Bullet Control Debate - Conservative Babe Against Brady Campaign [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Bullet Control Debate - Conservative Babe Against Brady Campaign


HalfHazzard
06-14-2012, 13:02
Interesting 7 or so minutes. What's troubling is that the Brady Campaign has evolved from mindless anti-gun drivel to "Common Sense" measures. I suppose the new spokesman is actually creating a slightly more effective message. The spokesman does however resort to calling S.E. an "extremist" to prove his point; I guess they're not that far from what they used to be.

MSNBC Panel Explodes As 'Gun Owner' S.E. Cupp Battles Gun Control Advocate - YouTube

And what's more :rofl:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/14/msnbc-guest-distracted-by-s-e-cupps-cup-size/

Jerry
06-14-2012, 14:06
Mindless MORONS that have no concept of reality. If the MORON wants to see an extremist all he needs to do is look in the mirror.

BTW bullets aren't what gets micro stamped its the casings. Hey! MORONS! Take a Glock or several other brands swap out the slid with another of the same model, exchange strikers with another and guess what. The micro-stamping is meaningless. OR micro-stamp intact, trace firearms back to the original owner = gun was stole. Or look in the PDs data base and find gun, make and model X Ser. # XYZ123 was stole from Mr. John Doe on day, month, year. And exactly what was accomplished and what time was save. But the honest forearms owner are supposed to pay extra for a useless gemic because that concept is just so far over the MORONS heads they can't comprehend it.

Gunnut 45/454
06-15-2012, 13:42
Jerry
And it's the first step in gun registration- being they were talking about NY which already forces GUN REGISTRATION! Now they want to REGISTER your ammo. So they know exact how much you have. They want to make it ILLEGAL for you to resell/give your ammo to anyone else etc. And that $12 per gun tax to fund it is only the start- FFL will tac on extra cost for the ammo to REGISTER it for you when you buy it -COPs will want extra money to run the program-more taxes. It all to make gun ownership so expensive that the oridinary gun owner can't afford it!

eracer
06-15-2012, 14:18
So full of fail.

Jerry
06-15-2012, 16:36
Jerry
And it's the first step in gun registration- being they were talking about NY which already forces GUN REGISTRATION! Now they want to REGISTER your ammo. So they know exact how much you have. They want to make it ILLEGAL for you to resell/give your ammo to anyone else etc. And that $12 per gun tax to fund it is only the start- FFL will tac on extra cost for the ammo to REGISTER it for you when you buy it -COPs will want extra money to run the program-more taxes. It all to make gun ownership so expensive that the oridinary gun owner can't afford it!

Yes, yes! But remember if saves just one child. :faint:

NMPOPS
06-15-2012, 20:25
Basically they haven't been able to take our guns so they want to take our ammo. If NY were to pass this Ammo companies would probably stop shipping to NY.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

HerrGlock
07-03-2012, 05:15
Jerry
And it's the first step in gun registration- being they were talking about NY which already forces GUN REGISTRATION! Now they want to REGISTER your ammo. So they know exact how much you have. They want to make it ILLEGAL for you to resell/give your ammo to anyone else etc. And that $12 per gun tax to fund it is only the start- FFL will tac on extra cost for the ammo to REGISTER it for you when you buy it -COPs will want extra money to run the program-more taxes. It all to make gun ownership so expensive that the oridinary gun owner can't afford it!

(court case brief)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/


U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.

Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

No. 81-1839

Argued January 12, 1983

Decided March 29, 1983

460 U.S. 575

Syllabus

While exempting periodic publications from its general sales and use tax, Minnesota imposes a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of such a publication, but exempts the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year. Appellant newspaper publisher brought an action seeking a refund of the ink and paper use taxes it had paid during certain years, contending that the tax violates, inter alia, the guarantee of the freedom of the press in the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax.

Held: The tax in question violates the First Amendment. Pp. 460 U. S. 579-593.

Anyone see any parallels here?