• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

VA Gov declares state of emergency

RaleBulgarian said:
Because something is expensive/difficult to acquire does equate with ban.
Click to expand...

If you cannot afford it because of governmental actions jack the price up way beyond where most people can afford to buy the item-that is a DE FACTO ban
 
TurtleDude said:
THAT'S REALLY STUPID. There is a partial ban and that ban prevented most Americans from being able to own one since most Americans cannot spend 20K to buy one.
Click to expand...
Not being able to afford something doesn’t make it banned.
 
TurtleDude said:
If you cannot afford it because of governmental actions jack the price up way beyond where most people can afford to buy the item-that is a DE FACTO ban
Click to expand...
See post #102.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
See post #102.
Click to expand...

do you not understand the difference between a de facto ban and a de jure ban? are you NOT AWARE that the ATF admitted that the purpose of the harassing bureaucratic requirements and what was-in 1934, the equivalent of over 3500 dollars today, tax cost-intended to curtail if not outright prevent people being able to buy machine guns, suppressors etc?
 
RF667799 said:
The point is that making something prohibitively expensive can have the same effect. Except for the wealthy of course. They'll come out okay.
Click to expand...

So instead of banning guns, you'd be OK with an annual tax on them ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So instead of banning guns, you'd be OK with an annual tax on them ?
Click to expand...

that's both stupid and dishonest. None of his posts can even remotely be interpreted the way you did
 
TurtleDude said:
that's both stupid and dishonest. None of his posts can even remotely be interpreted the way you did
Click to expand...

Yes they can, it was suggested that making a type of gun extremely expensive is a way to reduce their number.


Post #82:

"The point is that making something prohibitively expensive can have the same effect...."
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes they can, it was suggested that making a type of gun extremely expensive is a way to reduce their number.
Click to expand...

you suggested he supported such actions. that is dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
you suggested he supported such actions. that is dishonest
Click to expand...

Postt #82:

"The point is that making something prohibitively expensive can have the same effect...."

No suggestion was made...it was in fact a question, as referenced by the question mark.
 
Rich2018 said:
Postt #82:

"The point is that making something prohibitively expensive can have the same effect...."

No suggestion was made...it was in fact a question, as referenced by the question mark.
Click to expand...

he is clearly a pro freedom advocate: how could you possibly infer he supports any scheme the gun banners would impose to serve as an obstacle to honest citizens acquiring firearms?
 
TurtleDude said:
he is clearly a pro freedom advocate: how could you possibly infer he supports any scheme the gun banners would impose to serve as an obstacle to honest citizens acquiring firearms?
Click to expand...

So you think he's not in favor of discouraging gun ownership, of a certain gun or guns,through cost rather than a ban ?


Or are you suggesting such a tactic wouldn't work ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So you think he's not in favor of discouraging gun ownership, of a certain gun or guns,through cost rather than a ban ?


Or are you suggesting such a tactic wouldn't work ?
Click to expand...

your goal posts are spinning faster than a world class figure skater.
 
TurtleDude said:
your goal posts are spinning faster than a world class figure skater.
Click to expand...

You mean you're painting yourself into a corner as each and every one of your feeble excuses to hang on to your precious guns is debunked?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
The eye roll was a response to your obviously sarcastic remark.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being sarcastic. I didn't know what point you were trying to get at, but I wasn't afraid to answer your question. Did you have something in mind that would have been a proper response to your question?
 
Rich2018 said:
So instead of banning guns, you'd be OK with an annual tax on them ?
Click to expand...

I already pay taxes on them every time I buy one or shoot one. I wouldn't support an annual tax on them- certainly not if the purpose of such a tax was to make them prohibitively expensive.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes they can, it was suggested that making a type of gun extremely expensive is a way to reduce their number.


Post #82:

"The point is that making something prohibitively expensive can have the same effect...."
Click to expand...


Yes, as in my example if the price of canoes was artificially inflated to 100,000 each, it would make for far fewer canoes. However, I'm not interested in reducing the number of canoes.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
More nonsensical hyperbole.

I can’t afford a Bugatti Veyron
View attachment 67272023
Or a superyacht.
View attachment 67272024
Does that mean they’re also banned?


Of course not.
Click to expand...
Notice the Bugatti and the superyacht are new?

You can't buy new assault rifles. Not even with a special collector's license or tax stamp. It doesn't matter how much money you have, you can't get one, they're completely banned.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you not understand the difference between a de facto ban and a de jure ban? are you NOT AWARE that the ATF admitted that the purpose of the harassing bureaucratic requirements and what was-in 1934, the equivalent of over 3500 dollars today, tax cost-intended to curtail if not outright prevent people being able to buy machine guns, suppressors etc?
Click to expand...
1. I understand the difference between a de facto, de jure, and legal fact.
2. I am also aware of the unstated intent of the $200 tax applied in the 1934 National Firearms Act, and that the $200 fee has remained, unchanged, for the past 84 years.

RF667799 said:
I wasn't being sarcastic. I didn't know what point you were trying to get at, but I wasn't afraid to answer your question. Did you have something in mind that would have been a proper response to your question?
Click to expand...
Actually, it was a line of questioning initiated by you that led to what I inferred as a sarcastic response.
RF667799 said:
So that if only some people are prohibited from owning something, that something is not in fact "banned"?
Click to expand...
RaleBulgarian said:
Prohibited by law?
Click to expand...
RF667799 said:
Yes, prohibited by law.
Click to expand...
My response was intended to eliminate any biased personal perspectives and focus on the legal fact that no ban exists.

Wayne Jr said:
Notice the Bugatti and the superyacht are new?

You can't buy new assault rifles. Not even with a special collector's license or tax stamp. It doesn't matter how much money you have, you can't get one, they're completely banned.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the forest for the trees. Not the point of the post.

I know that civilians may not purchase/own a machine gun manufactured after 5/19/86.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Actually, it was a line of questioning initiated by you that led to what I inferred as a sarcastic response.



My response was intended to eliminate any biased personal perspectives and focus on the legal fact that no ban exists.
Click to expand...

I thought that perhaps my question wasn't clear and your question was intended to clarify so that you could more readily answer.

Which you haven't.
 
RF667799 said:
I thought that perhaps my question wasn't clear and your question was intended to clarify so that you could more readily answer.

Which you haven't.
Click to expand...
I have been crystal clear.

There is no ban on civilians owning machine guns in the United States, period.

Any attempted argument otherwise is hyperbole.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I have been crystal clear.

There is no ban on civilians owning machine guns in the United States, period.

Any attempted argument otherwise is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Except for those machine guns they are prohibited from owning. Why keep making a categorical claim even after admitting the exceptions?
 
RF667799 said:
I already pay taxes on them every time I buy one or shoot one. I wouldn't support an annual tax on them- certainly not if the purpose of such a tax was to make them prohibitively expensive.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't support a prohibitively high tax on certain gun types be it one off or periodic?

Because that's a good way to effectively ban certain types of gun...you know the way fully automatic machine guns are more heavily taxed.


Or are you saying that's a bad tax / licensing law ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom