I agree with you but I'm arguing the nonsense contribution of another poster.
Guns should be free. Muh 2nd Amendment.
I agree with you but I'm arguing the nonsense contribution of another poster.
Strawman.
^^^agrees with the previous poster that his rant against illegal immigrants is stupid.
![]()
Bull . You can study it all you like.
I'm guessing when you don't have any solid ground to stand on to support a narrative, create a new narrative.
It's not a strawman nor a new narrative. It's an argument that is logically consistent with "increased taxes on guns is a 2A violation."
Congress passing laws against the study of public health problems by public health officials is bull kowtowing to special interests against the public weal.
Creating a "pay to exercise your rights" situation disenfranchises people, especially the poor black and Hispanic people the left purports to defend. These same people are somehow being disenfranchised by being required to have a voter ID, but if you want to charge them their weekly salary to buy a box of ammo, that's ok. Mr wealthy white man will have no problem buying all the guns and ammo he wants, it's the poor who's rights will be infringed upon as they are priced out of the 2nd Amendment.
Great idea. Keep going with it. No one ever thought of just raising prices. Surely no new underground markets would emerge to fill the demand.
By the way, are guns tax free?
![]()
so much for taxes being an impediment to the 2nd Amendment
n 2013, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to research gun violence. The CDC responded by funding a research project in 2013[10] and conducting their own study in 2015.[11] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]
In October 2015, 110 members of Congress, all of whom were Democrats, signed a letter calling on Congress to reject the amendment.[12]
In December 2015, despite Nancy Pelosi's efforts to have the ey amendment removed from the spending bill for the following year, Congress passed this bill with the amendment still in it.[13]
On March 21, 2018, Congressional negotiators reached a deal on an Omnibus continuing resolution. The 1.3 trillion dollar spending agreement also includes language that codified Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar interpretation of the ey Rider in testimony on February 18, 2018, before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.[14] While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can conduct research into gun violence, but cannot use government appropriated funds to do so.[15] It was signed into law by U.S. President Donald J. Trump on March 23, 2018.[16]
Like always Winehole, you're full of . First you start with some false claim, then you whittle it down post by post to a neutered version and someone has to stick your nose in the facts again. Then you offer you opinion as if it matters to the discussion.
The ones I buy are.
Because.. no reason?
Guns being tax free would be logical and consistent with the Cons ution.
This tax was pulled out of their ass. What's stopping a 3000% tax?
They are trying tax your rights away and you morons defend it. I repeat it's an hetical to Cons ution.
maybe the cdc should start a go fund me. You’re an idiot.
I started by saying Congress outlawed the use of appropriations for study by the CDC.
As usual, you're full of .
like I said, taxes are no impediment
Guns have taxes.
People have guns.
Therefore taxes have no impact.
Logic![]()
Using taxation as a policy lever against a cons utional right is quite different from just "increased taxes on guns", when the desired outcome is fewer people with guns so taxation as a backdoor form of gun control which, in reality, only would affect people who cannot afford the increase.
How is that the same as your strawman? Your strawman insinuates a .1% increase on taxes is the same as a 50% increase, as they both violate the 2nd Amendment. Surely you didn't lose your common sense between the Biden thread and this one.
That's counter to what the suggestion in the OP leans on as cause.
So a 20 dollar pack of cigarettes is no impediment since people would still smoke.
Talk some sense sometimes, dude. You're a caricature of what you imagine yourself being.
We've been down this road, you all lost and bolted. Now you're back with short memory syndrome.
Forum tool checking in. I look forward to your drooling and feces posting between legit takes by others.
Hey, I’m not the one who’s ignorant about how national government studies get funded.
Not at all, you lie about what I clearly did say and declare victory.
Everyone can see for himself you can't tell a straight tale
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)