Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[Slyhunter]

Unreal? I tend to think that the almost monthly slaughter of our young people at the hands of armed malcontents is unreal. Whats-more is how conservatives here and elsewhere have just accepted the body count of 10 year old girls as the costs of doing business and that it is far more important the rights of the malcontent are not infringed upon.

And yet you liberals here and elsewhere do nothing to deal with the problem all you ever do is complain about onservatives and the NRA and make general comments about stricter gun laws but never propose a single change change to current laws or offer any news ones that would prevent these type of shootings.

Uhh...I just proposed a change to current gun laws and offered new ones. In the post right before yours.

Maybe you should try proposing something that would actually make a difference and could be implemented while it's a very nice long post the content is totally unrealistic the cost alone to do all you suggested makes all that dead in the water. I see now I should have said common sense solutions.

Incarcerating people for the entire length of their sentence is "unrealistic"? Please tell me another joke. Or drop your pants and show us one.

Markets have proven:

• If the supply decreases, and the demand remains the same, there will be a shortage, and the price will increase.

Increased prices means fewer weapons on the streets. You won't see many Ferrari's on the street today. Is the demand there? Sure. The price is prohibitive thus you're going to have to approach a Honda Accord when you go pan handling.

Anyway, you increase the price and you drive out demand. Manufacturers produce fewer driving up the demand even more.

All of this is science so, obviously, you're way out of your depth.

The leftist mentality. Put gun manufactures out of business. Take guns away from law abiding citizens, and create as large black market for firearms ..You libs a sooo stupid

It worked on stopping drugs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban.

Pictures will make this easier for you to understand:



Thank you in advance for a response that does not include emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Black man shoots up a bunch of whites in Oregon. Where is the outcry about hate crime and racism?

Maybe Blacks are still trying to figure how this so-called white looking "Black guy" professed a hatred for Blacks. It is hard to telll the difference anymore... could this be another Rachel Dolezal
copycat? You tell me! He sho' looked White to me!

You need to take all of that up with the democrat party. They thrive on and set the rules for race definition because they are the party of segregation.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oregon Gunman described himself as a "Conservative Republican" in an online dating profile.

Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual

And?...Your point?.....

The point is clear: conservative Republicans are more likely to become unhinged and commit mass murder.

They are extreme in their thought processes - this site is evidence of that

Become enraged when things don't go their way, like when Democrats actually have votes in Congress, too

Exhibit irrational paranoia, as when they are convinced the gummint is coming for their guns

Feel put upon

Feel like they are losing their White country


How many more do you need?

 

[Synthaholic]

And I suppose you believe liberalism is "the better way"?

It's been proven countless times.

That you can't or won't recognize it isn't my concern. You are quickly becoming an inconsequential minority. You can't even run a political party, never mind a country.

 

[JQPublic1]

I doubt if this kook even knows what a conservative or Republican is. The rest of his profile indicate he's a liberal.

Naw, Liberals don't obsess over guns and love them more than anything else. Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives. Just look at the posts on these boards...Most Conservatives have mentioned on more than one occasion that they are ready to shoot and kill. Most all of them frequently train to hone shooting skills. Liberals don't do that. That is why this guy, Chris had to be a conservative republican. Shooting multiple people takes skill and practice. This guy was as much a republican conservative killing machine as any US marine is; and, like a good Marine, he was well indoctrinated in the use of his weapons.

Liberals are less likely to kill than Conservatives.

Your proof is the Conservative enclaves on the Westside and Southside of Chicago. Durr.

I don't have a clue as to who lives on the West-side and South-side of Chicago since I dont live there,
I assume you are referring to Black gangsters. They are NOT liberals...those thugs are anything BUT liberal. Some may be getting politicians elected who favor their causes like the Mafia did to gain respectability,( I hear that is occurring} but for the most part they have been largely apolitical. BTW before you bring up the republican vs democrat equals conservative vs liberal BS,,, There are plenty of Democrats who are conservative and visa versa.

 

[Maxx]

I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.

Coincidence?

Identifying as a liberal Democrat is like riding a moped or dating a fat chick.
Some people do it for whatever reason, but nobody wants to be seen doing it.

 

[candycorn]

I have a better idea...
Instead of playing the name games...

Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....

What crap is that?

Let me guess you want the killings to continue...

No. Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem. Just ask them.

Yes., we enjoy the carnage.
You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
Go take a flying fuck on a rolling donut.

Okay, tell us the solution then.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.

Coincidence?
















































No.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel and the Jung Il and Um were all Liberal Democrats

when you look up the word liberal and educate your self, come on back and join the party! Liberals are not totalitarian dictators...that is more in line with those identifying themselves as conservatives.

You co-opted the word Liberal. You "Liberals" are all about total state control over all human activity, there's nothing Liberal about that, that's Mao, that's Stalin

 

[candycorn]

Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight." It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah

Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
Every time.

Point to where it says that in the constitution

Oh... THAT game. OK...
A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
Surely, you agree.

In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have a better idea...
Instead of playing the name games...

Let's us pray for the victim's this crap has to stop....

What crap is that?

Let me guess you want the killings to continue...

No. Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem. Just ask them.

Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news


What is your answer candy?

We have to stop them

Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight." It will take a generation or two.

First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere. The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution. The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol. The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere. Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington. As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there. The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place. This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine". Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything." I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means. I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.

We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles. The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.

So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.

This move in and of itself will have 3 effects. First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused. Secondly, the number of players will be reduced. Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to. This is important later.

The next step is legislative. Oh boy. It involves attacking supply and demand.

Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc. The language goes like this:

The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.​

The DOE could act under the first condition. POTUS could act under the 4th.

Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:

16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan​

Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc. Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm. So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.

Sorry.

So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun. Don't worry; it's transferable.

Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.

Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.

So 3 things happen here:
1. Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment. This shorts the chances of her selling it.
2. If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy. Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
3. Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000). So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse. She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check. Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799. So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000. Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.

Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.

Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.

Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.

Enforcement needs to be front and center. I would do the following: If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap. So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute. And the federal rap comes with no parole. Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap. The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence. Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.

Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk. Boom; federal crime.
Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.

Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....

Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.

Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
Appoint armed guards at each campus. Get rid of the strength coach for the football team and hire some guards
Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness. If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.

----------------

Anyway, what will happen over time is this: Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced. This reduces overall supply. Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also. Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.

Homicide rate spiked after Great Society Progressives were in control.

 

[candycorn]

What crap is that?

Let me guess you want the killings to continue...

No. Some of your conservative brethern see nothing wrong with mass killings and simply say there is nothing we can do to solve the problem. Just ask them.

Nah I don't give a fuck about them...I am so sick and tired of reading this on the news


What is your answer candy?

We have to stop them

Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight." It will take a generation or two.

First, you simply accept that the 2nd Amendment will not be going anywhere. The framers put in place an unassailable fortress around the Constitution. The only successful assault on the document was to revoke an amendment that prohibited alcohol. The resulting increase in violent crime along with a great depression (the country could use a drink about that time) resulted in a favorable atmosphere. Also, an amendment passed by the same folks who were going to repeal it a few terms later didn't seem so egregious as trying to overturn the works of Madison, Monroe and Washington. As crazy as the whole episode with the 19th amendment was, there are lessons to be learned from there. The first step in reducing the gun play that is resulting in so many campus slaughters is to reduce the need for guns in the first place. This is a binary tract that goes for those who perceive a need for self-defense as well as those on offense who follow the Larry the Liquidator mindset of "They have theirs so I have mine". Larry was talking about lawyers of course. The actual quote from IMDB is "They're like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they fuck up everything." I would imagine that those who use guns daily are of several mindsets but most would probably fall into Larry's camp of rather not using them and risking a felony sentence therein than simply acquiring what they want through other means. I'm sure there are numerous psychopaths who love inflicting pain and torment as well but in general terms, I think a majority would rather just show you they are armed and prefer not to pull the trigger.

We are at a similar cross-roads today with marijuana and other controlled substances. The violence on our city streets is not over purse snatching or punks stealing bicycles. The "real money" is in dealing drugs so the real violence is in dealing out misery to anyone who dare infringes on your turf and tries to take the money from you.

So first and foremost is to legalize some of the drugs that are causing the spike in violence.

This move in and of itself will have 3 effects. First, it allows the armed constabulary to focus more on drugs that are more dangerous such as heroin, crack, methamphetamine, and cocaine. It will stand to reason that the police will be more successful when their focus is not diffused. Secondly, the number of players will be reduced. Not everyone who is dealing pot will "shift" into doing the other four either due to opportunity, territory, infrastructure, or simple seriousness of those drugs compared to merely "getting baked".Lastly, the resulting reduction in violence will cause some who are thinking they need to buy a gun not to. This is important later.

The next step is legislative. Oh boy. It involves attacking supply and demand.

Under DHS Directive 5, the head of DHS can declare something a national emergency. It needn't be a hurricane, typhoon, earthquake, terrorist attack, etc. The language goes like this:

The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.​

The DOE could act under the first condition. POTUS could act under the 4th.

Anyway, it goes on to read in the annex #16:

16. The Secretary shall develop, submit for review to the Homeland Security Council, and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). The Secretary shall consult with appropriate Assistants to the President (including the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other such Federal officials as may be appropriate, in developing and implementing the NRP. This plan shall integrate Federal Government domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan​

Congress can (and of course should) be brought on board. In the same way costs are inferred with licenses, insurance, and bonding at the State level, federal laws can be passed to require gun makers to carry what amounts to a license with each gun purchased by Dick's, Sporting Goods, Cubela's, Bass Pro Shops, etc. Lets say the license today is $1,000 per firearm. So for a Dick's location to stock it's shelves with 500 guns, that one location has to outlay $500,000 additional dollars.

Sorry.

So when you buy a gun for $299.00; it will cost you $299 + $1,000 license for that particular gun. Don't worry; it's transferable.

Increase the costs of weapons to reduce the overall supply; over time.

Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.

So 3 things happen here:
1. Jane (being a responsible gun owner who shops retail) is likely to keep her gun because she's making a killing on the investment. This shorts the chances of her selling it.
2. If the gun is stolen, she reports it immediately to cash in the $1,000 policy. Appreciation didn't happen since she didn't hold it for the full 10 years.
3. Most importantly, at the end of 10 years, she can sell her gun back to the Federal Government for whatever they are paying for it ....likely not that much admittedly...but she can use the bond to buy another weapon OR she can cash in the bond for $10,000 cash (plus the initial investment of $1,000). So she walks out of the ATF/State Police office with $11,000 in her purse. She may wish to keep the bond however (or transfer it at a price she demands) to whomever willing to pay her price AND who passes a background check. Governments being governments, the costs of the policy will increase over time so in ten years, the initial investment may be $2,500 making a $299 gun's price $2,799. So you may wish to keep the $1,000 "bond" and use your $10 K to buy a new cool gun and "only" increase it by $1,000. Or simply keep the gun and the policy and do nothing.

Needless to say a FBI/State Police forensic check will be one against bullets recovered to see if there a match to any crimes as well.

Create a market-driven motivation to limit the mobility of guns through the society.

Other ideas for using market forces could be increasing the match from 100% per year to 150% during a buy-back program so if you're 5 years into your ownership history, the State may offer you a period where you can "cash in" for $5,000 to $7,500 so you walk out with $6,000 (5K + your 1K original outlay) or $8,500.

Enforcement needs to be front and center. I would do the following: If you brandish a weapon or indicate you have a weapon during commission of a crime (not defending), it is a federal rap. So if you are making terroristic threats to your ex-wife saying that you'll go home and get a gun and kill her; that is now a federal crime under this statute. And the federal rap comes with no parole. Tell the clerk at a 7/11 you have a gun during a robbery....you get the State robbery charge for however long it lasts then when it's over, you get a federal gun rap. The State lets you out after 3 years of a 10 year sentence, Uncle Sam and his prison goons scoop you up to start your federal sentence. Use a gun in a murder, life in Fort Collins or other fed pen; no parole.

Sell a gun without the policy at a gun show, at your home, or out of your trunk. Boom; federal crime.
Steal a gun from anyone (policy or not), Boom; federal crime.

Use the Bureau of Prisons printing plant (if there is one) to print a gazillion posters detailing the sentences and the fact that if you're sentenced to 9 years, 3 months, 8 days, and 37 minutes you'll serve 9/3/8/37 (7 states away BTW)and put them in every school, gun store, shooting range, etc....

Create an atmosphere to where there are real consequences for gun crimes; not the current slap on the wrist.

Beef up background checks to include interviews with randomly flagged applicants.
Appoint armed guards at each campus. Get rid of the strength coach for the football team and hire some guards
Form partnerships with local gun clubs including the NRA to spread awareness. If they don't want to participate; that's cool but I think most would.

----------------

Anyway, what will happen over time is this: Increased prices lower sales. Lower sales mean less units produced. This reduces overall supply. Creating a market driven model whereby responsible gun ownership is monetarily encouraged and awarded (at the same time creating another penalty for dishonest actors to suffer) will stop the mobility of firearms through the society. Enforcing current laws and enhancing penalties for gun-involved crimes will result in bad actors and their guns being removed from circulation also. Additionally, decriminalizing (and thus removing the violence associated with) some drugs will push the "casual suppliers" out of the market.

Okay, so now Jane Doe has a $299 pistol and a $1,000 license. That $1,000 is invested in that State's employee pension program. The returns start accumulating immediately through compound interest. However, it is capped at a return of, let's say, $10,000 in 10 years. A 100% return rate per year sounds really high but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so. Jane's license is appreciating.

You want a state to waste $10,000 per gun on your stupid proposal?
Why is this a good idea?

On new purchases. Big difference.

Actually, that will not happen. Some guns will be sold. Some guns will be used in a crime and the insurance policy will go to the victims. But yes, for responsible gun owners, the "buy in" of $1,000 will pay off $10,000 if held for 10 years. But I would think most would not cash in on it. Maybe not. The reason is because the "buy in" will likely rise as time goes by.

A 100% return rate per year sounds really high

Yes, moronically, mind-blowingly too high.

but most pensions (including mine from Texas) matches contributions at 200% or so.

Yes, that's why most state pension plans are broke.

Some are. Most are solvent.

Jane's license is appreciating.

For no good reason.

For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Care4all]

Life itself, seems so insignificant to these mass murderers...

Why?

Are they all mentally disturbed, and if so, what is making them mentally disturbed? Never nurtured, never cared for, never loved? bullying? Video games? The internet, message boards, Anti depressant drugs that are not the right drugs for their illness?

 

[candycorn]

Life itself, seems so insignificant to these mass murderers...

Why?

Are they all mentally disturbed, and if so, what is making them mentally disturbed? Never nurtured, never cared for, never loved? bullying? Video games? The internet, message boards, Anti depressant drugs that are not the right drugs for their illness?

That I believe. What is non-sense is that they don't know right from wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight." It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah

Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
Every time.

Point to where it says that in the constitution

Oh... THAT game. OK...
A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
Surely, you agree.

In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested. Thanks for proving my point.

And thank YOU for agreeing that it is constitutional to lay a $1500 tax on abortions, done with the limit the exercise of the right to same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exhibit irrational paranoia, as when they are convinced the gummint is coming for their guns

Speaking of acting on irrational paranoia...
Still waiting for your response to post 257 and 262.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

In exactly the same way, as you agreed, that a $1500 tax on abortions, laid with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to same, does not violate the constitution.

 

[candycorn]

Unfortunately the solution is going to be along the same lines of a personal trainer talking to an obese woman; "You didn't get this way overnight and you won't correct your self overnight." It will take a generation or two., blah blah blah

Taxing or otherwise artificially increasing the cost the exercise of a right with the intent to limit the exercise of same violates the constitution.
Every time.

Point to where it says that in the constitution

Oh... THAT game. OK...
A $1500 tax on abortion, placed with the intent to limit the exercise the right to an abortion does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on churchgoers, placed with the intent to limit the free exercise of religion does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on news stories, places with the intent to limit the right to a free press, does not violate the constitution
A $1500 tax on political signs and banners, placed with the intent to limit the right to free speech, does not violate the constitution.
A $1500 tax on the purchase a firearm, placed with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to arms, does not violate the constitution.
Surely, you agree.

In other words, there is no constitutional text to prevent installing what I suggested. Thanks for proving my point.

And thank YOU for agreeing that it is constitutional to lay a $1500 tax on abortions, done with the limit the exercise of the right to same.

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent either thing from happening. The difference is that guns have proven to be a menace to society.

 

[candycorn]

[
For a great reason; it limits manufacture, limits supply, and doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

In exactly the same way, as you agreed, that a $1500 tax on abortions, laid with the intent to limit the exercise of the right to same, does not violate the constitution.

Your sentence doesn't make sense so I have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, the tax you wish to place on abortions will not only guarantee there will never be another GOP president (a win) but it is mainly poor women who are most penalized by this sort of thing. So placing that tax on the procedure will likely push the overall costs into the realm of it being tax deductible for those who have it done.

Nice going dumbass.

​

​

 

[Silhouette]

How did we go from the shooter to abortions?