on the issue.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will double the taxes on guns and ammunition and use the money to pay for more security at public schools and various violence prevention programs under a new law Gov.
He argued that gun violence already costs taxpayers a lot of money in health impacts and in the criminal justice system.
Newsom also signed a law that, starting July 1, 2028, would require all semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology.
That means each bullet would have a unique marking making it easier for law enforcement to trace the gun it was fired from back to its owner.
They are an unconstitutional retaliatory and vindictive response to the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the Second Amendment protects an individuals’ right to choose to own a firearm for sport or to defend your family,” he said.
A legislative analysis of the law Newsom signed on Tuesday said it is now an “open question” whether a lawsuit challenging the tax would be successful.
The original article contains 872 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Fuck yeah.
Yes, legislature like this disproportionately impacts the disadvantaged.
But also: it is a fucking gun. Who gives a fuck?
And considering how much schools need to spend on trying to minimize the number of dead kids?
Do only rich people deserve guns?
Do the most vulnerable people in society not deserve a means of self defense or self sufficiency when you consider the demographics of lower earners?
What is the spirit of this legislation - what kind of person is supposed to be targeted by this? What kind of person actually commits gun violence?
No civilian “deserves” guns. I am all for cranking that up so that even Billy G and Bezos can’t afford ammo.
Anything which lowers the number of firearms in circulation, even if over time, is good.
And the vast majority of firearms are not for self defense. They are security blankets that people carry everywhere that rapidly escalates even the most banal of interactions. Hell, we had an actual escaped murderer in PA the other week and he managed to steal a gun right in front of an armed home owner. So…
That’s all well and good, maybe guns are inherently problematic. But since no one is paying attention to my wording I’ll just say it:
Right wingers and neo-fascists commit the majority of gun violence in this country and will absolutely never give them up. They are not the poor and unsophisticated rednecks you’re told they are, they tend to be richer than average and their brand of violence is calculated. Many of them are current and former police officers and therefore won’t take their friends’ guns away just because the law says so.
If you’re poor you’re less likely to be white and straight and therefore more likely to be harassed or killed by the aforementioned groups.
This is not me saying that it’s time to give up on gun control laws or that we need more guns. Fewer guns in the US will mean a more peaceful country. I’m saying that laws that simply make it more expensive to buy and own guns will not deter violent people from buying them because they impose no restrictions on them.
Can you support your assertion that right wingers and neo-fascists commit the majority of gun violence in this country? I realize how much of the info around this subject is propaganda so I like to look at the data whenever I can find it?
Most shootings are in big cities. Please don’t spread your brain washing.
This is not Red Dawn and you are not the Wolverines.
You know what happens when people of color and leftists arm themselves? The cops INSTANTLY go full force and murder everyone they can. When the nazis do it? They praise a kid who just executed two people and actively refuse to get involved.
People love to cite that a lot of our gun control laws are because black people armed themselves. And that is true. But when push comes to shove? One protest gets bottles of water and cheers. The other gets the national guard.
And, as we have seen in Ukraine: A poorly trained army with crappy body armor gets murdered en masse by even a halfway decent military with modern equipment. And… historically, the military protects the white supremacists.
So no, guns are not helping in the slightest and we do not fucking need more. And to use civil rights as an excuse to play with guns and watch kids die is just disgusting.
The era of the armed militia accomplishing anything ended around the same time that the fundamental unit on the battlefield became a squad rather than a platoon/division. When one person holed up with an assault rifle can halt an advance… and said advance can call in an air strike to get rid of said one person, the idea of getting in some time at the range to protect yourself against an armed force went out the window.
It’s about rebuilding schools with money from people who buy guns and bullets, instead of general tax money.
I can’t wait to see the faces of all you freedom hating dipshits when this and many other gun control efforts are appealed and fail the new Bruen standard.
HA HA motherfuckers. Gun rights are winning no matter what you try.
Lmao. Freedom hating. Gotta have that freedom to murder each other. How would we survive without it.
If you attack the rights of Americans, you must hate freedom. I support all of our rights, for all Americans, and if you don’t then you suck.
Oh look, an edgy teen who read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (or let’s be real, probably just watched the movie) for the first time.
I bet you were inspired to be a “gonzo journalist” too, right?
LOL what a swing and a miss. I read all of Thompson’s books in the 90s, probably before you were born. Except Kingdom of Fear, that came out this century.
The day a conservative talks to me about freedom and I don’t laugh in their face is the day I’ve gone completely fucking stupid.
Conservatives have zero credibility on freedom.
Even the Second Amendment is a liberal invention, which conservatives had to rewrite and ignore history, and even certain parts of the Second Amendment itself, in order to fetishize it as they do.
I’m not a “conservative” as the neocon and trumptard groups have taken over that label with their brands of madness.
I’m an Independant who pretty much hates all of the politicians we have. I only vote for those who do not propose to limit any of our freedoms.
As an Independant and having been politically active since the prior century, I have mountains of credibility on the subject of Freedom. I was here protesting the PATRIOT Act, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the endless War on Terror, and the War on Drugs probably when you were a baby. I was against those wars when Obama continued them too. I voted against Trump 3 times.
So yeah, go on about my credibility if you want to but you have nothing on me.
Imagine being this person ^
Oof…
I am that person, and I have a great life and am proud to support all rights for all Americans. If you don’t then you suck.
Imagine being the kind of fucking dumbass that would try to reduce any Rights that people have.
Right… But only when it comes to guns. Trans people though? They don’t deserve anything.
Nope, you’re making up absolute bullshit again. I said ALL RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS you fucking asshole.
Most uses of firearms in the US are not self-defense. But funnily enough, if there were fewer guns… there’d be fewer need for those few self-defense cases.
Offensive uses and suicides to defensive uses: 50 to 1.
Citation: Needed.
According to Gun Violence Archive in 2023 so far there have been 888 deaths due to defensive use of firearms, out of a total of 31,900 deaths from firearms from all causes. That’s 2.78%, which is about a 36:1 ratio.
So yeah- most firearm-caused deaths in the US are not from self-defense, and it’s not even close either.
That’s a nice figure you have there. Would be a shame if somebody thought about the context of those numbers…
Like how many defensive gun uses occur where nobody is killed because the attacker was deterred without the necessity of violence. You don’t have numbers for that because they only count deaths.
Would be a shame if somebody thought about the context of those numbers…
Why, when I said
most firearm-caused deaths in the US are not from self-defense
while linking to the stats to show deaths from firearms in the US, would I say anything about non-lethal defensive uses of firearms? The point was to show the ratio of self-defensive lethal uses of firearms compared to all lethal uses of firearms.
Bro just stop already. You like guns, it’s a neat little hobby, and you’re getting angry because people want to end it. I get that. My hobby is retro video games/consoles, and if it turned out that they were a threat to society and people wanted to take them away, I probably wouldn’t do the sane/rational/adult thing and accept it. I’d fight to defend my god given right to own a Wii, and I’d get into angry bad faith arguments on the internet in a desperate attempt to protect my cherished pastime.
…but I’d be wrong, I’d be an asshole, and I probably wouldn’t realize it. I like to think that I’d have the self-awareness to not fall into that trap, since I generally consider myself to be self-aware, but also I really love this hobby and it’s a big part of my life, so it could go either way.
You’re the delusional moron from yesterday.
what kind of person is supposed to be targeted by this? What kind of person actually commits gun violence?
Easy answer to both questions: gun owners
No one deserves a gun.
There, no need to even read the rest.
Don’t waste your time. People here aren’t looking for a rational discussion. This is the “shit on anyone who values their own safety” thread. Most of these commenters have only ever seen guns on the news, in the hands of criminals, who obviously don’t give a shit about these new laws.
I used to have to listen to my neighbor doing target practice with his semiautomatic pistol until his stepdaughter took a secret video of him beating the shit out of her mom and gave it to her teacher. He got all his most favoritest fancy boy toys taken away and now I just have to listen to him loudly fussing about it and blaming everyone but himself for it happening.
He’s an Olympic level cunt muffin with no sense of personal responsibility or care for the safety of others. Everyone I know who owns semiautomatic weapons is pretty much the exact same garbage personality type. Or a cop.
Everyone in the neighborhood is now safer because that fucktard can’t go blowing holes in his walls when he gets scared at night.
Maybe you should keep better company.
You have just described the process of making yourself prejudiced. Does it feel nice to know that you harbor prejudice against your fellow American citizens, millions of us?
Waaaaaaah someone else doesn’t liiiiiike me. My heteronormative Christian toxic masculine riiiiiiiights, you’re preeeeeejudiceddddddd. Waaaaaaaahhhhh.
That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
Cops, white people, men, and christians have all the fucking power in the US.
Interestingly enough, most gun control laws disproportionately disarm people who aren’t in the demographics you listed. In fact, historically, gun control has usually been used to disarm minorities so they can more easily be intimidated, harassed, and murdered. Which side of history are you on? The side that empowers minorities, or the side that disarms them and prevents them from choosing any path other than victimization?
Yeah, that needs a citation. I’ve heard this point parroted time and again, but never have seen data demonstrating it.
Minorities are getting killed by police, whether they’re armed or not.
…victims were unarmed in 1 in 6 (753;16%) fatal shootings. Rates among unarmed Black and Hispanic victims were significantly higher than they were among White victims: more than 3 times as high and 45% higher, respectively.
BMJ, Fatal Police Shootings, 2020
As to your pointed question - I want to be on the side of history that puts an end to daily mass murder events. Which side of history do you want to be on?
Couldn’t give half a shit what you think about it. I’m enjoying my privilege here regardless.
Sweetie, if you identify with the wife beating man child who blames everyone but himself for his DV charge, that probably says something about you.
I was responding to the person above who said “Most of these commenters have only ever seen guns on the news, in the hands of criminals, who obviously don’t give a shit about these new laws.” I was sharing the experiences I’ve had with semiautomatic pistol owners.
But I’m ever so sorry if you feel you are a part of the group I was disapproving of and it gave you a sad. Please don’t come to my house and shoot me 🙏 🥺
Everyone I know who owns semiautomatic weapons is pretty much the exact same garbage personality type. Or a cop.
That’s what you said that I was responding to specifically. None of the other stuff is relevant to anybody but your shitty neighbors.
Bro, it’s a matter of fundamental fairness. The cost of gun violence must be borne by the gun industry and gun owners.
Period.
Not innocent civilians, not tax payers at large.
E: only to abject morons could this comment seem unreasonable.
It’s unreasonable because you’re talking about taxing an enumerated right. Should we add a tax on social media users to cover the costs of misinformation? What about religious observance, should churchgoers pay sales tax on their tithes for the privilege of worshipping?
Weapon ownership is a right, not a privilege. The government cannot tax a right.
Is there an enumerated right to be free of taxes on enumerated rights? If not, there isn’t one.
There are all sorts of taxes and fees associated with free speech and assembly, petitioning government, freedom of information act.
Don’t you already pay fees for firearms permits?
Fees are different than taxes. The reason for the fees (background checks, etc) are illegal per the 2nd Amendment, but they aren’t the same.
A weapon tax is the same as a poll tax, or imagine if you had to pay a tax to exercise your 4th or 5th amendment rights.
None of this is acceptable.
Uhh, poll taxes are expressly banned by the Constitution. They were not illegal prior to that amendment.
Weapons taxes have always been illegal, due to their infringing nature. Where do we draw the line on the taxation of protected rights, though? Regardless of the blatantly illegal nature of the particular tax in question, it is a slippery slope that we would be wise to reverse course on before it’s too late.
Bro, this is a capitalist country. If you want something, pull yourself up by those bootstraps and go earn some money to buy it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Fuck yes! Now do the rest of the states!
i’m a conservative christian and even I can’t figure out why people are so obsessed with guns here. It’s absolutely insane. Isn’t the entire point of a strong military that we don’t need to have AR15s in our closets? IF you really want to play around with more than a simple hunting rifle, maybe you should join the national guard or military yourself instead of LARPing as a soldier?
Maybe stop voting for the people perpetuating that culture?
The problem is actually the two-party corporate system, not the average citizen trying desperately to make sense of it. Voting is a formality and changes nothing. The gun stuff comes from the legal end of things. This problem won’t be solved by a ballot measure from either side getting voted on. It’s a philosophical issue. And to understand issues like this, you have to talk to the real people who hold the opinions. Have you ever actually befriended someone who is obsessed with guns?
American conservative “values” would disgust Jesus.
agreed. let me check my bible…i don’t recall jesus ever recruiting a militia and marching around with bows and sling shots enforcing his law on the public. of course, you know that many groups of humans have done this over the years, many of them nowhere close to christian.
And, in fact, he reprimanded Peter for using a sword to chop off a guy’s ear.
I have no idea what you’re trying to convey here.
My point is that calling yourself a “Christian” and also being and voting for American conservatives is hypocritical in the extreme. Feel free to refute my actual point if you please, but I think Jesus was FOR feeding the hungry, but I might be mistaken.
Last “militia” like activity I remember would be Jan6, and I bet lots of them go to church and call themselves Christian conservatives
let me check my post…looking for where it says I vote for republicans…hmm, don’t see it.
- School teachers should not be paid.
- School psychologists should not be paid.
- School maintanance workers that prevent school looking like dystopia should not be paid.
- School students should not have good quality of life, that enough for their sanity and physical health.
- Their parents should not have good quality of life to spend time with kids without beating them.
- But governor’s best friend should get multibillion contract to make school look like prison.
More wasted taxpayer money as courts strike down this obviously unconstitutional law. As a Californian, I’m sick and tired of my taxes being frittered away in the defense of indefensible laws.
You can’t tax an enumerated right. How can this possibly be anything other than an illegal infringement?
Awww…. You poor thing. Texas loves passing laws that allow people to murder one another. Maybe go there?
I get you don’t like guns but what if we instituted a poll tax? If you aren’t wealthy enough to vote you must not care about your representation enough. Taxing enumerated rights is dangerous. If you don’t like the right, do the hard work of changing the constitution.
False equivalence. A vote is not a gun.
Both are constitutional rights. Newsom is pandering with a law he knows will get struck down.
It’s a false equivalence because of the 24th Amendment.
Amendment Twenty-four to the Constitution was ratified on January 23, 1964. It abolished and forbids the federal and state governments from imposing taxes on voters during federal elections.
Prior to that, poll taxes were legal. Just as taxes on guns and ammo are legal. Every state with a sales tax afaik applies it to guns.
Maybe move back to England where your lilly ass would be milking the kings cows if citizens were never allowed to bear arms.
Seems things are hand-over-fist better there as it is than things are in America when it comes to dipshits with firearms, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, I don’t see anyone there complaining about their rights to murder school children like you knuckleheaded Cletuses do here.
So, in essence, I’d fucking love to move there. It’s safer. And they respect life.
That’s because they’re complaining about all their other rights being taken away en masse.
Wanna know what makes things like protests work in the U.S.? That’s right, the underlying threat of violence (with guns).
I can’t believe it, there are posts daily about authoritarianism on the rise globally (that means in the U.S. too) and there are still idiots that think guns are the problem. It’s genuinely mindblowing. You’re just another authoritarian that paints itself in leftist colors.
Yawn…
Weird how little you have to say.
Remember, you don’t live here. Don’t weigh in on things that don’t concern you. Ok buddy?
Oh and you are absolutely an authoritarian, judging from your comments. You are the reason I will not stop advocating for gun rights.
Stay mad you wannabe dictator.
Want me to say more? Okay!
I live in Seattle WA. So according to your rules- I can say however much or little I wish. And for the record- the same would go regardless of wether or not I live in the states or abroad. It’s only fuckwits like you that think there’s some unwritten rule that dictates who can and can’t speak up based on the irrelevant notion that the geographical location of one’s birth is what permits the right to opine.
But I’m guessing this doesn’t stop your dumb ass from sharing what you think of other countries, does it?
I’m also guessing that the reason you thought I was a foreigner is because your limited logical processes couldn’t possibly fathom a born-and-and-raised American speaking negatively about their country could you? Yeah. That’s called “free speech.” Brave men and women throughout our history have died for this right, remember?
And for the record… blowhard douchebags like yourself are you are exactly why people hate Americans. If it’s not your insufferable smug arrogance, it’s your willful ignorance when discussing things you know nothing about, and the false notion that you have some sort of authority in delegating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies and lives.
And sadly, your obnoxious bullshit happens to be so loud that it drowns out any reasonable discussion. So foreigners are left to assume it’s just people like you that live here.
So how about you stop fucking it up for the rest of us, sit down, shut up and get yourself a bit of common sense and self-awareness before you chose to embarrass yourself on the internet.
Was that enough, Cletus? Should I say more?
So you think poll taxes and steps to stop people from their constitutional right to vote is bad too? Or is it only unconstitutional if you can’t murder people afterwards?
Yes, I believe any law that is meant to prevent people from exercising their right to vote is bad. And why the obsession with murder? The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful, wonderful people. Your bigotry is exhausting.
