4 ms·

Newspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio equipment, printers, …

by rbetts 3y ago

agensaequivocum 3y ago
They fall under general sales tax not a specific punitive tax for what they are.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Sugary drinks are taxed in many California cities, for no other reason than they contain sugar. Is that also unconstitutional by your logic?
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    I assume taxing news paper may be considered as limiting freedom of speech.
  - agensaequivocum 3y ago
    Is a sugary drink a constitutionally enumerated inalienable right?
    - defrost 3y ago
      and if so is sugar specifically singled out to be well regulated?
      - agensaequivocum 3y ago
        It's not and "well regulated" is not the operative part of the amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is.
        defrost 3y ago
        It's all part of the text .. leaving out "well regulated (ie. trained responsible locals that can act as a unit, not village idiots with 3 DUI's and a couple of domestic violence charges) is 'infringing' on that right to have well drilled, well outfitted, well regulated, armed people. You're just picking out the bits you like.
        agensaequivocum 3y ago
        As I said in a sibling comment many pre-20th century commentators also omitted the prefratory clause. It was widely understood that the core right is an individual one. Please see this thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        The first clause is just seen as flavor text, even the NRA leaves it out. It’s completely different from the same right in Switzerland, who rely on a well regulated militia for national defense. The USA hasn’t had those since the founding fathers were alive.
        agensaequivocum 3y ago
        It states one of the purposes of the amendment. Many early commentator also omitted it when talking about the amendment. > The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. ~ Thomas Cooley 1898 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290273902305280 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290273902305280 > The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. ~ William Rawle 1825 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056 > Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, who had charge of the bill in the House, moved an amendment to the seventh section by inserting as one of the rights to which negroes were entitled "the constitutional right to bear arms." Since the House adopted this amendment, which was also concurred in by the Senate, it is evident that the right to bear arms was regarded as one of the rights pertaining to citizens, and as this right is secured by the Second Amendment, it may reasonably be inferred that the other rights and privileges secured or enumerated by the first eight Amendments were also regarded as belonging to all persons. > Horace Edgar Flack 1908 ~ The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290276993527810 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290276993527810 > The right of the people to keep and bear arms. object of this clause is to secure a well-armed militia. It has always been the policy of free governments to dispense, as far as possible, with standing armies, and to rely for their defence, both against foreign invasion and domestic turbulence, upon the militia. Regular armies have always been associated with despotism. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms. ~ John Norton Pomeroy 1868 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290278520254464 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290278520254464 These are a few excerpts from this longer thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      So, you're saying it's okay for government to tax things "specific[ally and] punitive[ly] for what they are," in a general sense? It's okay to add to the cost of buying sugary sodas and any other thing, unless it has a barrel and goes boom? In what way are you not free to buy guns, ammo, &c when there is a tax on them? Are you saying convicted (and possibly violent) felons should be able to buy guns?

Newspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio equipment, printers, …

by rbetts 3y ago

Newspapers are taxed, though? As are megaphones, audio equipment, printers, …

agensaequivocum 3y ago

They fall under general sales tax not a specific punitive tax for what they are.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Sugary drinks are taxed in many California cities, for no other reason than they contain sugar. Is that also unconstitutional by your logic?
- riku_iki 3y ago
  I assume taxing news paper may be considered as limiting freedom of speech.
- agensaequivocum 3y ago
  Is a sugary drink a constitutionally enumerated inalienable right?
  - defrost 3y ago
    and if so is sugar specifically singled out to be well regulated?
    - agensaequivocum 3y ago
      It's not and "well regulated" is not the operative part of the amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is.
      - defrost 3y ago
        It's all part of the text .. leaving out "well regulated (ie. trained responsible locals that can act as a unit, not village idiots with 3 DUI's and a couple of domestic violence charges) is 'infringing' on that right to have well drilled, well outfitted, well regulated, armed people. You're just picking out the bits you like.
        agensaequivocum 3y ago
        As I said in a sibling comment many pre-20th century commentators also omitted the prefratory clause. It was widely understood that the core right is an individual one. Please see this thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        The first clause is just seen as flavor text, even the NRA leaves it out. It’s completely different from the same right in Switzerland, who rely on a well regulated militia for national defense. The USA hasn’t had those since the founding fathers were alive.
        agensaequivocum 3y ago
        It states one of the purposes of the amendment. Many early commentator also omitted it when talking about the amendment. > The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. ~ Thomas Cooley 1898 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290273902305280 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290273902305280 > The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. ~ William Rawle 1825 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056 > Mr. Eliot, of Massachusetts, who had charge of the bill in the House, moved an amendment to the seventh section by inserting as one of the rights to which negroes were entitled "the constitutional right to bear arms." Since the House adopted this amendment, which was also concurred in by the Senate, it is evident that the right to bear arms was regarded as one of the rights pertaining to citizens, and as this right is secured by the Second Amendment, it may reasonably be inferred that the other rights and privileges secured or enumerated by the first eight Amendments were also regarded as belonging to all persons. > Horace Edgar Flack 1908 ~ The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290276993527810 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290276993527810 > The right of the people to keep and bear arms. object of this clause is to secure a well-armed militia. It has always been the policy of free governments to dispense, as far as possible, with standing armies, and to rely for their defence, both against foreign invasion and domestic turbulence, upon the militia. Regular armies have always been associated with despotism. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms. ~ John Norton Pomeroy 1868 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290278520254464 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290278520254464 These are a few excerpts from this longer thread https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    So, you're saying it's okay for government to tax things "specific[ally and] punitive[ly] for what they are," in a general sense? It's okay to add to the cost of buying sugary sodas and any other thing, unless it has a barrel and goes boom? In what way are you not free to buy guns, ammo, &c when there is a tax on them? Are you saying convicted (and possibly violent) felons should be able to buy guns?