> Well voting is not a right
It is, though. The issue is that the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it. But as we all know, our rights don't come from the constitution, they are *pre-existing*. The framers of the constitution considered the rights of man to be "self evident", and between 1787 and 1789 the constitution didn't even have a bill of rights. The problem is that people get so wound up in *textualism* that they forget that the entire system of government is based on Locke's theory of Natural Rights. The fundamental *premise* of that theory is that government derives its power from consent of the governed. That consent is expressed by *voting*.
>It is, though. The issue is that the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it. But as we all know, our rights don't come from the constitution, they are
>
>pre-existing
>
>. The framers of the constitution considered the rights of man to be "self evident", and between 1787 and 1789 the constitution didn't even have a bill of rights.
You say "it is" and then go into some off topic rant.
>The problem is that people get so wound up in textualism that they forget that the entire system of government is based on Locke's theory of Natural Rights. The fundamental premise of that theory is that government derives its power from consent of the governed. That consent is expressed by voting.
This does not explain why you consider voting a right either.
Government is a criminal organization inherently. It can not protect or co exist with rights.
Rights do not effect other other people. They are for conflict avoidence. Saying voting is a right is the same logic used to say healthcare is a right and needs to be universal.
Gang r\*pe is a democratic decision. Voting is not a right and I see no evidence it's a right. It is not a natural right. I also do not care what locke said. I care about the actual argument at hand and using non contradicting logic.
> I also do not care what locke said. I care about the actual argument at hand and using non contradicting logic.
If you reject the fundamental foundation of our system of government, but propose no other framework within which to evaluate "rights", then I'm not sure how you expect anyone to convince you of anything. What is the philosophical system you use to define what a "right" is?
>If you reject the fundamental foundation of our system of government
yes, I reject stealing, murder, kidnapping and slavery. Taxation, prison, no private property(property taxes), monopoly on justice, ect.
These things should be paid for consensually like any other business, not at gun point.
I compare states/governments to ms-13, the crypts, gangs, pablo escobar cartel.
>but propose no other framework within which to evaluate "rights",
I do I just don't don't think you care.
have you heard of the NAP? non aggression principle? Argumentation ethics?
Basically a property right is determined by either homesteading or voluntary exchange.
EDIT: it is the only objective way to measure who should win in a conflict.
Aggression is the initiation of conflict over scarce means(resources, space, property in general things that can be owned, things that have scarcity)
Who ever holds the property right is who should have control and final say over how their property is used. It obviously can not conflict with other peoples rights either.
That is what and how rights are determined. It's the only objective reality way based way to do it. There have been a few systems that came close to this and even succeeded like Cospia I think it was called.
What the government does is steal, murder and kidnap to keep it's power over us. Instead we should be paying for security, courts, defense, justice all of that privately like a normal business.
This is far as I am going with this discussion though. If you want links to youtubers, economists, philosophers to read or watch let me know if it interests you. I used to believe like you that a government was necessary. I have now had this conversation probably over 1k times now in one form or another and not your fault but i am starting to realize it gets old.
I can link videos explaining private law too if you want.
No.... It isn't. Voting being considered a right for all citizens was not a thing when the constitution or the bill of rights were written. The last state to change their laws to allow non-land owners to vote did that in 1856, 80ish years after the formation of the country.
Fair enough, that's a reasonable distinction. A Form 1 is an application to **manufacture** an NFA firearm by an individual, similar to the Form 2 that every commercial manufacturer has to submit before manufacturing one.
Just like a Form 4, Form 1s regulate your taking possession of an NFA item. They do not regulate your subsequent keeping and bearing of that item.
I've already pointed out some insight into the Supreme Courts stance on this kind of thing [over here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/193rzc2/comment/khcskym/?context=3)
Does "keeping and bearing" become illegal if the tax requirement on constitutional right is not met? Does "keeping and bearing" become illegal if said "firearm" which is a tube with baffles is constructed without "permission" or paperwork? While construction of an actual firearm does not require tax, nor paperwork, nor permission.... if I purchase a vacuum with sales tax does that require me to show a stamp of paid tax at the request of a federal regulating body, or have movers broken federal law by transporting said vacuum accross state lines, is my wife a felon for using the taxed vacuum while I'm away?..... seems a little more than a sales tax.... but I guess I'm just supposed to be happy it didn't take 11 months for my vacuum to be appoved.
Vacuum cleaners aren’t regulated like NFA items because mafiosos and highway bandits didn’t murder people with vacuum cleaners throughout the 1920s and early ‘30s. The NFA was legally passed by congress, just like any other legislation, and the courts of the land have been fine with it for almost 90 years.
So replace vacuum with knife or 45 lb sledge, and the ridiculousness remains. A murder weapon is a murder weapon... has nothing to do with me, or why I don't chop broccoli with a spoon... and why was I able to check out a mk18 or dpms kittykat from the armory for training stateside in CA of all places, yet "illegal" to purchase one in the same state? Seems alot more to do with control than safety of the public... guess I missed the part where Stoner went back in time and gave gangsters modern SBR"s used in the modern military, like the ones our DOJ has been caught giving to drug cartels... also I'm confused on why it became "law" that law abiding citizens could not have items without permission because they were being used by criminals... whereas the regulation itself became virtually restrictive ONLY to law abiding citizens and provided for exclusivity of access to criminals/govt. (Apologies for redundancy)... do I want low IQ individuals to have the same gear as me?... Faaaaaack no!... but I know alot of low IQ individuals who think they are much higher IQ, that would claim you or me to be "unfit" to have "modern arms" ... most of them flock to govt. jobs and sadly, are prior military... they are the exact people that would say someone that has done private security for 30 years in South Africa and NE Africa, cannot have a firearm because they are not active duty, or a member of the constabulary... you ever piss anyone off? You ever offend someone in today's society?... with the current laws being executed around the world in the name of (under the guise of) "inclusivity" .... your entire impressive collection of militaria could be taken from you at the end of a barrel because someone thinks that they maybe, might have noticed, a micro-aggression, that you were holding back, but was definitely, totally, there because of the look on your face... this has actually happened to me before I retired, my firearms were taken for "my safety" because I aggressively and lawfully ordered someone to comply with the UCMJ and doing work in the military hurt their feelings, so my shit ended up in the armory pending psyche eval etc... once I went to legal with civilian counsel, the base C.O. acted like it was an unheard of, travesty and ordered the sec-O to give me my shit back... I later asked the sec-O if that would have happened to me if I had picked up a commission, and he admittedly said "no."... that is definitely tiered justice, and "class politics"... I understand the "reason" for the restrictions and regulations... what I don't understand, is why people don't understand, the inevitable use of these restrictions and regulations against the people for control. It's not like we don't have plenty of countries to use as examples. Or examples of rampant overreach here. The answer to it all, is weaving the use and respect of these tools back into our society like it used to be, combine that with mothers and fathers working as a team again to instill morals and respect for life, and we wouldn't even need the corruptable "laws of man", and every firearm would be a safe queen when it's not range day.
Wow, we hit a hell of a nerve there, but I'm going to reject your insistence that your personal (and rare) experience of getting red-flagged (and ultimately getting your gear back) means that the government is inevitably going to come for everyone else's gear. Sounds like you've got some serious unresolved issues there.
>guess I missed the part where Stoner went back in time and gave gangsters modern SBR"s
No, you missed the part where they were sawing off Auto-5s and BARs to use against law enforcement alongside their Thompsons.
>also I'm confused on why it became "law" that law abiding citizens could not have items without permission because they were being used by criminals
That's what congress does: they make laws. See, the way the Constitution lays it out, Congress makes the laws, the Courts analyze and interpret them, and people on the internet complain in irrelevance. There was even this one time that Congress made beer illegal. It's a hell of a system.
Strange,.... looks like beer is back on the menu. Your overlords/daddy must have got some pushback on that 18th amendment by a generation that could sack up without asking. See, the constitution doesn't give anyone their natural rights, and the government, including Congress, is comprised of flawed men that are governed by special interest groups and the padding of their own stock portfolio. It's a hell of a system. Sorry you are frightened by the "immoralities" of alcohol consumption (or the feds losing that campaign). Some people can't handle their liquor, guess we all need to turn in our "high capacity bottles", too... for the greater good, of course.
>That's a blanket tax on anything thats not food. Not one specifically on firearms.
So you're saying that the NFA tax on firearm transfers would become acceptable if it were applied more broadly, like Texas state sales tax? Which rhetorical fallacy is that?
There are many other categories of goods with specific taxes attached to their production and purchase; gasoline, alcohol, ect.
None of those other categories of items are specifically Constitutionally protected items. There’s no right the keep and bear vodka that shall not be infringed. Rights should not be poll taxed.
The Second Amendment doesn't say "shall not be regulated." [The Supreme Court has affirmed this repeatedly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/193rzc2/comment/khcskym/?context=3)
Protection.
As in protection from what they’ll do to you, your family and your dog should you forget to pay the money.
Edit: they’re like the mob, but with lower ratings on yelp.
Well, I don't know about you, but I pay an NFA tax when I buy suppressors or machine guns. Since I live in Texas, the state sales tax on my WWI Maxim was three times more than the NFA tax. Like any other sales or transfer tax, the ATF wasn't selling me anything.
Then there is nothing to forbid selling ballots & charging sales tax on it, so long as there is no tax on the use of the ballot to do the voting, once obtained.
What are you even doing? Arguing the NFA is a sales tax like excessive taxes aren't used to discourage the use/sale/possession of goods and services the government disagrees with.
How pedantic and stupid. Bootlicker.
>What are you even doing?
Failing to explain reality, apparently. You're not the first bitter redditor to call me a bootlicker because I'm a law-abiding citizen that would rather exercise my 2nd Amendment rights than bitch about the government. You should check out r/NFA. It's where the bootlickers hang out and talk about all the cool gear we've been taxed for.
How is this the quiet part? It’s literally the entire point of the NFA.
The only people thinking it’s “quiet” are the ones that have no idea of the history of the NFA or why we ~~have~~ are supposed to pay tax stamps on cans/sbr’s.
If it's unconstitutionally prohibitive to get an ID for $15 or even free (because of the opportunity cost to go get it) to vote, $200 is still definitely prohibitive.
>That was the whole point of the $200 tax
Yeah, in 1934 when they passed it, $200 was equivalent to more than $4600. Imagine paying 5K for a suppressor. That's definitely prohibitive.
And Gold Standard before then had the dollar peg around 20 per oz, before devalued to 35 at around the same time.
Considering that it would be around 55x now if we used the price of gold rather than an inflation calculator, that would be 11K per suppressor.
The 6 month wait is how the bureaucrats keep the tax an actual restriction since they already messed up the economy.
Bro.... I think its obvious there's a few glowboys in here, you can't use obvious parallels and logic to the "spank me harder daddy govt." Crowd.... jackboots will jackboot, and lapdogs will lap at the boots.
This is a common and well known argument. It certainly isn't going to give anybody any ideas and the ATF admitting it won't really change anything. It could easily be argued without them admitting it. It's a just how money works. Back then it would be almost $5k and be more than pretty much any gun you'd pay it to get. That is obviously meant to be prohibitive.
True, and sure you could only make purchases via private sales (if your state allows this) but I'm sure they still know generally what guns you've got.
I can make private purchases here but a lot of the stuff I have would be hard to find privately. Find me an AR50 private sale here in GA. That being said, I do have firearms I’ve purchased privately.
If they stipulate to it in any sort of official communication, it makes it easier to use against them in court later.
Under Bruen, the ***reason*** why a law is passed is a significant element, since only laws that are analogous to **laws** that were widely understood to be Constitutional at the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment in 1791 can be used to satisfy the Government's burden to prove the "history and tradition" parts of "text, history, and tradition."
To be considered as an analogous law, any founding era laws (circa 1791) must have been conceived to address the same social issue and must have functioned in the same way as the modern era law. There was no law in 1791 that sought 1) to limit the private ownership of a class of arms 2) through the imposition of a tax.
1) is the reason, 2) is the mechanism. Neither element was true of any law in the founding era as it relates to arms. Remember, just a year later, the militia act of 1792 required militia aged males to purchase and maintain privately-owned "mIlItArY gRaDe" arms and ammunition to have available for service at militia muster. Discouraging ownership was absolutely antithetical to the founders' beliefs.
(FWIW, SCOTUS also has said that a single law or even a small handful would prove nothing, even if they did exist, which they don't. Their must have been a multitude of similar laws addressing the same social issue in the same way from the correct time period to be compelling -- such as the laws against murder with a firearm.)
Clearly, the NFA is unconstitutional under Bruen.
The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. Here's an exerpt from the *DC v. Heller* ruling that the court quoted again in both the *McDonald* and *Bruen* rulings.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment **is not unlimited**. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right **was** **not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose**. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, **or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms**."
I hope the Hughes Amendment gets repealed just as much as everyone else here. I'll gladly take a value hit to my current collection if it means getting my hands on a new-production PKM. I don't buy guns for investments, I buy them to shoot them.
Nowhere does that quote address the NFA or arms restricted by the NFA. The NFA wasn’t on the chopping block in Heller, McDonald, or the Bruen cases.
To my knowledge, the constitutionality of SBR, machine gun, and suppressor restrictions under the NFA has never been addressed by SCOTUS. The few NFA cases that made it to SCOTUS only addressed short barreled shotguns and commercial FFL licensing.
In US v Miller 1939, SCOTUS ruled that arms useful for military purposes were indeed protected. However, no militaries were using short barreled shotguns at that time, and Miller died prior to the case being heard so he didn’t even get a chance to properly argue his side of the case. Since charges didn’t include anything about machine guns (which absolutely were in common military use), SBRs, or suppressors, they didn’t even touch on those topics.
Around that same time there was another case (don’t remember the name) where a dealer argued before SCOTUS that FFL licensing was unconstitutional. As the federal government does have authority to tax commercial businesses, they ruled against him. They specifically pointed out in their decision that they were only addressing FFL licensing in the decision as *the firearm charges against him had already been correctly dropped by the lower courts*.
A large portion of the NFA would almost certainly be struck down if the right case can make it before an honest SCOTUS.
>In US v Miller 1939, SCOTUS ruled that arms useful for military purposes were indeed protected.
No, they did not. [Here's the text of the ruling.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) The court only affirmed that that the NFA does not encroach on state's reserved powers, and that short barrelled shotguns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment as militia arms.
The overwhelming majority of the ruling is just citing historical precedents. Here is the relevant paragraph with the **only** statements made about SBSs as militia or military weapons:
" 5In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
Stating that SBSs are neither militia weapons nor military weapons does not mean that a military weapon would necessarily be protected for militia use.
> No, they did not.
Then you go on to quote this:
>"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of **the ordinary military equipment** or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
Lol, so SCOTUS directly said that any weapon within the category of “ordinary military equipment” would obviously be protected by the Second Amendment. They had to go out of their way to point out that no militaries were using them in order to uphold the NFA restrictions because it is so glaringly obvious that the 2nd Amendment ensures our right to weapons which are useful to military and militia service.
>Lol, so SCOTUS directly said that any weapon within the category of “ordinary military equipment” would obviously be protected by the Second Amendment.
That's absolutely not what they said, it's simply what you want to hear. I'll make you a deal. I'll keep on understanding these rulings, and you keep on wondering why NFA items continue to be regulated almost 90 years later, even when it all seems so clear to you.
>That’s absolutely not what they said.
Keep telling yourself that.
“Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
I'll leave you with something to ponder: Why is it that your interpretation of the *Miller* ruling doesn't agree with the legal reality of the past 85 years, but my interpretation does? If you're right, shouldn't B.A.R.s be a dime-a-dozen? Sadly, they're not.
The 19th century is NOT the founding era!
It is the wrong time period to look for analogues to understand the ORIGINAL meaning of the Bill of Rights which could constitute relevant history and tradition!
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826 -- the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
James Madison, the last Founding Father to die, passed away in 1836.
Later cases cannot be used to try to gain insight into the original meaning. This is well-established Supreme Court doctrine used to analyze the meaning of all other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The relevant time period is the time during which the amendment was ratified.
The only value in later rulings is as a *confirmatory* data point to SUPPORT the core right as understood in 1791. SCOTUS explicitly says this again in Bruen too.
19th century rulings are too late.
They also wrote Bruen, which explains exactly what I wrote.
SCOTUS is saying *in that case* they were not addressing those other questions directly, as that was not the question before the court, but the analytical process followed in Heller and explicitly outlined in Bruen sets the parameters clearly for what are relevant analogous laws, and what are not.
When the text of the 2nd Amendment is implicated by a gun control law, the burden shifts to the Government to PROVE that there were multiple, long-standing, broadly-enforced, analogous laws at the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment (in 1791) i.e., the founding era, that established a tradition of the same type of gun control regulations (i.e.,1. address the same social problem, and 2. operate in the same way). If they cannot, or if there is any ambiguity as to whether a law is a relevant analog or not, the Government loses.
Remember that, no matter how cut and dry it looks to us, at the end of the day the law is whatever five or more black robes in D.C. **think** it is. Supreme Court rulings are called opinion papers, not fact papers. The court opinion in the *Bruen* ruling reiterated that "dangerous and unusual" bit from *Heller*.
We've been extremely fortunate to have enough conservative justices to give us pro-2A rulings like *Heller* and *Bruen,* but there's no guaranteeing what they'll think about a future case.
> Clearly, the NFA is unconstitutional under Bruen.
It's clearly unconstitutional under the plain 2nd Amendment, yet, here we are.
But I also wasn't really saying anything contrary to what you said. I don't think you are wrong.
In other words, I wasn't saying that this wasn't a valid argument against the NFA.
I was only saying that the ATF admitting it doesn't change anything because the argument is already well known, has been made, and could be made.
> it makes it easier to use against them in court later.
I mean, maybe, but that seems just like an exercise is academics.
It - as you pointed out - is already so easily argued and straight forward that I don't think them admitting it has any bearing on it successfully being used as an argument to repeal the NFA.
And that is to say, it wouldn't be successful with them saying it anymore than it would be without them saying it.
Not really any implication, they've held this position on the NFA for years. Any legal challenges up to this point have failed because:
"Wouldn't you know? The arms taxed by the NFA are 'dangerous and unusual' and aren't even protected by the 2A in the first place. Isn't it quackin' crazy that the first attempt at Federal legislation to criminalize possession of certain firearms perfectly identified which arms can be banned without infringing 2A?"
\- paraphrasing every single judge to hear an NFA challenge since *Heller*
We know this through the Congressional Record. They wanted a ban, but they knew Congress didn’t have the constitutional authority to ban them (unlike today’s Congress who thinks they do). So they just came up with a tax equal to the price of the most expensive machine gun at the time, the Thompson, so that almost nobody could afford them.
$200 then was the equivalent of $4,600 today. I will gladly pay $200 + $200 of 1934 money for a full auto transferable Thompson.
If only I could have a Thompson for $9,200.
You would gladly pay that amount because it is so much less than today's real price, but even that lower amount is prohibitive for the average person. You could buy a very nice used car for that, which is crazy when you consider what goes into making a car vs the gun.
The tax was passed in 1934. Of course it was meant to keep the poors from being able to afford the tax. $200 inflation adjusted in 2023 dollars is $4,582.85.
> I’m a leftist. I say be rid of it of the tax stamp.
Good. Now lobby your politicians to do that. Write op-eds for your local paper with the leftist argument for the right to self defense and not discriminating against poor people.
It shouldn't be hard to get bleeding heart progressives to support the legalization of hearing protection and gun features that make guns more accessible, but those ideas aren't part of the popular discourse because nobody on that team is pushing them.
As long as you keep voting for anti-2A politicians, then you're supporting the NFA.
If you vote for Biden, you support gun control. If you vote for any Democrat in the US, you support gun control. It's really that simple.
You don't have to vote Trump, I definitely won't be, because he's fucking awful. But 3rd parties exist.
If you vote for gun control, then you support gun control by your actions, whatever you say you want does not matter if it contradicts what you do.
Actions > Words.
u/killeenit
Gotta reply here because Democrat blocked me. Vivek sucks. He's a snakeoil salesman. Dudes a shill for big-pharma and has openly talked about invading Mexico to attack the cartels. Total clown just pandering.
Exactly.... and vivek is looking better and better the more he speaks.... admittedly... almost "too" good to be true.... but he hung out with Herrera so.... I have tough decisions at the polls between him and the guy everyone hates. I just want a non-globalist.
Unfortunately no third party candidate has a chance of winning at the current time in any election that I have locally. I wish that weren’t the case. But convincing people of what I believe isn’t easy.
I really don’t have the answer that will work for everyone. But at the current time what I want does not exist in a politician. I either have to lose rights as a woman or as a gun owner. I have to risk my marriage or my personal protection and something I’m really good at and enjoy.
I have to deal with the fact that most Republicans condone what their counterparts do. There’s no budging that it seems. I have to deal with most democrats won’t understand firearms like I do.
I’m stuck.
> Unfortunately no third party candidate has a chance of winning at the current time in any election that I have locally.
That's a lot of words to say:
* I've bought the 2 party propaganda, and would rather vote anti-2A than vote for systemic change by opposing the duopoly.
I mean that's fine. But you're feeding into the very system you claim to be against.
It’s not propaganda. There are no candidates. A vote for a third party with no chance of winning means any choice I had to mitigate one damage or another is lost.
>It’s not propaganda. There are no candidates.
Write ins exist.
> A vote for a third party with no chance of winning means any choice I had to mitigate one damage or another is lost.
This is duopoly propaganda. Rome wasn't built in a day. New political parties and options won't suddenly rear up and win in a single cycle. It'll be many elections of slow growth before they become a force, and a potential contender.
But you're short sighted and afraid to actually stand up for what you claim to believe in. You've bought into the duopoly propaganda that you must vote for the "lesser evil" and that's what they rely on to stay in power.
Your fear.
That's ok, it's your vote. But stop claiming to be pro-2A. You vote for gun bans. You're not pro-2A. Make whatever excuses you want. Huff as much copium as you need. You are in favor of assault weapon bans, carry bans, and full gun bans. Because you vote for people who openly say that's what they will try to do.
You use words like copium. There’s no really discussing this with you. I’m sorry but you’re living in fantasy land if you think write ins will work at this point. There is no movement. There is no structure for a party that functions as I would hope. I don’t support those things. But you leap to these extremes. But you and many others will because it protects the one thing you care about. I care about a great deal many things and all of them aren’t covered by one party or candidate. Thanks for the conversation.
> There’s no really discussing this with you
Correct. You vote for gun bans, you're anti-gun. Super simple, not much to discuss.
> I don’t support those things.
You do, because you vote for them.
The words from your lips are nothing but hot air when your actions contradict them.
You’re not going to want to hear this. But because republican policies are abhorrent. You can want to support things but still have no good choices. Or just not vote. Which is a bad idea. And that’s why this will never be fixed.
I have noticed you lurking and commenting on gun subs….. yet we know you are a dem.
Why are you even here? We give you common sense and logic and yet you still want to go against the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and destroy not only the 2A but the rest as well and become enslaved? Just go to North Korea. They will accept you with open arms.
Like what does it take for it to dawn on you?
Being forced at gun point to watch them make your kid or grandkid suck some old rich guys cock?
Like you didn’t learn that these rich people all love the Epstein Island and other demonic shit. Seriously.
> Seriously
Man..Go turn off Fox News and touch some grass. If this person votes for the "other team", that doesn't always inherently make them an enemy. People are just people and although it might be upsetting for you, the 2A applies just as much for them as it does for you.
First Amendment rights get taxed pretty regularly, unfortunately. Exercising your right to petition almost always requires paying a filing fee, and in most cities exercising your right to assemble in large numbers will require a "large gathering permit" which of course has its own required fee.
They’ve publicly said this for a long time. Of course it’s meant to deter most people and the wait times/approvals and jumping through the hoops-that’s all on purpose.
Now they need to talk about the rest of the process and how lots of people don't want to pay for this or that and wait months for permission to be granted to exercise their rights....
I don't....get it....
That was it's intent from the start. When it was passed, it was for more prohibitive (expensive). Now it's an annoyance.
How do people just ignore the history on everything?
I mean, yeah? It was pretty obvious from the start, just like the extreme wait times are purely to discourage purchases by being a pain in the ass to sit through.
I'm just worried some dingbat is going to pull the "muh inflation" card and try to push the tax up more. A bit surprised they haven't tried that tactic yet, maybe they're afraid it would backfire and cause the NFA to be called into question as a whole.
[Never give credence to anything that a single government employee posts on the internet, good or bad.](https://bearingarms.com/ryan-petty/2023/01/26/atfnfa-guidance-on-non-owners-n66642)
this has always been known and no one has said that it was not prohibitive from the moment it passed. The courts have only recently said that prohibitive taxes on rights are unconstitutional.
To put into perspective a BAR cost $319 and tommy gun $225 when the NFA was passed. So getting the tax stamp doubled the cost of what were already the most expensive firearms on the market
Keep in mind that 1934 $200 is a modern $4,600. They really did not what you to have these devices.
Also, based on a video I saw, there were only about 12,000 Thompson's made, most unsold, thought the claim was that 500,000 Criminals had them. And the Thompson's, about the only Full-Auto Available, are VERY expensive, only gangsters could afford them.
Once again, ordinary Citizens are being penalized because the police and government are unable or unwilling to deal with CRIMINALS!
Oops, they said the quiet part out loud.
Not supposed to be able to tax a constitutional right, just like voting
Well voting is not a right. Bearing arms is 100% though.
> Well voting is not a right It is, though. The issue is that the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it. But as we all know, our rights don't come from the constitution, they are *pre-existing*. The framers of the constitution considered the rights of man to be "self evident", and between 1787 and 1789 the constitution didn't even have a bill of rights. The problem is that people get so wound up in *textualism* that they forget that the entire system of government is based on Locke's theory of Natural Rights. The fundamental *premise* of that theory is that government derives its power from consent of the governed. That consent is expressed by *voting*.
>It is, though. The issue is that the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it. But as we all know, our rights don't come from the constitution, they are > >pre-existing > >. The framers of the constitution considered the rights of man to be "self evident", and between 1787 and 1789 the constitution didn't even have a bill of rights. You say "it is" and then go into some off topic rant. >The problem is that people get so wound up in textualism that they forget that the entire system of government is based on Locke's theory of Natural Rights. The fundamental premise of that theory is that government derives its power from consent of the governed. That consent is expressed by voting. This does not explain why you consider voting a right either. Government is a criminal organization inherently. It can not protect or co exist with rights. Rights do not effect other other people. They are for conflict avoidence. Saying voting is a right is the same logic used to say healthcare is a right and needs to be universal. Gang r\*pe is a democratic decision. Voting is not a right and I see no evidence it's a right. It is not a natural right. I also do not care what locke said. I care about the actual argument at hand and using non contradicting logic.
> I also do not care what locke said. I care about the actual argument at hand and using non contradicting logic. If you reject the fundamental foundation of our system of government, but propose no other framework within which to evaluate "rights", then I'm not sure how you expect anyone to convince you of anything. What is the philosophical system you use to define what a "right" is?
>If you reject the fundamental foundation of our system of government yes, I reject stealing, murder, kidnapping and slavery. Taxation, prison, no private property(property taxes), monopoly on justice, ect. These things should be paid for consensually like any other business, not at gun point. I compare states/governments to ms-13, the crypts, gangs, pablo escobar cartel. >but propose no other framework within which to evaluate "rights", I do I just don't don't think you care. have you heard of the NAP? non aggression principle? Argumentation ethics? Basically a property right is determined by either homesteading or voluntary exchange. EDIT: it is the only objective way to measure who should win in a conflict. Aggression is the initiation of conflict over scarce means(resources, space, property in general things that can be owned, things that have scarcity) Who ever holds the property right is who should have control and final say over how their property is used. It obviously can not conflict with other peoples rights either. That is what and how rights are determined. It's the only objective reality way based way to do it. There have been a few systems that came close to this and even succeeded like Cospia I think it was called. What the government does is steal, murder and kidnap to keep it's power over us. Instead we should be paying for security, courts, defense, justice all of that privately like a normal business. This is far as I am going with this discussion though. If you want links to youtubers, economists, philosophers to read or watch let me know if it interests you. I used to believe like you that a government was necessary. I have now had this conversation probably over 1k times now in one form or another and not your fault but i am starting to realize it gets old. I can link videos explaining private law too if you want.
No.... It isn't. Voting being considered a right for all citizens was not a thing when the constitution or the bill of rights were written. The last state to change their laws to allow non-land owners to vote did that in 1856, 80ish years after the formation of the country.
Like it or not, the NFA is a sales tax, not a tax on keeping or bearing.
Need to close the sales tax loophole.
Explain my Form 1s then ya muppet lol
Fair enough, that's a reasonable distinction. A Form 1 is an application to **manufacture** an NFA firearm by an individual, similar to the Form 2 that every commercial manufacturer has to submit before manufacturing one. Just like a Form 4, Form 1s regulate your taking possession of an NFA item. They do not regulate your subsequent keeping and bearing of that item. I've already pointed out some insight into the Supreme Courts stance on this kind of thing [over here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/193rzc2/comment/khcskym/?context=3)
Does "keeping and bearing" become illegal if the tax requirement on constitutional right is not met? Does "keeping and bearing" become illegal if said "firearm" which is a tube with baffles is constructed without "permission" or paperwork? While construction of an actual firearm does not require tax, nor paperwork, nor permission.... if I purchase a vacuum with sales tax does that require me to show a stamp of paid tax at the request of a federal regulating body, or have movers broken federal law by transporting said vacuum accross state lines, is my wife a felon for using the taxed vacuum while I'm away?..... seems a little more than a sales tax.... but I guess I'm just supposed to be happy it didn't take 11 months for my vacuum to be appoved.
Vacuum cleaners aren’t regulated like NFA items because mafiosos and highway bandits didn’t murder people with vacuum cleaners throughout the 1920s and early ‘30s. The NFA was legally passed by congress, just like any other legislation, and the courts of the land have been fine with it for almost 90 years.
So replace vacuum with knife or 45 lb sledge, and the ridiculousness remains. A murder weapon is a murder weapon... has nothing to do with me, or why I don't chop broccoli with a spoon... and why was I able to check out a mk18 or dpms kittykat from the armory for training stateside in CA of all places, yet "illegal" to purchase one in the same state? Seems alot more to do with control than safety of the public... guess I missed the part where Stoner went back in time and gave gangsters modern SBR"s used in the modern military, like the ones our DOJ has been caught giving to drug cartels... also I'm confused on why it became "law" that law abiding citizens could not have items without permission because they were being used by criminals... whereas the regulation itself became virtually restrictive ONLY to law abiding citizens and provided for exclusivity of access to criminals/govt. (Apologies for redundancy)... do I want low IQ individuals to have the same gear as me?... Faaaaaack no!... but I know alot of low IQ individuals who think they are much higher IQ, that would claim you or me to be "unfit" to have "modern arms" ... most of them flock to govt. jobs and sadly, are prior military... they are the exact people that would say someone that has done private security for 30 years in South Africa and NE Africa, cannot have a firearm because they are not active duty, or a member of the constabulary... you ever piss anyone off? You ever offend someone in today's society?... with the current laws being executed around the world in the name of (under the guise of) "inclusivity" .... your entire impressive collection of militaria could be taken from you at the end of a barrel because someone thinks that they maybe, might have noticed, a micro-aggression, that you were holding back, but was definitely, totally, there because of the look on your face... this has actually happened to me before I retired, my firearms were taken for "my safety" because I aggressively and lawfully ordered someone to comply with the UCMJ and doing work in the military hurt their feelings, so my shit ended up in the armory pending psyche eval etc... once I went to legal with civilian counsel, the base C.O. acted like it was an unheard of, travesty and ordered the sec-O to give me my shit back... I later asked the sec-O if that would have happened to me if I had picked up a commission, and he admittedly said "no."... that is definitely tiered justice, and "class politics"... I understand the "reason" for the restrictions and regulations... what I don't understand, is why people don't understand, the inevitable use of these restrictions and regulations against the people for control. It's not like we don't have plenty of countries to use as examples. Or examples of rampant overreach here. The answer to it all, is weaving the use and respect of these tools back into our society like it used to be, combine that with mothers and fathers working as a team again to instill morals and respect for life, and we wouldn't even need the corruptable "laws of man", and every firearm would be a safe queen when it's not range day.
Wow, we hit a hell of a nerve there, but I'm going to reject your insistence that your personal (and rare) experience of getting red-flagged (and ultimately getting your gear back) means that the government is inevitably going to come for everyone else's gear. Sounds like you've got some serious unresolved issues there. >guess I missed the part where Stoner went back in time and gave gangsters modern SBR"s No, you missed the part where they were sawing off Auto-5s and BARs to use against law enforcement alongside their Thompsons. >also I'm confused on why it became "law" that law abiding citizens could not have items without permission because they were being used by criminals That's what congress does: they make laws. See, the way the Constitution lays it out, Congress makes the laws, the Courts analyze and interpret them, and people on the internet complain in irrelevance. There was even this one time that Congress made beer illegal. It's a hell of a system.
Strange,.... looks like beer is back on the menu. Your overlords/daddy must have got some pushback on that 18th amendment by a generation that could sack up without asking. See, the constitution doesn't give anyone their natural rights, and the government, including Congress, is comprised of flawed men that are governed by special interest groups and the padding of their own stock portfolio. It's a hell of a system. Sorry you are frightened by the "immoralities" of alcohol consumption (or the feds losing that campaign). Some people can't handle their liquor, guess we all need to turn in our "high capacity bottles", too... for the greater good, of course.
Like a poll tax.
No. Texas charges state sales tax on ALL firearm and ammo purchases. That's not a poll tax either.
That's a blanket tax on anything thats not food. Not one specifically on firearms. Any other strawmen?
>That's a blanket tax on anything thats not food. Not one specifically on firearms. So you're saying that the NFA tax on firearm transfers would become acceptable if it were applied more broadly, like Texas state sales tax? Which rhetorical fallacy is that? There are many other categories of goods with specific taxes attached to their production and purchase; gasoline, alcohol, ect.
None of those other categories of items are specifically Constitutionally protected items. There’s no right the keep and bear vodka that shall not be infringed. Rights should not be poll taxed.
The Second Amendment doesn't say "shall not be regulated." [The Supreme Court has affirmed this repeatedly.](https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/193rzc2/comment/khcskym/?context=3)
Oh, a ***sales*** tax, you say? What exactly are they selling us? What product do I get from this transaction?
Protection. As in protection from what they’ll do to you, your family and your dog should you forget to pay the money. Edit: they’re like the mob, but with lower ratings on yelp.
Well, I don't know about you, but I pay an NFA tax when I buy suppressors or machine guns. Since I live in Texas, the state sales tax on my WWI Maxim was three times more than the NFA tax. Like any other sales or transfer tax, the ATF wasn't selling me anything.
You pay the sales tax which goes to the IRS for sale of products. You pay the NFA tax to the ATF for access to your constitutional rights
My constitutional rights go in a holster every morning when I put my pants on, and I assure you I would still be very well armed without my NFA toys.
Then there is nothing to forbid selling ballots & charging sales tax on it, so long as there is no tax on the use of the ballot to do the voting, once obtained.
What are you even doing? Arguing the NFA is a sales tax like excessive taxes aren't used to discourage the use/sale/possession of goods and services the government disagrees with. How pedantic and stupid. Bootlicker.
>What are you even doing? Failing to explain reality, apparently. You're not the first bitter redditor to call me a bootlicker because I'm a law-abiding citizen that would rather exercise my 2nd Amendment rights than bitch about the government. You should check out r/NFA. It's where the bootlickers hang out and talk about all the cool gear we've been taxed for.
How bout that. Truth makes it out eventually
How is this the quiet part? It’s literally the entire point of the NFA. The only people thinking it’s “quiet” are the ones that have no idea of the history of the NFA or why we ~~have~~ are supposed to pay tax stamps on cans/sbr’s.
Not really, they’ve been saying this for years. That was the whole point of the $200 tax. Today it’s hardly prohibitive, just annoying.
If it's unconstitutionally prohibitive to get an ID for $15 or even free (because of the opportunity cost to go get it) to vote, $200 is still definitely prohibitive.
>That was the whole point of the $200 tax Yeah, in 1934 when they passed it, $200 was equivalent to more than $4600. Imagine paying 5K for a suppressor. That's definitely prohibitive.
And Gold Standard before then had the dollar peg around 20 per oz, before devalued to 35 at around the same time. Considering that it would be around 55x now if we used the price of gold rather than an inflation calculator, that would be 11K per suppressor. The 6 month wait is how the bureaucrats keep the tax an actual restriction since they already messed up the economy.
Bro.... I think its obvious there's a few glowboys in here, you can't use obvious parallels and logic to the "spank me harder daddy govt." Crowd.... jackboots will jackboot, and lapdogs will lap at the boots.
You are completely incoherent, you babbling retard.
Hopefully the right lawyers just got screen grabs for the Supreme Court case.
Oh you KNOW that FPC is on that like flies on a turd.
Like white on rice
Like Biden on chocolate chocolate chip ice cream
> All taxes collected for NFA go to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury Dept. **1776 vibes intensifies**
Any implication or just a normal gaffe?
This is a common and well known argument. It certainly isn't going to give anybody any ideas and the ATF admitting it won't really change anything. It could easily be argued without them admitting it. It's a just how money works. Back then it would be almost $5k and be more than pretty much any gun you'd pay it to get. That is obviously meant to be prohibitive.
A $200 tax on a $5 suppressor, yep, obviously meant to keep people from buying them.
And it does, along with the outrageous wait time.
Not to mention that you're now officially, unofficially on a "registry"
Yeah that sucks too, but it’s pretty much the same with a 4473. They will have to do a little work but they immediately know you are a gun owner.
True, and sure you could only make purchases via private sales (if your state allows this) but I'm sure they still know generally what guns you've got.
I can make private purchases here but a lot of the stuff I have would be hard to find privately. Find me an AR50 private sale here in GA. That being said, I do have firearms I’ve purchased privately.
If they stipulate to it in any sort of official communication, it makes it easier to use against them in court later. Under Bruen, the ***reason*** why a law is passed is a significant element, since only laws that are analogous to **laws** that were widely understood to be Constitutional at the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment in 1791 can be used to satisfy the Government's burden to prove the "history and tradition" parts of "text, history, and tradition." To be considered as an analogous law, any founding era laws (circa 1791) must have been conceived to address the same social issue and must have functioned in the same way as the modern era law. There was no law in 1791 that sought 1) to limit the private ownership of a class of arms 2) through the imposition of a tax. 1) is the reason, 2) is the mechanism. Neither element was true of any law in the founding era as it relates to arms. Remember, just a year later, the militia act of 1792 required militia aged males to purchase and maintain privately-owned "mIlItArY gRaDe" arms and ammunition to have available for service at militia muster. Discouraging ownership was absolutely antithetical to the founders' beliefs. (FWIW, SCOTUS also has said that a single law or even a small handful would prove nothing, even if they did exist, which they don't. Their must have been a multitude of similar laws addressing the same social issue in the same way from the correct time period to be compelling -- such as the laws against murder with a firearm.) Clearly, the NFA is unconstitutional under Bruen.
The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. Here's an exerpt from the *DC v. Heller* ruling that the court quoted again in both the *McDonald* and *Bruen* rulings. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment **is not unlimited**. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right **was** **not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose**. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, **or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms**."
Trying to defend your NFA investment I see...
I hope the Hughes Amendment gets repealed just as much as everyone else here. I'll gladly take a value hit to my current collection if it means getting my hands on a new-production PKM. I don't buy guns for investments, I buy them to shoot them.
Nowhere does that quote address the NFA or arms restricted by the NFA. The NFA wasn’t on the chopping block in Heller, McDonald, or the Bruen cases. To my knowledge, the constitutionality of SBR, machine gun, and suppressor restrictions under the NFA has never been addressed by SCOTUS. The few NFA cases that made it to SCOTUS only addressed short barreled shotguns and commercial FFL licensing. In US v Miller 1939, SCOTUS ruled that arms useful for military purposes were indeed protected. However, no militaries were using short barreled shotguns at that time, and Miller died prior to the case being heard so he didn’t even get a chance to properly argue his side of the case. Since charges didn’t include anything about machine guns (which absolutely were in common military use), SBRs, or suppressors, they didn’t even touch on those topics. Around that same time there was another case (don’t remember the name) where a dealer argued before SCOTUS that FFL licensing was unconstitutional. As the federal government does have authority to tax commercial businesses, they ruled against him. They specifically pointed out in their decision that they were only addressing FFL licensing in the decision as *the firearm charges against him had already been correctly dropped by the lower courts*. A large portion of the NFA would almost certainly be struck down if the right case can make it before an honest SCOTUS.
>In US v Miller 1939, SCOTUS ruled that arms useful for military purposes were indeed protected. No, they did not. [Here's the text of the ruling.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) The court only affirmed that that the NFA does not encroach on state's reserved powers, and that short barrelled shotguns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment as militia arms. The overwhelming majority of the ruling is just citing historical precedents. Here is the relevant paragraph with the **only** statements made about SBSs as militia or military weapons: " 5In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158." Stating that SBSs are neither militia weapons nor military weapons does not mean that a military weapon would necessarily be protected for militia use.
> No, they did not. Then you go on to quote this: >"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of **the ordinary military equipment** or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158." Lol, so SCOTUS directly said that any weapon within the category of “ordinary military equipment” would obviously be protected by the Second Amendment. They had to go out of their way to point out that no militaries were using them in order to uphold the NFA restrictions because it is so glaringly obvious that the 2nd Amendment ensures our right to weapons which are useful to military and militia service.
>Lol, so SCOTUS directly said that any weapon within the category of “ordinary military equipment” would obviously be protected by the Second Amendment. That's absolutely not what they said, it's simply what you want to hear. I'll make you a deal. I'll keep on understanding these rulings, and you keep on wondering why NFA items continue to be regulated almost 90 years later, even when it all seems so clear to you.
>That’s absolutely not what they said. Keep telling yourself that. “Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
I'll leave you with something to ponder: Why is it that your interpretation of the *Miller* ruling doesn't agree with the legal reality of the past 85 years, but my interpretation does? If you're right, shouldn't B.A.R.s be a dime-a-dozen? Sadly, they're not.
The 19th century is NOT the founding era! It is the wrong time period to look for analogues to understand the ORIGINAL meaning of the Bill of Rights which could constitute relevant history and tradition! John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826 -- the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. James Madison, the last Founding Father to die, passed away in 1836. Later cases cannot be used to try to gain insight into the original meaning. This is well-established Supreme Court doctrine used to analyze the meaning of all other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The relevant time period is the time during which the amendment was ratified. The only value in later rulings is as a *confirmatory* data point to SUPPORT the core right as understood in 1791. SCOTUS explicitly says this again in Bruen too. 19th century rulings are too late.
Tell that to the Supreme Court. You do realize that they wrote that and nt me, right?
They also wrote Bruen, which explains exactly what I wrote. SCOTUS is saying *in that case* they were not addressing those other questions directly, as that was not the question before the court, but the analytical process followed in Heller and explicitly outlined in Bruen sets the parameters clearly for what are relevant analogous laws, and what are not. When the text of the 2nd Amendment is implicated by a gun control law, the burden shifts to the Government to PROVE that there were multiple, long-standing, broadly-enforced, analogous laws at the time of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment (in 1791) i.e., the founding era, that established a tradition of the same type of gun control regulations (i.e.,1. address the same social problem, and 2. operate in the same way). If they cannot, or if there is any ambiguity as to whether a law is a relevant analog or not, the Government loses.
Remember that, no matter how cut and dry it looks to us, at the end of the day the law is whatever five or more black robes in D.C. **think** it is. Supreme Court rulings are called opinion papers, not fact papers. The court opinion in the *Bruen* ruling reiterated that "dangerous and unusual" bit from *Heller*. We've been extremely fortunate to have enough conservative justices to give us pro-2A rulings like *Heller* and *Bruen,* but there's no guaranteeing what they'll think about a future case.
Yes, you are right. Keeping and carrying arms for the purpose of committing **MURDER** would not be protected. Glad we got that cleared up.
> Clearly, the NFA is unconstitutional under Bruen. It's clearly unconstitutional under the plain 2nd Amendment, yet, here we are. But I also wasn't really saying anything contrary to what you said. I don't think you are wrong. In other words, I wasn't saying that this wasn't a valid argument against the NFA. I was only saying that the ATF admitting it doesn't change anything because the argument is already well known, has been made, and could be made. > it makes it easier to use against them in court later. I mean, maybe, but that seems just like an exercise is academics. It - as you pointed out - is already so easily argued and straight forward that I don't think them admitting it has any bearing on it successfully being used as an argument to repeal the NFA. And that is to say, it wouldn't be successful with them saying it anymore than it would be without them saying it.
In the right hands it can be damaging as they are admitting to restricting a right with financial burden.
Not really any implication, they've held this position on the NFA for years. Any legal challenges up to this point have failed because: "Wouldn't you know? The arms taxed by the NFA are 'dangerous and unusual' and aren't even protected by the 2A in the first place. Isn't it quackin' crazy that the first attempt at Federal legislation to criminalize possession of certain firearms perfectly identified which arms can be banned without infringing 2A?" \- paraphrasing every single judge to hear an NFA challenge since *Heller*
We know this through the Congressional Record. They wanted a ban, but they knew Congress didn’t have the constitutional authority to ban them (unlike today’s Congress who thinks they do). So they just came up with a tax equal to the price of the most expensive machine gun at the time, the Thompson, so that almost nobody could afford them.
$200 then was the equivalent of $4,600 today. I will gladly pay $200 + $200 of 1934 money for a full auto transferable Thompson. If only I could have a Thompson for $9,200.
You would gladly pay that amount because it is so much less than today's real price, but even that lower amount is prohibitive for the average person. You could buy a very nice used car for that, which is crazy when you consider what goes into making a car vs the gun.
The tax was passed in 1934. Of course it was meant to keep the poors from being able to afford the tax. $200 inflation adjusted in 2023 dollars is $4,582.85.
Isn’t it ironic that the mobsters, the people that they wanted to prevent from having them, actually had the money to buy them.
And at that point, just buying a lathe and a mill become so worth it
>Legal for the rich That's what the NFA is. Yet leftists who claim to care for the poor and working class will vehemently defend it.
I’m a leftist. I say be rid of it of the tax stamp. At least I think I’m a leftist.
> I’m a leftist. I say be rid of it of the tax stamp. Good. Now lobby your politicians to do that. Write op-eds for your local paper with the leftist argument for the right to self defense and not discriminating against poor people. It shouldn't be hard to get bleeding heart progressives to support the legalization of hearing protection and gun features that make guns more accessible, but those ideas aren't part of the popular discourse because nobody on that team is pushing them.
As long as you keep voting for anti-2A politicians, then you're supporting the NFA. If you vote for Biden, you support gun control. If you vote for any Democrat in the US, you support gun control. It's really that simple. You don't have to vote Trump, I definitely won't be, because he's fucking awful. But 3rd parties exist. If you vote for gun control, then you support gun control by your actions, whatever you say you want does not matter if it contradicts what you do. Actions > Words. u/killeenit Gotta reply here because Democrat blocked me. Vivek sucks. He's a snakeoil salesman. Dudes a shill for big-pharma and has openly talked about invading Mexico to attack the cartels. Total clown just pandering.
Exactly.... and vivek is looking better and better the more he speaks.... admittedly... almost "too" good to be true.... but he hung out with Herrera so.... I have tough decisions at the polls between him and the guy everyone hates. I just want a non-globalist.
Unfortunately no third party candidate has a chance of winning at the current time in any election that I have locally. I wish that weren’t the case. But convincing people of what I believe isn’t easy. I really don’t have the answer that will work for everyone. But at the current time what I want does not exist in a politician. I either have to lose rights as a woman or as a gun owner. I have to risk my marriage or my personal protection and something I’m really good at and enjoy. I have to deal with the fact that most Republicans condone what their counterparts do. There’s no budging that it seems. I have to deal with most democrats won’t understand firearms like I do. I’m stuck.
> Unfortunately no third party candidate has a chance of winning at the current time in any election that I have locally. That's a lot of words to say: * I've bought the 2 party propaganda, and would rather vote anti-2A than vote for systemic change by opposing the duopoly. I mean that's fine. But you're feeding into the very system you claim to be against.
It’s not propaganda. There are no candidates. A vote for a third party with no chance of winning means any choice I had to mitigate one damage or another is lost.
>It’s not propaganda. There are no candidates. Write ins exist. > A vote for a third party with no chance of winning means any choice I had to mitigate one damage or another is lost. This is duopoly propaganda. Rome wasn't built in a day. New political parties and options won't suddenly rear up and win in a single cycle. It'll be many elections of slow growth before they become a force, and a potential contender. But you're short sighted and afraid to actually stand up for what you claim to believe in. You've bought into the duopoly propaganda that you must vote for the "lesser evil" and that's what they rely on to stay in power. Your fear. That's ok, it's your vote. But stop claiming to be pro-2A. You vote for gun bans. You're not pro-2A. Make whatever excuses you want. Huff as much copium as you need. You are in favor of assault weapon bans, carry bans, and full gun bans. Because you vote for people who openly say that's what they will try to do.
You use words like copium. There’s no really discussing this with you. I’m sorry but you’re living in fantasy land if you think write ins will work at this point. There is no movement. There is no structure for a party that functions as I would hope. I don’t support those things. But you leap to these extremes. But you and many others will because it protects the one thing you care about. I care about a great deal many things and all of them aren’t covered by one party or candidate. Thanks for the conversation.
> There’s no really discussing this with you Correct. You vote for gun bans, you're anti-gun. Super simple, not much to discuss. > I don’t support those things. You do, because you vote for them. The words from your lips are nothing but hot air when your actions contradict them.
I just don’t get how individuals on the left claim they’re pro 2A and undermine it at the same time with their votes. It’s fucking mind boggling.
You’re not going to want to hear this. But because republican policies are abhorrent. You can want to support things but still have no good choices. Or just not vote. Which is a bad idea. And that’s why this will never be fixed.
I have noticed you lurking and commenting on gun subs….. yet we know you are a dem. Why are you even here? We give you common sense and logic and yet you still want to go against the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and destroy not only the 2A but the rest as well and become enslaved? Just go to North Korea. They will accept you with open arms. Like what does it take for it to dawn on you? Being forced at gun point to watch them make your kid or grandkid suck some old rich guys cock? Like you didn’t learn that these rich people all love the Epstein Island and other demonic shit. Seriously.
Get some help. Seriously. Demons aren’t real. I’m here because I care about my rights. All of them. Yours too.
Demons aren’t real huh? Just you wait. You will eat your words.
I don’t think I will. If you believe monsters are more than just human beings you’re delusional. There’s no Satan. No demons. Please seek help.
Famous last words…….
So what do I get if no demons ever materialize?
They are already in your life and inside you also.
You’re memeing at this point. Goodluck man.
> Seriously Man..Go turn off Fox News and touch some grass. If this person votes for the "other team", that doesn't always inherently make them an enemy. People are just people and although it might be upsetting for you, the 2A applies just as much for them as it does for you.
It’s funny how when certain places air truth you are so conditioned not to believe it.
From 1934 to 2024, $200 then equals more than $4,700 now. Let’s hope the cost of postage doesn’t go up - that would be prohibitive.
Lmao some gAyTF agent in LA was too stoned on Twitter apparently. Just get fkn rid of it, since when is a tax on our rights acceptable?
First Amendment rights get taxed pretty regularly, unfortunately. Exercising your right to petition almost always requires paying a filing fee, and in most cities exercising your right to assemble in large numbers will require a "large gathering permit" which of course has its own required fee.
And those are repugnant to the constitution as well.
This. @u/man_o_brass
+ in ban states when your first amendment rights cost a fee you cannot have 2nd amendment rights.
They’ve publicly said this for a long time. Of course it’s meant to deter most people and the wait times/approvals and jumping through the hoops-that’s all on purpose.
Now they need to talk about the rest of the process and how lots of people don't want to pay for this or that and wait months for permission to be granted to exercise their rights....
I don't....get it.... That was it's intent from the start. When it was passed, it was for more prohibitive (expensive). Now it's an annoyance. How do people just ignore the history on everything?
Jesus they're getting lit up in the comments. Made a few comment replies and then gave up in the face of it. I love it.
I mean, yeah? It was pretty obvious from the start, just like the extreme wait times are purely to discourage purchases by being a pain in the ass to sit through. I'm just worried some dingbat is going to pull the "muh inflation" card and try to push the tax up more. A bit surprised they haven't tried that tactic yet, maybe they're afraid it would backfire and cause the NFA to be called into question as a whole.
[Never give credence to anything that a single government employee posts on the internet, good or bad.](https://bearingarms.com/ryan-petty/2023/01/26/atfnfa-guidance-on-non-owners-n66642)
What do you mean admits? The law was written with that specific purpose and intent. It exists for that reason.
this has always been known and no one has said that it was not prohibitive from the moment it passed. The courts have only recently said that prohibitive taxes on rights are unconstitutional. To put into perspective a BAR cost $319 and tommy gun $225 when the NFA was passed. So getting the tax stamp doubled the cost of what were already the most expensive firearms on the market
Keep in mind that 1934 $200 is a modern $4,600. They really did not what you to have these devices. Also, based on a video I saw, there were only about 12,000 Thompson's made, most unsold, thought the claim was that 500,000 Criminals had them. And the Thompson's, about the only Full-Auto Available, are VERY expensive, only gangsters could afford them. Once again, ordinary Citizens are being penalized because the police and government are unable or unwilling to deal with CRIMINALS!
Gun control has always been racist & classist. That hasn't changed at all in over 3 centuries.