Culturetalkaboutdoa

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 06:58 PM

The liberals love a Poll tax.

I had to laugh when I saw this new proposed Poll tax.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-slap-100-tax-gun-sales-heads-congress-article-1.2411715

Any idiot who has had American Government in high school should know that you can not tax a constitutional right.

You can't charge people out of their right to vote or their right to own firearms.

But it seems these dems didn't get that part of Government even though now they are part of it.

Their motto is always,

RIGHTS FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE!!!!!!!!!

50 replies, 1865 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply The liberals love a Poll tax. (Original post)
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 OP
i verglas Oct 2015 #1
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #4
Crazy D Oct 2015 #13
Crazy D Oct 2015 #18
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #19
i verglas Oct 2015 #27
i verglas Oct 2015 #28
MercATC Oct 2015 #2
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #14
Myriel Oct 2015 #21
leftymcghee Oct 2015 #3
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #15
Fiendish Thingy-BC Oct 2015 #31
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #38
i verglas Oct 2015 #40
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #41
i verglas Oct 2015 #44
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #45
graham4anything4HC45 Oct 2015 #5
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #6
graham4anything4HC45 Oct 2015 #7
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #8
graham4anything4HC45 Oct 2015 #9
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #11
graham4anything4HC45 Oct 2015 #12
Muddling Through Oct 2015 #23
i verglas Oct 2015 #29
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #30
i verglas Oct 2015 #33
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #16
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #42
liberalguy Oct 2015 #10
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #17
fools_gold Oct 2015 #25
Crazy D Oct 2015 #34
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #35
fools_gold Oct 2015 #39
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #43
Fiendish Thingy-BC Oct 2015 #32
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #36
The Center Holds Oct 2015 #47
Scary Red Oct 2015 #20
Crazy D Oct 2015 #22
Scary Red Oct 2015 #24
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #37
Nephrite Oct 2015 #26
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #46
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #49
TexMex Oct 2015 #48
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #50

Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:03 PM

1. how much did you pay for your marriage licence?

 

and what was the fee of the state-authorized agent who solemnized the marriage?

Loving v. Virginia

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:20 PM

4. That is an a fee to cover the costs of handling and processing and is allowed.

Poll taxes are something totally different. Studying this is required in American government which is required by most states for high school graduation as well as in Political Science that is required but about all of our college degrees here.

All true americans know all about poll taxes it is not important if foreigners do not. We do not get too irate when we hear from those who are ignorant of out ways.

We are pretty good at minding our own business and doing things our own ways. I can only wish there was more of that in this world.

I guess double talk and BS works north of the border but it does not here.

So sorry that you had to interrupt your break from reality, oh I see you didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:56 PM

13. Someone alerted on you

Results when I get them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:07 PM

18. Looks like someone has 1 fan, Jury results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack against i verglas. Hide this nasty post!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of Discussionist members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 26, 2015, 05:01 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please. Personal attack? Have you seen some of the stuff vergals posts? He isn't exactly a wilted flower.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I verglas personal attacks are much better written. How can I hide this if she (?) can do better and this doesn't rise to even her level?


Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Too bad for you i verglas your little hide attempt won't work.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Very personal and nasty attack, full of inaccuracies as well - tell the people left in Iraq how good Americans are at minding their own business.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:09 PM

19. all I can say is that I was in a hurry

And number three, I'll try harder next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:47 PM

27. wtf?

 

I haven't even read the allegedly offending post yet. More fun to read the alert results - I'd misread and thought it was an alert on moi! I'm so disappointed ...

I suspect I'll find that juror #6 has a point ... but if anybody actually thinks I waste my time alerting on personal attacks against myself (with the predictable result that I'd be unable to alert on any of the racist/misogynist shit I encounter in the next 24 hours) ... well, they're not thinking too straight, juror #5.

In fact, if I were a suspicious person, I might think that alerter knew perfectly well what the outcome would be, and just couldn't resist the chance to have some fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:54 PM

28. lordy, you might want to take that course again

 

and pay a little more attention to what a poll tax actually is.



Even in its specifically USAmerican sense:

http://home.lorettotel.net/~lcarchives/polltaxdefinition.htm
A poll tax has had two historical meanings. The older is that of a fee that had to be paid to satisfy taxpayer requirements in voting laws. In some places, only people who could demonstrate a financial tie to a community were permitted to vote in that community. For those who did not otherwise own property or pay taxes, this sort of poll tax was sufficient to allow voting.

The other meaning for poll tax is a tax that must be paid by anyone wishing to cast a vote. Poll taxes of this sort were generally low, perhaps a dollar or two, but high enough to make voting uneconomical for poor people.
I guess starting with the meaning of "poll" might help you.

Perhaps you're under the impression that guns vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:14 PM

2. It's a stupid proposal, will not even see a vote, and it's not a poll tax.

Rather than scream "liberal!l" every time you see stupid legislation, you might be better served getting off your partisan horse and realizing that this proposal no more represents the will of most liberals than the usual Tea Party drivel represents the will of most conservatives.

Then, ypu might be able to wrap your brain around the reality that there ARE no conservatives and no liberals. We're all people with our own views and partisan bullshit like this ensures that we'll never get anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercATC (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:58 PM

14. It is very much a poll tax

It is intended to make firearms more expensive so less people can afford them. SCOTUS had something to say about that a long time ago.

I am a strong 2A supporter and moderate. Are you just figuring that out?? It seems so. Or maybe your brain does not wrap around that? And no we don't move one inch when my constitutional rights are threatened. I'm a real believer in all of our constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:22 PM

21. You sure about that?

"a tax of a fixed amount per person levied on adults and often linked to the right to vote"

I'm not saying it is a good idea or legal, but it doesn't seem like a poll tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:20 PM

3. unless "Poll" is your slang for a weapon

than this ain't a poll tax.

It also ain't every gonna be a tax because it's not going to happen.

But don't let that stand in your way of being outraged about those damned liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftymcghee (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:00 PM

15. A poll tax is any tax that prevents a citizen from being able to afford their constitutional rights.

As in the original Poll taxes for voting that were found to be unconstitutional. All of these types of taxes are not referred to as "poll taxes".


Political science lately?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 09:07 PM

31. This is your definition alone. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy-BC (Reply #31)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:59 PM

38. Not really.

Anyone who studies or teaches political science will instantly know what I'm talking about.

Take a quick scan of the 24th amendment to our constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #38)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:46 AM

40. cheeses

 

Okay. Wanna look with me?

Okay if I boldface a bit to help you out?

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now, can you tell us which lines to read between to see "guns" in there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #40)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:04 AM

41. You would need the proper American education to help me with American Political science

Or how it is actually discussed in our colleges.

And that, by a thousand examples right here, it is clear you do not have a clue about.

Now back to the relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #41)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:22 AM

44. and victory is mine again!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #44)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 02:02 AM

45. Yes you are an amazing person in your own mind.

We all know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:22 PM

5. It is not a poll tax. A gun is not a person. Nor does a gun or bullet have any rights

Only a person has rights.

looking forward for the 2Rs
2017
then the NRA will be NA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:29 PM

6. Rights cannot be Licensed-



Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105

''No State can convert a liberty, into a license and charge a fee therefore''
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm


Shuttlesworth vs. City of Birmingham 394 US 197

''If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the Citizen can ignore the license and fee
and engage in the right(liberty) with impunity"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742
The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:30 PM

7. The NRA has no power anymore. 2017 2Rs will make the NRA N/A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:32 PM

8. In a pipe dream maybe

Hillary has a better chance of becoming a porn star than the NRA or 2nd amendment going away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:35 PM

9. Nobody wants the 2nd to go away. That is a strawman, no one ever says that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:42 PM

11. YOU have multiple times said the 2nd should/would be reinterpreted

And that Ammo should be banned now you quibble?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:46 PM

12. going away means repealed. Reinterpreted does not mean repeal.

and in any stretch of the word, guns and bullets are also not a corporation nor a person
so they have zero rights under the constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:24 PM

23. Printing presses and printers ink

also enjoy no rights under the Constitution; yet laws that would impose onerous taxes for ownership and purchase of the same have been ruled unconstitutional. This also applies to ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:56 PM

29. back to post #1 with you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #29)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 09:03 PM

30. back to #6 with you......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 09:48 PM

33. snork

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

but since we're here ...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/

4. The narrow construction that the State Supreme Court placed upon § 1159 in 1967 doe not necessarily validate petitioner's 1963 conviction; the test is whether the ordinance was actually administered
"so a not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the opportunities for the communication of thought and the discussion of public questions immemorially associated with resort to public places."

and

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm?PageSpeed=noscript

Jehovah's Witnesses are not 'above the law'. But the present ordinance is not directed to the problems with which the police power of the state is free to deal. ... Nor do we have here, as we did in Cox v. New Hampshire, supra, and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, state regulation of the streets to protect and insure the safety, comfort, or convenience of the public.

Right back where you started from, I fear.

There are limits placed on the exercise of ALL rights in any society, and those limits may be adopted in pursuit of a legitimate state interest where various tests are met, and you know that perfectly well. So there is little point in putting on the disingenuous hat and pretending that this particular "right" is somehow different. Not even Heller said that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:01 PM

16. Poll tax is about the right to vote, constitutional rights

as is our constitutional right to have guns...

Sorry if that is a bit over your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:05 AM

42. Having the right to buy and own a gun is just as much a constitutional right as voting.

You missed that point as well as all the other 2A rights discussed in here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 07:38 PM

10. My state has an unambiguous individual RKBA. Yet, I paid state sales tax when I bought mine. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:03 PM

17. You can pay sales taxes and fees to cover costs.

But any tax that is intended to or in actuality makes the exercise of a constitutional right too expensive for any class of people falls into what is knows as "poll Taxes" and was long ago found to be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:40 PM

25. You mean like the NFA tax?

A $200 tax stamp is/was a lot of money for a tax stamp for a $500 suppressor. And now I have 5 of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 09:57 PM

34. I've always thought the 1934 Firearms Protection Act

Set that $200.00 dollar fee on those type items as a way to avoid losing a court challenge going to the USSC and the law itself being deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the 2nd.

Think about it, at the time very few people actually owned full auto weapons. Those who did could afford the tax at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:47 PM

35. suppressors and fully automatic weapons fall under different laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #35)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:15 AM

39. But it sounds like they are like a poll tax

As it adds a hefty tax to exercise a constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #39)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:07 AM

43. 1939 Miller SCOTUS ruling is what covers what you are looking for.

It was found that having automatic weapons or a short barreled shotgun was not a constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 09:11 PM

32. Again, nobody uses that term that way except you

And your assertion is just an opinion, with no court ruling that applies to the example in your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy-BC (Reply #32)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:49 PM

36. My assertion is one commonly used by political scientists and in teaching situations.

It is a very common comparison in any situation where the constitution is studied.

This topic takes meaning and status the 24th amendment of our constitution. You may want to read it sometime.

The connection will be easily made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:43 AM

47. Show me a few instances of "political scientists" discussing a "poll tax" referring to

ANYTHING other than a tax or fee on VOTING.

Since it is so "commonly used," that should be simple. (Hint: NRA and NSSF spokespeople are generaly NOT considered to be "political scientists.")

A "poll tax" is a very specific term, used to describe a very specific instance.

Swing and a miss here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:15 PM

20. Don't be so dramatic-- a poll tax is a charge to...

get into the voting booth. It was used for years down South as one way to stop poor Black from voting. It was properly declared unconstitutional.

This is an excise tax, which is not unconstitutional, although you wish it were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:24 PM

22. Actually it would be similar to taxing printing presses at newspapers,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crazy D (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:31 PM

24. It might, but it hasn't happened yet, so no court has ruled on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scary Red (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:50 PM

37. I wish it were???

I guess you don't read my posts often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:46 PM

26. Seems more progressive then liberal

especially since it involves regressive taxation to make sure "those people" can not exercise their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 09:42 AM

46. Read the Heller case

This is not a poll tax and under Heller you can tax items and have regulations of guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #46)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 02:14 PM

49. I have read Heller many times. Tax, yes,

Tax to the point of disallowing a class of people their constitutional rights. No way in hell.

Concepts are important in our constitutional concerns.

Read the 24th amendment then apply the principle to this issue. That is exactly what SCOTUS will do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:34 PM

48. Pittman–Robertson Act

 

11% tax on guns and ammo. I support this tax on a constitutional right as do most sportsmen and women in America. It's put billions into state and federal land acquisition for wildlife conservation. We should increase it 3-4% points imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexMex (Reply #48)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 02:17 PM

50. that is correct it is actually an excise tax.

But it does not reach the level of a poll tax that would prohibit a class of people from enjoying their constitutional rights.

A $100 tax on a cheap $400 handgun is a 25% tax that is meant to prohibit low income people from being able to afford to buy that handgun, so it constitutes a poll tax.

When you include this new BS tax, add in sales tax and the fees for background checks in cali that $400 dollar handgun has an out the door price of $550.

The cost of taxes and fees are now an extra 37.5% with this additional cost. The intent of this tax is now abundantly clear, it is to preclude lower income people from being able to afford to utilize their 2A rights.

How about we take the people who do crimes with guns and put them to work at hard labor in a prison industry where then can earn the extra money and repay the government/system/ victims for the harm that they have caused.

Responsibility for one's own actions seems like a great concept to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culturetalkaboutdoa