Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing I suggested infringes on anyone's right to own as many weapons as they can afford.

So a $1000 poll tax is okay then.

Not sure what you mean by that.

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

???

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what you mean by that.

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

???

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A poll tax is okay, because it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to vote.

???

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not enough time to go back and look at it. I'll take your word for it.
I apologize. Outside of total confiscation, nothing will get rid of guns.

Short of getting rid of all guns, nothing will prevent mass shootings.

1 gun out of every 36500 is involved in a murder; how does the misuse of that one gun justify the draconian infringements you propose for the 36500 others?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

We've been through this; you lost.
The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment. It is there for a reason. The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.

So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
I accept your concession.

Militia...it's in there for a reason. For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.

Speaking of not being able to read....
Nowhere does the Constitution say ""...the right of the people in a militia shall not be infringed".
Thus, your claim to that effect holds no water.

 

[Slyhunter]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

Sales tax is a government infringememt on our right to buy guns.

 

[candycorn]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

Sales tax is a government infringememt on our right to buy guns.

It says that in the Constitution? Oh wait, it doesn't? Interesting.

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is in the Amendment for a reason. A different set of justices will (hopefully) see it and recognize it.

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment. It is there for a reason. The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.

So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
I accept your concession.

Militia...it's in there for a reason. For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.

Speaking of not being able to read....
Nowhere does the Constitution say ""...the right of the people in a militia shall not be infringed".
Thus, your claim to that effect holds no water.

Of course, I never made that claim but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cool story bro.

 

[candycorn]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

We've been through this; you lost.
The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.

Never lost an argument with you. Just like I never said tax the guns.

I'm tired of taking victory laps....goodbye for now.

 

[candycorn]

???

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You STILL did not answer the questions:
Remember that YOU hang your argument on the actual text of the amendment - where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

The CONSTITUTION has the word "Militia" in the 2nd amendment. It is there for a reason. The reason it is there is not for you to ignore it.

So, you admit that the 2nd does NOT say that only the people in the militias have their right to arms protected.- contrary to your claim.
I accept your concession.

Militia...it's in there for a reason. For the 8th time. I accept the fact that you cannot read.

Speaking of not being able to read....
Nowhere does the Constitution say ""...the right of the people in a militia shall not be infringed".
Thus, your claim to that effect holds no water.

Of course, I never made that claim but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cool story bro.

Snicker...
What the was the text of your claim?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

We've been through this; you lost.
The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.

Never lost an argument with you.

Just like now, you've run away from every argument you;ve ever had with me -- because you know you lost.;

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If a tax on guns does not infringe, neither does a tax on voting.

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

Because, as you know, the 24th Amendment only talks abut taxes, not licenses or other fees to vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

Because, as you know, the 24th Amendment only talks abut taxes, not licenses or other fees to vote.

Yes, a $500 license "fee" would be okay.

 

[candycorn]

Is a gun tax an infringement?
Charging sales tax for gun sales is in violation of the constitution.

Point to the part of the constitution that says that.

We've been through this; you lost.
The right shall not be infringed; a tax laid upon the exercise of a right intended to limit that exercise infringes upon that right.

Never lost an argument with you.

Just like now, you've run away from every argument you;ve ever had with me -- because you know you lost.;

Now that is hilarious

Re read the constitution and perhaps you'll be able to hold your own next time.

 

[candycorn]

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

Sure I would but you should get your candidate to bring that up as an idea.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

Sure I would but you should get your candidate to bring that up as an idea.

Sure I would

Why?

 

[Papageorgio]

Tax? Never said I wanted to tax guns.

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.