Slashdot Mirror
California's Surreal Retroactive Tax On Tech Startup Investors
waderoush writes "Engineers and hackers don't think much about tax policy, but there's a bizarre development in California that they should know about, since it could reduce the pool of angel-investment money available for tech startups. Under a tax break available since the 1990s, startup founders and other investors in California were allowed to exclude or defer their gains when they sold stock in California-based small businesses. Last year, a California appeals court ruled that the tax break was unconstitutional, since it discriminated against investors in out-of-state companies. Now the Franchise Tax Board, California's version of the IRS, has issued a notice saying how it intends to implement the ruling — and it's a doozie. Not only is the tax break gone, but anyone who claimed an exclusion or deferral on the sale of small-business stock since 2008 is about to get a big retroactive tax bill. Investors, entrepreneurs, and even the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit are up in arms about the FTB's notice, saying that it goes beyond the court's intent and that it will drive investors out of the state. This Xconomy article takes an in-depth look at the history of the court case, the FTB's ruling, and the reaction in the technology and investing communities."
That's unpossible! /looks at "Fire Prevention Fee" bill
And you expected something else from a state run by "progressives"? They never have enough of other people's money!
Retroactive taxes aren't particularly surreal. An example of surreal taxes would be if you had to submit your check to a giant who was growing out of the floor in a building that's melting.
So let's use the word correctly, please.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
People have been up in arms over ex post facto law, so why do they think they can get away with taxes? Granted, not all retroactive laws are unconstitutional. The tax law shouldn't have been in the books in the first place if it was unconstitutional, but we're not talking slavery here. Repeal the law, if you must, and call it even.
This is just a sad attempt at increasing state revenue
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
How far back are they permitted to go? What stops them from going back 20 years or more? I would think there would be some ex post facto equivalent for civil issues.
In other news, much of the national deficit is due to this pathetically disorganized, in the red, severely overbudget, bloated state. Why do businesses continue to flock there? There's plenty of good homes along the east coast. Texas has a healthy tech sector. Even in the flyover state of Minnesota you can find plenty of talent. WHY CALIFORNIA PEOPLE? WHYYYyyyyy? Even Mexico didn't fight that hard for it -- they practically gave us the desolate, flood-prone, earthquake-prone, mudslide-prone, forest fire-prone state. How many hints does nature have to give a business before it takes the hint? :/
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I can't believe how any freedom-loving country can permit retroactive anything.
How can anyone plan anything when the threat of a retroactive change takes place?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Place your bets on how many people will comment on "ex post facto" laws without actually knowing the slightest thing about them.
An interesting snippet from the above link:
Besides, it's only $150 million. A drop in the bucket, relative to the tech industry as a whole.
Have you read my blog lately?
So. Does this make a crime of not paying taxes out of a situation where it was not a crime?
If so, it would seem to be ex post facto:
Seems to me they should just not pay, because there's no legal way to punish them for not paying.
Not that the supreme court has actually paid that much attention to ex post facto violations on either the federal or state level... real bunch of pants-shittingly stupid people in SCOTUS lately...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
retroactive plan, dubass.
+m
Still want to live in California?
Hey let's push the state into exempting out of state companies so we can get the exemption too. Oh crap, we just screwed it up for everyone and wasted millions in legal fees for a ruling that will get us nothing. Who could have ever guessed California would take the money grab option?
This isn't a retroactive law. This is invalidation of a law by a court. California basically created a tarrif to promote local buisnesses. States are not allow to create terrifs. California had two options. They could send money to every out of state buisness that was damage by the tarrif. Or they could undo the benifit the in state buisnesses recieved. California is broke so they did the second thing.
Oh, wait. This is TAX law. The IRS can do pretty much anything they want; even the state IRS.
So some rich investors use some illegal tax break to make even more money for themselves and now that it's declared illegal they have to pay a more fair share of taxes. Who gives a shit? It's just more whining from the rich.
But why stop there? Let's retroactively declare more bullshit tax breaks illegal... so the rich have to pay their fair share on their "grandson of BOSS" investments instead of the laissez-faire share they've been paying? Good. Make it so.
Besides, it's only $150 million. A drop in the bucket, relative to the tech industry as a whole.
Would you say the same thing if it applied to you?
Yes it applies to us because they'll just pass the cost on to all of us. And since I'll never notice it, I don't give a rat's ass either.
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
People will sue - and this will go to federal courts... The question is will it make it to SCOTUS.
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
I am ashamed of my state government and the populace that elected it. As soon as I have enough money to be worthy of Franchise Tax Board's notice, I'm fleeing to a free state.
California (and New York) are hemorrhaging population and business. Often (but not only) heading to Texas according to numerous articles and analysis over the past year as well as the last census.
Texas appears to be the largest recipient of the migrations but so are Arizona and Florida. Coincidentally Texas was also named the 2012 Top State for business. Every few weeks I see more and more business headlines of companies (namely tech) moving to or starting a branch in Texas such as Apple, Facebook, PayPal, Catepillar and so on
There had been, however, some controversy over the years of TX Gov Perry's use of the Texas Enterprise Fund to woo companies to relocate. While the deal-landing results appear to be evident, some worry about the taxpayer cost, total incentive packages, and net gain of these deals. The fund seems to be perfectly suited to situations like this, where California tax laws cause some turmoil thereby increasing the opportunity to woo away industry. Recently Texas AG Greg Abbott has also been advertising to New Yorkers to move to Texas on account of gun control issues.
I wonder how long Texas can remain "Texas" if it becomes stuffed with people who are accustomed to living like Californians and New Yorkers.
I'm moving to France!
Have gnu, will travel.
Elections have consequences.
What is unconstitutional about a state providing state tax incentives for its residents to invest in companies within that state? There is no interstate commerce going on there. I know the federal government thinks absolutely everything is interstate commerce, but it doesn't make it true. It's allowing the federal government to regulate the tax policy of a state.
Just retroactively move out of state. Maybe file for a refund for the taxes you DID pay.
This is why most of the West is doomed. Why the hell would anyone start up a business in California if they pull stunts like this? Indeed, if you've got an online business with no geographical boundaries, why even host it in the US/Europe? Why not host it in a country that actually -wants- productive citizens?
In economic terms, a tax is basically a government's way of saying, "we don't want you to do that". An income tax is basically saying, we don't want you to work. A payroll tax is basically saying, we don't want you to hire people, etc.
Stuff like this will only hasten the demise of the US.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
GTFO of that hell hole.
When the US debt bomb finally detonates it will be la-la land that breaks off first. Then you'll be living in Mexico 2, the new kleptocracy.
"One more victory like that and we're really finished."
Maybe he should have sued California for allowing ANY exemptions or deductions at all...
When I read about this I was furious. I thought I'd get hit; luckily I was off by a year so I'm safe. I was so ready to take a gun to Sacramento. It seems almost every year the Franchise Tax Board tries to screw me with some denial of whatever that takes me and my accountant time and money to protest. I swear the FSB is staffed with Fascists.
The Obama-loving pigs in Silicon Valley should be stripped of their last dollar by the govt.
You voted for it.
So I'm a true and blue keynesian and believe that we need higher taxes on certain things, including corporations. But retroactively taxing tech companies in California, or increasing the tax burden of tech companies in California is plain stupid. The whole point of modifying tax policy is to shape the type of economy you want in your region, state, country, etc. If you want cheap indentured labour, you do low corporate and rich people taxes and high personal taxes for the poor and middle class. If you want your tech industry in California, you give them huge tax breaks so they don't have to worry about taxes when they're trying crazy ass ideas that may end up being super successful. If they fail the first time, they can try again, and not have to worry about taxes. It makes the state act as an incubator and is one of the reasons Silicon Valley exists.
Taxing tech companies is dumb because unlike Oil companies (which should be taxed more), they are not extracting natural resources the demos will never get back, they are a knowledge economy producer, which is often pure economic gain with (relative to other industries) few negative externalities.
Right now I'm outside of the USA and I do not know how this bizarre court ruling gonna affect me.
And I am not alone in this --- many people that I know started our respective careers and business ventures in the Silicon Valley, before moving on to something larger and better elsewhere.
There are two groups of people who will benefit from this ruling - the attorneys (particularly the tax attorneys) and the accountants.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Nashville welcomes you with open arms.
Here is the relevant part from the Appeal Court opinion:
Plaintiff asks us to hold that a refund is the only proper remedy in this case, under the authority of McKesson Corp. v. Florida Alcohol & Tobacco Div. (1990) 496 U.S. 18 [110 L. Ed. 2d 17, 110 S. Ct. 2238] (McKesson). In McKesson, the high court held that “[i]f a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax's legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation.” (McKesson, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 31, fn. omitted.) McKesson identified three ways to provide the “‘clear and certain remedy’” required for an unlawful tax collection. (Id. at p. 39.) These were (1) “refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received”; (2) “assess[ing] and collect[ing] back taxes from petitioner's competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period”; and (3) “a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce .” (Id. at pp. 40–41.) In this case the statute of limitations prevents the state from collecting additional taxes from other taxpayers who benefited from the unconstitutional deferral provision.
Under this portion of the opinion the Franchise Tax Board can not do nothing. They are required by this opinion to level the playing field. The Franchise Tax Board has three options;
1. Refund the tax to him and every other other person that was denied or didn't file because they did not qualify.
2. Retroactively tax everyone
3. A combination of partial refunds and partial taxes opening up even more litigation.
Option 1 is bad because the state could loose a lot of revenue. Option 3 is bad because the state loses revenue and spends more on litigation. Option 2 is viable as it already falls under the process of filing and adjusted tax return. By requiring the Board to level the playing field the court threw a wrench in the works.
Owning a firearm is a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Call them "nuts" if it makes you feel better but the second you say it's OK to restrict one's gun rights they'll be restricting all your rights. I know this is a repost, but it's very relevant to my point (feel free to replace who "they're" coming for with items from our Bill of Rights):
When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
why start a business in place with child labor laws and any workers rights.
Why not open in North Korean where they have life long work / prison camps.
Yea, fixed your title for you. Guess it's the pot calling the kettle black then...
That shows the past year. One. Single. Numero Uno. After severe and numerous budget crisis California has cleaned up its act, mostly due to threats of severe economic sanctions if it didn't fix the problem _now_. It doesn't erase decades of debt overnight. Look at it this way: You suddenly get a good job that pays twice as much as your last job. How many years does it take to catch up on all that credit card debt and stuff you accumulated up until now? Answer: A long time.
We're paying for past indiscretions of California and will be for some time to come. But hey, congratulations on the new job.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'm sure California's $427 billion public debt has NOTHING to do with this.
Positive!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html
-Styopa
[citation needed]
This kind of shit is soooo FAR beyond merely shooting yourself in the foot, its more like pointing a gun at your foot, letting loose one round, blowing half your foot off, then blithly taking the gun, shooting the rest of the original foot off, taking a morphene shot to kill the pain, then turning the gun on your other foot, and doing the same thing again.. The old MontyPython skit with the guy getting his limbs shot off and continuing to taunt his attacker is kind of appropriate for California.. To keep ratcheting down on business like they're doing will ONLY work in a *completely* totalitarian country, one that includes barbed wire fences on the borders, landmines, tank traps, reminicient of the old "Iron Curtain".. When a business can weigh the pros-cons of staying/leaving and decides to pack it up and head for one of the states that are welcoming business, like Texas, f'instance, with no chance of being shot while going over the fence, the "geniuses" in Sacramento can only sit back and watch their tax-base leave the state.
Of course, in the world that the California liberal bureaucrat lives in, they never see this.. Up until the reality of the situation jumps up and bites them on the ass.. namely when they have 20+ million mouths on the government feed trough and ZERO tax-paying businesses.. I was born in California many moons ago, in what is now "liberal-ville", better known as the "City By The Bay"... such a lovely town, gone to hell by the Nancy Pelosi-liberals.. The wife and I saw the handwriting on the wall back in the mid 90s and moved to Las Vegas Nevada.. Best move we ever made.. With that, we had to fight with the State Franchise Tax Board for nearly 3 years after moving to prove to them we no longer had any income from the State.. It finally took a tax attorney to rattle their cage and get their b.s. stopped. I hate to think about ALL the hassle any business will get today when they move out of California... My thoughts are with them...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
In that sense, none of the amendments guarantee your right to anything - they're all subject to judicial interpretation, and all were interpreted, and sometimes re-interpreted (like the 1st) over time.
California is more interested in a lot of things, than they are in the economy. They've been bankrupt for a long time already, and it just gets worse. How much have illegal aliens cost California so far?
Bleeding hearts will tell us that illegals contribute more to the economy than they cost, but that's pure hogwash. California, like all other states, already have enough poor, nearly poor, and downwardly mobile people to perform all the drudge jobs that the illegals are doing. But, no, the state would rather pay welfare to the poor, pay more welfare to the illegals, and watch the middle class disappear.
Taxpayers have been funding all of this, or course, along with all the other idiocy.
Pay your taxes, Citizen. We have more illegals waiting to cross the border!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Too bad everything else that was written by the men who wrote on and voted for the 2nd amendment contradicts you. George Washington said that firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens was second only in importance to the constitution itself. Patrick Henry said these two things "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." That's pretty cut and dry as to whether or not the bill they wrote was intended to mean that any citizen that wanted to be armed, should be able to do so.
Just apply some Obama logic, really it is "not a tax", because I said so.
Got Code?
"They've been bankrupt for a long time already, and it just gets worse."
Yeah, they've just got a budget _surplus_ ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-10/california-to-post-851-million-budget-surplus-brown-projects.html ). It's so much worse... And your typical misinformed right-wing nut rant is just that - a misinformed rant.
Define "assault weapon". There is not a single "assault weapon" available on the civilian market. You're yet another victim of liberal hype. Talk to a veteran. Talk to almost any veteran, from any service. Some sailors never handled an assault rifle, and maybe some airedales. All marines have handled them, and I think all army soldiers have.
My own assault weapon was an M14. There is a little lever on the side that makes it what it is. That little lever switches the piece from semi-automatic to full automatic. That is the one determining characteristic of an "assault weapon". The bayonet lugs? I'll grant that it is probably unnecessary for civilians. Oversize magazines? Again, I'll grant that is probably unnecessary. But, those two features do not determine that the weapon is an "assault weapon".
However - if you're able to pass a background check, and you're willing to pay the licensing fee, you can purchase a Thompson submachine gun, perfectly legal.
Having spent most of an hour staring down the muzzles of several Thompsons while holding onto my M14, I'm here to tell you that it is a much more effective "assault weapon" than the M14 - or an M15 or an M16.
I don't know how many Thompsons are currently held by private citizens in the United States. Funny thing, you don't hear of them being stolen, and used in criminal activity. Seems that the people who own them, keep them properly secured, and that common criminals just can't get to them.
Maybe THAT is where legislation needs to be aimed. Make the owners of ALL weapons responsible for securing those weapons that they own.
Nuts? There are plenty of nuts on both sides of the issue. None of the nuts want to address the real issues. Those issues include identifying whackos, kooks, and nuts who are likely to commit a mass shooting. Almost always, people step forward after a shooting, to inform the media that the shooter was some kind of mental case. Family and acquaintances are generally unable to "connect" with the guy. He's strange, weird, or whatever - often a "loner".
The real issue here, is identifying such people, and getting help for them - OR, institutionalizing them, so that they most definitely CANNOT access weapons.
But, boo-hoo-hoo - it violates some kind of "rights" if we start institutionalizing mental cases.
Meanwhile, we continue to incarcerate people for possession of natural substances like marijuana. It's alright for corporations to profit from incarcerating perfectly safe people, but we don't want to violate any civil rights of genuinely dangerous people.
This whole controversy borders on insanity.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Bull SHIT! None of my rights, and none of yours, are granted by some interpretation by any court. Rights were granted in the Constitution, and by the amendments to the Constitution.
Blathering idiots attempt to explain away our rights by trying to define words like "militia", and "well regulated", etc ad nauseum.
Read: http://www.mgoa.com/GunRightsQuotes-1.htm
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Gee, what could possibly go wrong ?
Fuck business people hard, without lube, and expect them to
want seconds ?
Guess again, you stupid California tax-loving swine.
You will wake up one day and read about businesses in other states
which used to be located in your state.
You are fucking yourselves, and your constituents, and your future.
Nice job. What's next, will you tax the film industry so it leaves too ?
.
I mean - WTF; we've run a multi-billion $ deficit for the last decade. Gov Brown comes in, and in 1 term, turns things around. I can't see this tax as any kind of bad thing at all. The investors are going to go away? Where? are they going to relocate all the high-tech expertise and workers and their families that are located there and have put down roots since the end of WWII? Good luck with that. California's special for a reason, and it's California's workforce that attracts the money. Not the other way around.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
At the time the second amendment was debated, it was meant to prohibit the federal government from passing gun control laws as a means of controlling the states. But the person you are replying to is wrong in that he says "That right, as it exists today, is granted by a later court interpretation of the 2nd amendment." In fact, it was the fourteenth amendment which conferred those rights on individuals at the end of the civil war, to prevent them from oppressing their citizens. Of course, at the time they were thinking about ex-slaves, but anyone can be subjected to oppression by the government. It was a fairly recent court case in which the Supreme Court upheld that this was the case, but it's actually pretty hard to read the Fourteenth amendment any other way.
Yea, fixed your title for you. Guess it's the pot calling the kettle black then...
A perfectly validated prediction marred only by a spelling quibble and some snark from a nobody. I'm still way ahead of the game, sport.
Some of us liberals are against gun control. Be careful where you point that thing.
Just make sh*t up after the fact and abuse people accordingly. If laws mean so little to the courts, why should anyone else care? It's not the courts that will bother you, it's the police, FBI, CIA, ATF and DHS with their guns, clubs, boots and tazers that will bother you. But don't worry, you're not living in a police state.
Not all liberals swallow the liberal hype, just as not all conservatives go for the conservative hype. While the conservative nuts are telling us that elimination of bayonet lugs and oversized magazines violate the constitution, you'll note that I've dismissed both as unnecessary.
I think that you'll grant that liberals and conservatives alike have their hype machines. People who think for themselves can recognize hype for what it is.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Pay up like the rest of us and more.
Do they really have a surplus? http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Does-California-Really-Have-a-Budget-Surplus__Bay-Area.html
I don't think a 50mm machine gun even exists. There are 20mm Gatling-type guns, but they're used on large aircraft and on ships IIRC. I think there's also 30mm Gatling-type guns (maybe those are the shipboard ones). A 50mm machine gun would be ridiculously large and not really practical for anything; after all, if a 30mm machine gun can shoot airplanes and Exocet anti-ship missiles out of the sky from tens of miles away, what the heck do you need 50mm shells for? Out-of-control giant transforming robots from the planet Cybertron?
California is just an expensive liability.
Smart companies are copying Zappos and moving to Nevada.
Nevada has no state income tax, the biggest SuperNAP (internet hub) in the world, cheap land, cheap housing, a huge airport, rail lines, etc.
Creative accounting doesn't work for liberals or conservatives. Follow Ded Bob's link. Bullshit is bullshit, no matter which side the bullshit comes from. It's still a deficit.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Duh. If the reality contradicts your opinions - to hell with the reality.
Nothing is "unpossible" when California wants to spend other people's cash!
The Bill of Rights was a compromise to shut up the anti-federalists. The Founders felt it was obvious that if the Constitution hadn't explicitly granted a power to the Federal Government, they didn't have it. The anti-federalists voiced concerns that it wasn't clear.
The Founder's view seems evidenced in the level of detail in the Constitution listing exactly what the Federal Government can do, esp. in Article 1, Section 8.
I don't know the history of Prohibition well, but now it seems rather quaint that as recently as 1919, folks thought it was necessary to actually amend the Constitution (the Eighteenth Amendment) to ban the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors". Now, we seem to accept that if the Federal Government wants to ban a substance nationwide, they can just do it with, at most, Congressional and Executive approval. How far we have fallen in less than 100 years.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to eliminate any possibility that people in the future would interpret the Bill of Rights as a complete list of rights held by the people and the states. As it turns out, these Amendments were obviously insufficient.
Subsequent Amendments and SCOTUS interpretations/decisions (perhaps most notably the Incorporation Doctrine) have altered the landscape of course by imposing restrictions on states as to what rights they can abridge.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Yes, California does have a surplus or something very close to it - it's pretty close to zero anyway. What California definitely does NOT have is any sort of debt crisis.
Rights were granted in the Constitution, and by the amendments to the Constitution.
not entirely true
'right to bear arms shall not be infringed' - in other words the constitution reminds the govt that the people have inherent right to be armed and reinforces that concept.
The Bill of Rights is not a full list of rights granted by the govt. That would lead to the strange notion that the rights are at the mercy of bureaucrats and can be taken away with a stroke of a pen, and that things which are legit rights but are not on the list are not recognized as such. The govt is merely told to protect basic rights such as A, B, C and others not explicitly listed, in other words it gets the role of the protector of these rights, not the source of them.
This is EXACTLY what I expected from a state run by "progressives".
The state motto should be "taking your bacon to make pork"
So, Brown knows he has an out -- of course Health Care costs will rise and of course the economic recovery can be delayed (i.e., not meet his rosy projections he pulled mostly out of his ass).
This budget also accomplishes the "balanced" feat by tricks like not paying back budgetary debt at the rate he promised if he got his tax increase passed.
It looks mostly like smoke and mirrors as so many budgets are.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Nope, the budget projections are actually pretty solid. The deficit (if any) is going to be tiny, even if there's no outright surplus. Basically, there's no debt or deficit crisis anymore in CA. Not anything close to the cries of "we're bankrupt, so lets just kill all the immigrants!!!"
The reality is - California doesn't have any budget surplus. California has politicians claiming that they will have a surplus at some point in the future, while the eggheads at Berkeley are telling us that the politicians are full of shit.
Who ya gonna trust? Politicians, or eggheads? I don't see any competition here, unless you're just another partisan with a vested interest.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Still not correct. Rights do not and cannot come from a piece of paper. The 2nd amendment applies to a compact (the constitution) between states that created an agent - the US federal government - and delegated certain powers to it (or so the myth goes, but anyone familiar with Lysander Spooner would know the glaring holes in that). It states that said agent may not infringe on an existing right. Politicians and the military have sworn to uphold this document; but as we know, they ignore it all the time. The right to bear arms is infringed all the time - the right to own full auto firearms is infringed in all sorts of ways, for example, and people are extorted for permits, fees, and taxes or forbidden to import/export certain firearms or arrested for various peaceful transport or displays of a firearm. These are all infringements imposed by people that swore not to do so.
I'm Allowed to Rob You!
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.
I stand corrected. I chose my words poorly - and my typing fingers got well ahead of any second thoughts.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Certainly, I'm not going to trust any right-wing nut. The great way to tell that they are lying is this: "Their lips are moving".
And in reality, there's no debt crisis in California in any case. It's definitely not 'bankrupt', especially after the recent shuffles that finally kicked away most of Republicans from the local legislature.
As an outsider reading it, I would say that the second amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to keep and carry weapons cannot be restricted.
Any law in the USA that purports to control weapons should be unconstitutional.
Arguing ethics, morals, need, danger or anything else in regards to weapons is (or should be) irrelevent.
If you don't like that situation you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to undermine the constitution.
America has, in the past, been an example of freedom and rule of law that has inspired many people. It would be a tragedy if you were to undermine your rule of law and slide into becoming a police state by subverting your constitution.
If you truly believe that the situation and weapons have evolved to the point where that amendment is no longer needed, or needs to be changed, then the constitution contains methods for amending itself.
Please don't throw away the rule of law.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Define "assault weapon". There is not a single "assault weapon" available on the civilian market.
Most people would call a full-auto M16 an assault rifle.
And a full-auto M16 is perfectly legal to own with the proper permits (unless you live in California or some other states that ban full-auto).
It will be very expensive though, since it has been illegal to manufacture or import full-auto weapons for civilian use in the USA since 1986. Before 1986 is fine, but the supply is fixed, so prices have been soaring.
Too bad gun nuts like you are so tied up with your little manhood enhancement to actually bother reading the constitution. Particularly the part about well regulated. nice paranoid rant at the end, however. nothing says unstable nut-job like blathering on how you and you rambo like delusions of adequacy would actually stop any government out there.
So repeal the 2nd amendment, or change the wording. The second amendment says the people are allowed to own and use guns, thus they should be allowed to own and use guns. It doesn't matter if that is a good or a bad thing, it just is.
Interestingly it doesn't say anything about "for hunting" or "for sports shooting" or "in case of a burglar" - cases you could argue "assault weapons" (though given the broadness of that term I'd wouldn't agree) aren't needed for. It does mention a militia though - something "assault weapons" are certainly useful for.
If you really think there is no need for them in this society, then change the constitution so that is doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear them.
Oh and please point out a single person who is talking about changing the legality of "50mm machines gun"s in the US. Other than you of course. By the way here's a picture of 50mm non-machine gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pak38_cfb_borden_2.JPG
One of the choices people are saying would've been better is removing the requirement that it be for California businesses only, but by doing that they would have had a huge number of California residents who sold a business anywhere filing amended returns as far back as possible to get the no-longer-limited credits.
fencepost
just a little off
Can you get a 50mm machine gun
Holy mother of all firearms; a 50mm machine gun? That's almost half the size of an Abrams tank main canon and you want it in machine gun format?
Your comical misunderstanding may be partly responsible for your outrage. And, yes, you can buy a 50 cal machine gun if you get a Federal license for such. They're expensive and tedious to apply for.
A 30 round mag is not oversized. They aren't oversized until they start to bind up or cause other jams. 100 round drums are oversized.
But bayonet lugs? You're going to wind up calling many bolt action rifles assault weapons. They are just playing ugly gun again.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Partisan with a vested interest it is.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Gov. Moonbeam is on a roll.
Now he wants California to become the 'Soviet' and he the 'Putin'.
How many more days will Gov. Moonbeam 'Putin' live ?
Bets being taken in Vegas.
!
Yup. I'm kinda vested in a society where people don't die on streets of hunger.
He's strange, weird, or whatever - often a "loner".
Meanwhile, we continue to incarcerate people for possession of natural substances like marijuana.
Perhaps we should just throw them into a padded room. Strange, weird loners need "help", but fools drugging themselves don't?
Please read your own quote again, but replace "institutionalizing mental cases" with "restricting access to guns".
I'm also an outsider. The first amendment says pretty clearly that "Congress shall make no law [..] abridging the freedom of speech", but I'm also aware that it's fairly well-established in law that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, and can have reasonable limits imposed.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
As I understand it, there is a difference in most people's minds between "gun owners" and "gun nuts". The vast majority of gun owners are sane and responsible individuals. Gun nuts are a strict minority.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There is a little lever on the side that makes it what it is. That little lever switches the piece from semi-automatic to full automatic. That is the one determining characteristic of an "assault weapon".
According to who?
I see this particular bit of rhetoric bandied about quite a bit recently but find zero supporting evidence for the claim that the defining characteristic of an "assault weapon" is the capability for fully-automatic fire. Neither the technical or colloquial definitions I've come across seem to suggest this. It is most certainly not the case when referring to legal definitions.
Too bad gun nuts like you are so tied up with your little manhood enhancement to actually bother reading the constitution. Particularly the part about well regulated. nice paranoid rant at the end, however. nothing says unstable nut-job like blathering on how you and you rambo like delusions of adequacy would actually stop any government out there.
Too bad gun haters like you refuse to recognize that in D C v Heller and later in McDonald v Chicago the Supreme Court found the 2nd Amendment EXPLICITLY refers to the individual right to keep and bear arms, and neither States nor the Federal Government can restrict your right as an individual to own firearms.
Maybe you need to quit your own blathering and foaming-at-the-mouth hatred for tools you obviously don't understand, and get a bit of education about what the 2nd Amendment really means.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not according to the California Legislative Accounting Office (the California equivalent of the CBO). They say a $1.9 billion deficit.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The California Legislative Accounting Office says we're looking at a $1.9 billion deficit this year - not a surplus. Who to believe? Well, historically the LAO is much more accurate than the Governor's office...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
$1.9B out of $97.5B? Trivial.
Aaaand, this year's budget actually _increases_ the spending slightly. So getting to pure surplus is easy - just slow down the rate of spending increases next year. Oh, and there is not going to be a state bankruptcy in near future.
Better beaches, skiing, Yosemite, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Big Sur, San Diego, forests, the Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe, amber waves of grain, purple mountain majesties, big trees, old trees, Venice beach, Hollywood, Volcanoes old and new, Death Valley, the highest and lowest places in the 48 states. Strawberries, Pistachios, Apricots, etc. The (variously) 6th to 8th largest economy in the world.
Somehow, DFW and Houston don't compare. Granted, here in California we have to surf using real waves, as opposed to ship wakes coming up from Galveston. Texas does have better caverns and probably more bats.
Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon - In addition to its original 37mm chambering, Hotchkiss cannons were also made in 47mm and 53mm
Not 50mm, but fabulous & famous: The Pom Pom Gun
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you knew why in the US we have a constitutional right to bare arms you might be a little more understanding.
It is not to hunt or to "make gun go boom". Though one was at one time necessary and the other is loads of fun.
The reason that it is a constitutional right is to protect they people from the tyranny of the government.
The founders at the time felt (because of the history of every previous government ever) that government eventually would grow to take the freedoms of its people.
Governments always get more powerful. They take that power from the people. Even a "good" government strip you of all your freedoms eventually in the name of "The greater good".
The only defense against this is an armed populace. We can argue about what rights we should have and we can have real differences about it.
Though without an armed populace when the government oversteps its power grab it will not matter. When they come for a freedom you do value there will be nothing the people can do to stop the government.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people there is freedom.
I want freedom. I understand that with freedom comes thing I do not like.
Put away the criminals, Help the sick, Keep the guns.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Weapons that do not serve a purpose for hunting.
The second amendment is not about the freedom to hunt.
It is to protect the people from the government.
If enough of the populace is armed they do not NEED fully automatic weapons to prevent tyranny.
But it does not hurt.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I've spent it all on hookers and cocaine...
...what the 2nd Amendment really means.
Easy there soldier. You can look at the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or you can look at the literal meaning while considering its context.
I fully support a right to arms, provided those arms are reasonable for the modern context. A good pistol in capable hands is more than sufficient for 99.9% of dire situations where a firearm is required. The weapons being sold nowadays, however, are extreme overkill for what is supposedly their intended use... at least according to the 2nd Amendment.
Why do hunters need assault rifles? Seriously... why the FUCK do hunters need assault rifles? Is this some kind of 1+1=3 scenario? I need a weapon to protect myself against burglars, and I need a weapon to go hunting with... might as well make it one badass weapon to do both and so much more, right?!?
You vocalists need to stop fucking polarizing the issue to such extents. Of course hunters need firearms (well, need is subjective). Of course Joe and Jane Doh need a firearm in the closet so that they feel safe. What they don't need are the assault rifles and assault rifle accessories being sold on websites thousands of times a day.
I get that these weapons are ultimately really badass toys, for the most part. I've shot my share even. I don't hunt, but I support it. I don't fear for my safety at home, but I support those who do. What I do not support are the reckless and weak who spout nothing but "It's Unconstitutional" in regards to over-arming themselves under the banner of the 2nd Amendment. If you are really that scared for your safety that you are defending the right to own mass death machines, maybe you should instead invest in some kevlar armor along with a cape and some martial arts training, and go fucking roam the streets and whoop the shit out of people committing violent crimes. I know for damn well I would feel 1000% safer with folks like that in my neighborhood than with any random individual having the right to purchase assault rifles.
Seriously, stop defending evil. It makes you look like such a jackass.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Easy there soldier. You can look at the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or you can look at the literal meaning while considering its context.
Sorry, the Supreme Court has already said the 2nd Amendment directly relates to INDIVIDUALS owning firearms for their own PERSONAL defense (DC v Heller), and that a State cannot infringe this right, it is incorporated to the individuals (MacDonald v Chicago).
Seriously, stop defending evil. It makes you look like such a jackass.
Rather, it is your blatant ignorance of what the Supreme Court has already found with regards to the 2nd Amendment that shows you to be the jackass. Stop defending unconstitutional actions; I'll continue to defend the Bill of Rights - not "evil"...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
$1.9B out of $97.5B? Trivial.
Yet a deficit nevertheless. It's not a surplus as many are trying to claim...
Aaaand, this year's budget actually _increases_ the spending slightly. So getting to pure surplus is easy - just slow down the rate of spending increases next year. Oh, and there is not going to be a state bankruptcy in near future.
It needs to slow down by at least $1.9 billion more than it's currently going. But with Governor Brown touting a "surplus", you can just bet the CA Legislature is looking to spend that fictional surplus - and then some...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Some of us conservatives are against gun control, too.
The conservatives tend to agree with me more often then the liberals, but on support of the second amendment you and I can agree. I think the majority on both sides of the isle agree.
I wonder what else we can agree on? I'd like to see my total taxes closer to 25% then 50%, for example.
Incorrect, that's a _projection_. We might still get a surplus.
"It needs to slow down by at least $1.9 billion more than it's currently going. But with Governor Brown touting a "surplus", you can just bet the CA Legislature is looking to spend that fictional surplus - and then some..."
This year's increase is $4.7B. We'll see how it goes.
...may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
Does that mean anything to you? Note the 'c' in 'Defence'.
2013 != 1689
If we defined "arms" as those tools available at the time, then we could define the "arms" of today as something completely different and not valid under the 2nd Amendment. Do you need a trebuchet? Maybe a large vat of hot oil? Where does "firearm" end and "mass death machine" begin?
Point stands... the weapons of today are mass death machines that completely nullify any archaic definition of arms from the past.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
"Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Definition of "able" is ambiguous. Does this consider moral character?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
There have been a few 5cm+ autocannons throughout history, most were abandoned in trial phase, if they ever made it past prototype. Germans in WWII in particular were very interested in big firepower, they developed and even fielded a few, one such cannon flew on a couple different airframes late in the war as a heavy-bomber destroyer. Interestingly, it was often paired up with a telescopic sight, as a sort of bomber-sniper, but the muzzle flash ruined a pilot's night vision, and it was prone to malfunction. Others were relegated to Anti-Aircraft-Artillery roles, where bigger shells usually proved superior to rapid fire of lots of small shells.
Anyway, it is possible, though incredibly, stupidly, expensive for a US citizen to own up to a 40mm Bofors, which is actually classified as a machine gun, and was once again developed for anti-aircraft roles. It can go though a five round clip like mad, and it actually uses clips, not magazines.
Anyway, it's the wrong argument to make; nobody needs more than a meal in their belly, water to drink, and some basic shelter. If we're to have only what we need, let's follow the chain of reductio ad absurdum to it's end: Having anything more than a pot to piss in (a dangerous weapon, in itself, don'tcha know) is superfluous, and the government is justified in taking it away from you.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I'm also an outsider. The first amendment says pretty clearly that "Congress shall make no law [..] abridging the freedom of speech", but I'm also aware that it's fairly well-established in law that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, and can have reasonable limits imposed.
Yes, there are reasonable limits imposed on the use of speech.
There are also reasonable limits imposed on the use of arms.
The use is limited, not the possession, or right to bear.
The possession of certain types of "speech" is indeed limited. Child pornography is the obvious example.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Discussion successfully derailed by the first post? By AC no less... Congratulations, sir or madam.
Regarding TFA, I wouldn't be too surprised if more money is spent fighting appeals (and lost due to scaring off investors) than is recovered in back-taxes & interest.
Howdy howdy howdy
If you could make a thing go away by making it illegal, why would you need to ban guns?
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Any weapon that can be used to assault. E.g. a club.
Nothing to thank for.
I'm not sure who you've talked to, but to everyone I've heard from who do not support gun rights, a gun nut is anyone who supports gun rights (whether they own guns or not).
It's a symptom of how sick the political process is, and how easy many people find it to demonize those with whom they do not agree.
This is a great injustice. How are those VCs supposed to finance their new natural slate bathroom and wine cellar. Food stamps? Champagne dreams are being shattered right now.
I believe the rant was intended to cast aspersions on those who use the manufactured term "assault weapon," because it is meaningless in anything other than a legal sense. It is also frequently used by the media and those who are anti-gun to imply automatic fire capabilities where they do not, and never have, existed.
The use of "assault weapon" in quotations, the obvious familiarity with which rifles are actually capable of automatic fire, and the use of the term "assault rifle" without quotations all lead me to believe the above to be true, rather than the use to be made in error to indicate the attempt to make some other point.
I could be wrong though...
Hunters don't need assault rifles. I've never actually heard of someone in the US hunting with an assault rifle, though that's likely primarily because they're upwards of 5 figures to obtain and require an incredible amount of paperwork.
If you meant a semi-automatic rifle though, which is what all weapons legally classified as "assault weapons" are, then yes, there are many people who legitimately hunt with semi-automatic rifles.
So does the Internet when applied in the context of the 1st Amendment.
People who support shortcuts past the Constitution should not complain when those same shortcuts are applied against rights they personally support (like the right to privacy). There is no mention of method in any of the first 10 Amendments, and for good reason.
If you don't like it, support it being changed the legitimate way, and not through judicial or executive re-interpretation. Re-interpretation is what got us the Drug War after the abject failure of Prohibition, and is a direct result of people supporting shortcutting Constitutional protections via re-interpretation.
The problem is, everyone can find someone defining him/her as a mental case. Should we all go in a padded room?
Profiling people to institutionalize them has really broad implications. The entire legal system is based on the fact that people are responsible for their actions. Be careful before throwing that away, there is a lot more that'll change than just a few mental cases in a few padded rooms.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I have used that line as a visitor and a person without a car and it ain't as bad as that. The light rail/tram indeed does NOT connect to the airport but it DOES connect directly to the free bus service that is at the airport.
The tram has rather ample storage for bikes and the busses allow bikes to be stored on racks in front, so it is a better public transport system then exists in places like Amsterdam where you can't do this. BUT the area is HUGE and is made for cars. Roads are insanely wide and everything is spread out, so one line is hardly going to service the entire area you need to go as a resident. And getting fat Americans (they really are as fat as seen on TV) out of their gigantic cars is impossible.
It would have made more sense if they made it a tram, riding in say on the edges of the road for easy pedestrian access leaving the cars the remaining 200 meters or so in the middle of the road (they really are fucking wide) saving a LOT in construction costs. Instead they made it into a seperate track and that indeed means it doesn't really hit to many areas. Once you figured it out, it is also very very very very cheap (buy a multi-day ticket).
It was far better then I expected as a Dutch/Amsterdam person from the deep south but I can see how Americans hate it. You might actually have to walk! Going to the shops just a 10 minute walk away, my American host wanted to take the car... in beautiful dry sunny weather. WHY!!! (32 degrees celcius, in Holland when we get that maybe once a decade, the humidity is 80%) GO OUTSIDE AND ENJOY THE FUCKING NICE WEATHER AND LOOSE SOME TONS!
Oh and the metro in Amsterdam, not even the new line is. Despite the train service to the airport being rather error prone. Those in power don't use public transport so it rarely makes sense.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Meant to end with the tidbit that the new metro line being build in Amsterdam also doesn't connect to the airport. Getting a direct bus service is also rather hard.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
dear sir, i would be most pleased if you could send me a "trivial" amount of money like that referred to above. thank you.
You're yet another victim of liberal hype.
Yeah, because he's the only one to succumb to hype and stereotyping.
Having spent most of an hour staring down the muzzles of several Thompsons while holding onto my M14, I'm here to tell you that it is a much more effective "assault weapon" than the M14 - or an M15 or an M16.
How so? If I recall correctly, the Tommy gun is a sub machinegun soit fires pistol ammo. That makes it much less effective at longer ranges than an M16 or certainly M14, and also less effective against body armour and not quite so soft cover.
If you're at the point of actually staring down the barrel, then presumably almost anything would do.
I don't know how many Thompsons are currently held by private citizens in the United States.
Probably most of them are held prevately.
Funny thing, you don't hear of them being stolen, and used in criminal activity. Seems that the people who own them, keep them properly secured, and that common criminals just can't get to them.
Well, not recently at any rate. Perhaps because they look badass when coupled with a drum magazing, a fedora and spats and the latter two are really out of fashion these days, sadly.
None of the nuts want to address the real issues.
Noone seems to. The school shootings, while high profile and tragic are down in the statistical noise as far as deaths go. If only so much time, energy and money were spent on reducing contaminated food or road safety then far more lives would be saved. But that's BORING, whereas guns aren't.
Meanwhile, we continue to incarcerate people for possession of natural substances like marijuana.
Yeah, well, that's inexplicably stupid. Curious how the US is (as so often) a country of extremes in this regard. It's legal in some states at the state level, but very illegal federally. Compared to europe where it's mostly a little bit illegal and won't get you into any trouble. Very strange that only the US states seem capable of actually making the only sane logically consistent choice.
Also, "natural substances" is generally a poor argument (naturalistic fallacy). Smallpox, Ebola and Anthrax spores are a natural substance, but I'm not in favour of civillians stockpiling or indeed having any access whatsoever to any of them. I'd also be somewhat suspicious of anyone stashing large quantities of yellow cake in their back yard.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
They did this to me with student loans which when I signed the agreement were bankruptable. Then they retroactively changed the terms of my agreement, making the loans I had non-bankruptable. SCOTUS said they could do it since I wasn't going to be sent to jail over student loans.
I want a law that says anyone in any legislature state of federal from 1990 to today loses absolutely everything they now own and also gets stuck with an astronomical bill for malfeasance and/or being around the scene of the malfeasance, couching it in whatever legalistic terms we need to so that it passes constitutional muster, which, apparently isn't very hard.
Retroactive laws that take things away from people and magically transform them into lifelong debtors *on terms they never would have agreed to in the first place* are right up there with the pre-Magna Carta powers of King John.
Sorry to say that your only course of redress is to elect your own government and through your apparently unlimited legislative powers, extract your revenge.
Any law in the USA that purports to control weapons should be unconstitutional.
It specifically says arms, not weapons. I've heard it said that the time there were arms (hand held weapons including guns) and cannon.
Of course you have to infer the original meaning. Either way, cannon would have been more or less useless to a milita at the time for reasons of training and logistics required to operate and move the things, not to mention cost.
Perhaps they thought that allowing a milita to grow into a full sized regular army was not a great idea.
I'm also feel confident that the founding fathers would not intend for anyone to have access to any weapon whatsoever with knowledge of modern weapons, though you could forgive them for not anticipating nuclear tipped ICBMs.
Even without indulging in excessive sophistry, it's hard to tell the meaning of what they wrote and their intent very precisely.
That said, the mention of a milita does seem to rather strongly imlpy a credible military force of some sort. My guess they had infantry in mind, since the only other choice was cavalry which again was not within reach of irregular forces due to very extensive training being required.
Would that extend to infantry machine guns? Probably.
But then again, cunningly deployed militamen could take on cavalry as long as they didn't line up in nice little lines in open country. High speed jets didn't exist then. I wonder what they would have thought of the ability of a milita to defend itself against jets given the destructiveness and expense of the weapons required.
So it's really not quite as clear as yo make out.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So the First Amenement which, in part, grants the right of free speech, should be changed to restrict free speech via Twitter and Facebook because "how much free speech do you need?" These rights are not up for debate, they are our rights. Once you take one you have a toehold to take others. I'd say, any weapon short of fully automatic weapons should be considered legal. The term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is a stupid name since the weapons we use on combat typically are very small caliber and aren't even legal to use when hunting game since they generally aren't powerful enough to kill a deer (I'm referring to 5.56mm/0.223cal weapons). The Democrats call any weapon that looks scary an assault weapon but there are identical weapons without the heat guards on the barrel that are OK...seems like a lawmakers' knee-jerk reaction to make it look like the problem is solved.
'Bare arms' ??
If only.
There's no more discrimination there than there is by not charging California residents income tax on the income they generate from municipal bonds issued by the state of California, but going ahead and charging that tax against interest income investors derive from municipal bonds issued by other states. Which is the case.
But by making odd binds more attractive, it makes it easier for California to run up its debt, knowing that there are plenty of captive lenders on hand. Allowing a break for investors has no "plus" side for the treasury, just tax dollars that they could have gotten but didn't get. Guess it makes sense, but the retroactive idea is horrible. I'm not one that buys into all the uncertainty that republicans were espousing regarding taxes, but truly how can anyone in California (or anywhere else for that matter) feel comfortable with any financial decision - even if they spend considerable time energy and money researching it, if the government can retroactively make changes that go back to periods when your taxes have already been filed and paid?
I think there's also 30mm Gatling-type guns (maybe those are the shipboard ones).
The A-10 Warthog (aircraft) has a 30mm Gatling-type gun as its primary (anti-tank) weapon. It kicks ass. The aircraft was basically designed around carrying the gun. The pilot sits in what is bascially a titanium bathtub to protect him from ground fire. With the advent of anti-tank missiles, it's not needed the same way it used to, but it's still very, very cool.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
"Freedom" also means lawyers being free to screw your butt over anything and everything. I suppose once you get to Canada, you'll be the first one to start fucking that place up as well like you did the US. Please stay where you are. At least the rest of the world knows where you people are if you stay at home, and has the possibility to avoid you.
Those issues include identifying whackos, kooks, and nuts who are likely to commit a mass shooting. Almost always, people step forward after a shooting, to inform the media that the shooter was some kind of mental case. Family and acquaintances are generally unable to "connect" with the guy. He's strange, weird, or whatever - often a "loner".
The real issue here, is identifying such people, and getting help for them - OR, institutionalizing them, so that they most definitely CANNOT access weapons.
But, boo-hoo-hoo - it violates some kind of "rights" if we start institutionalizing mental cases.
Blame the NRA for that - they lobby for laws that prevent mental health professionals from asking about or connecting them to guns they own or have access to.
Really? Did you miss the words "well-regulated"? (yes, the meaning shifted over time). Do you believe we're not allowed to apply even the barest modicum of common sense to our laws? Did you miss the idea that 'your rights end where mine begin' which means, yes, there are consequence for if you decide you should be able to keep your guns in a pile outside your home for people to walk off with and use on their own, because, HEY, GOTTA BE UNRESTRICTED?
Just what kind of outsider are you, actually? The kind that actually lives in Texas and owns 30 different guns?
And the kind who has never heard of 'Strict Scrutiny' as described basically at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny , or rather, the part of our legal doctrine that understands that sometimes we have conflicting priorities on the same level of law - like, say, 'regulate interstate commerce' and 'Second amendment' and actually provide guidelines for how to resolve it.
Spoiler Alert: It's not "SECOND AMENDMENT ALWAYS WINS".
You're right. It's written clear as day that any citizen has the freedom to arm themselves to the teeth... as necessitated by A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
From TFA (The Fine Amendment): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This has fuckall to do with Joe Sixpack amassing a private stockpile. It's disgraceful that we've allowed gun nuts to exploit such anachronisms in our most sacred document.
News at 11.
Once you've taxed everything imaginable and had a government spending parade, it gets tricky to get more tax dollars out of people. What they really needed was the element of surprise. So...SURPRISE! You owe a shit ton of money, lol.
Point stands... the weapons of today are mass death machines that completely nullify any archaic definition of arms from the past.
So - what you're saying is that the Rule of pspahn is superior to our Supreme Court. Perhaps you need to go back and read the ENTIRE Constitution and learn what the role of the Supreme Court is, and why - when it decided we have an individual right to carry firearms for personal decision - your "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment is 100% incorrect.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How often is the LAO wrong, compared to the Governor's budget? The LAO tends to be more accurate, and errs on the conservative side of projections. Governor Brown's budget would only produce a surplus if we have sunshine and roses around the world and no one moves out of CA who would pay the new millionaire's tax. Given the public statements by Phil Mickelson, you can bet there are hundreds of other very wealthy people looking to move as well - but who won't say so publicly for fear of the scorn they'd get like Phil received...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Connecticut has a history of reaching back in time to grab more revenue. The most recent was passed in June 2011, where starting in August, employers had to collect 'back taxes' from January.
This caused issues for a lot of families living paycheck to paycheck. Some employers didn't get the memo to begin collecting in August, and didn't start until November. Imagine barely making it, having to pay for heating oil, and all of a sudden you have to make up for 10 months of income tax.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0021.htm
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/13455/state-income-tax-hike-hits-paychecks-starting-week
When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Horse feathers. If there's a slippery slope over the Bill of Rights, we've been sliding down it for a long time and I don't see enough folks up in arms (figuratively and literally) about it. Anyone who thinks their second amendment firearms will protect them against the government's tanks and aircraft is "nuts".
They came for the 1st amendment, and the 2nd amendment folks were silent.
They came for the 4th amendment, and the 2nd amendment folks were silent.
They came for the 5th amendment, and the 2nd amendment folks were silent.
They came for the 6th amendment, and the 2nd amendment folks were silent.
They came for the 10th amendment, and the 2nd amendment folks were silent.
The NRA is an industry lobbying group, like any other. They don't care about your rights, they only care about their market and profit.
(For the record, I am a licensed firearm owner, and NOT a member of the NRA.)
Check the specifications of US military assault weapons, written before and during weapons testing and procurement. The military specifies whether they want an automatic, a semi-automatic, lever action, bolt action, pump action, or even a single shot weapon.
Historically, any and all weapons have been readily available for resale to the civilian population, except full auto capable weapons. Full auto were available during much of the prohibition era, then they were pretty much outlawed. Even then, semi-auto weapons were still readily available to the civilian population, as were any other military surplus small arms. My first hunting rifles were M1's, a bolt action rifle with a 5 round capacity - 6 rounds if you were dumb enough to keep a round in the chamber.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Most people would call a full-auto M16 an assault rifle.
That's the point. "Assault rifle" has a specific definition, being a selectable semi-/full-auto shoulder arm firing a rifle-caliber round; a selectable semi-/full-auto shoulder arm firing pistol rounds is a submachine gun, and a selectable semi-/full-auto handgun is a machine pistol. "Assault weapon" is an invention of the media, defined as "any semi-automatic weapon that looks evil by dint of possessing one or more cosmetic aspects of a military weapon, these cosmetic features including, but not limited to, bayonet fittings, bipod attachments, pistol grips on a shoulder arm, removable box magazines, flash hiders, or any other characteristic that we deem to be sufficiently 'icky', making them suitable for conflating with actual military weapons when fanning public fears about gun violence."
It isn't a dirty word and it should be allowed in many cases. Like this one.
I have a few friends that got hit with the retroactive (facebook) tax in California and they are leaving as well. They arent moving over taxes, just (like myself) they would rather their time, money and effort go towards a community that is better aligned with their beliefs.
Anyone who quotes that last part is tool.
Whoops.
I will be the first to admit, I know nothing about child pornography. But if you are correct, that probably is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. I say probably, I am not an attorney,
So as a constitutionalist, I will not ask the government to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The constitution is a simple and elegant document that limits the powers of our government, I accept that as the rules I have agreed to live under.
Does this mean I am helpless to try and stop child pornography, or anything else I object to? I think not. If the only solution I can see, to address a problem, is to ask my government to pass a law, and enforce it, then I believe I am not meeting my responsibilities a human being. I am free to use my honor, my wealth, my time, and my life to work to end child pornography (for example), I believe I should not ask someone else to do it for me, but I can recruit other like minded individuals, I believe this is what the writers of the constitution intended, they understood that the capacity of individuals, unrestricted by government, to make the world a better place, was the correct choice, I think their experiment has more success then failure so far, and I am willing to continue to follow their example.
Look to the article that began this discussion, this is an example of a government out of control, the people of California, have ceded so much of their responsibility to the government as to make this discussion even necessary. 30-50% if my income is claimed by my governments in various form of taxes. Too many hours of my life are devoted to monitoring, and trying to suggest solutions to, my elected representatives.
I am willing to pledge my honor, treasure, time and my life to try to change this, in the hope that at a time in the future, I will not have to live under this burden of government, nor will the people that come after me.
Really? Did you miss the words "well-regulated"? (yes, the meaning shifted over time). Do you believe we're not allowed to apply even the barest modicum of common sense to our laws? Did you miss the idea that 'your rights end where mine begin' which means, yes, there are consequence for if you decide you should be able to keep your guns in a pile outside your home for people to walk off with and use on their own, because, HEY, GOTTA BE UNRESTRICTED?
It's come to be a technical usage that most people don't recognize any more, but when you 'regulate' a firearm, you are adjusting the sights so that the bullet (or shot, in the case of shotguns) go where the sights are pointing. A 'well-regulated' militia is one that is trained well enough to be able to hit what they are aiming at. It's also irrelevant, because the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; all of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a justification clause; it explains why the operative clause is necessary, but it is not itself operative.
Just as a random bit of trivia, in Texas, a state which has been characterized as 'gun-happy', it is illegal to hunt deer with an M-16 assault rifle.
Not because it's a fully-automatic weapon. Because it's not powerful enough; a hunter with an M-16 would not be able to reliably kill a deer they shot, causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the deer.
If we defined "arms" as those tools available at the time, then we could define the "arms" of today as something completely different and not valid under the 2nd Amendment. Do you need a trebuchet? Maybe a large vat of hot oil? Where does "firearm" end and "mass death machine" begin?
"Arms", for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, are weapons that can be expected to be carried by a common soldier. Which could reasonably cover, say, a LAW or a grenade launcher, but not artillery, tanks, or combat aircraft.
If we were to take your argument to its logical extension and apply "available at the time" as a limit to other protected rights, then 'freedom of speech' would apply only to vocal speech not utilizing any mechanical or electronic amplification or transmission, and written material created either longhand with a dip pen or via a single-sheet hand-cranked printing press (as in this image) using hand-set individual type. The high-speed printing presses used by publishers, radio and television broadcasts, the Internet, telephone systems, telegraphs -- all of these could be censored at will by the government.
to destroy the People's Republic of Kaliforniaistan. The Libtards and their tax policies are going to replicate their success of Detroit across the entire state.
I need a "50mm machine gun" in the same way Rosa Parks needed to ride in the front of that bus, asshole.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Militia have never stood toe to toe with standing armies. What the militia can do is disrupt supply lines and render all that fancy military equipment useless. When your billion dollar jet fighters and tanks are out of fuel and your soldiers are hungry because a bunch of rebels killed the supply truck drivers, it makes it awfully hard to fight a war.
No problem. However, we do require you to post a deposit of $97.7B for a period of at least one year.
Investors, entrepreneurs, and even the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit are up in arms about the FTB's notice
*shrug*
Be careful what you wish for. I feel bad for the investors that invested by one set of rules, and will now be retroactively taxed by another, but I won't shed a single tear for the jerks who brought the lawsuit and killed the tax break and are now going to have to cough up. Serves them right. They should have thought of that before trying to get the tax break nixed.
It would be a tragedy if you were to undermine your rule of law and slide into becoming a police state by subverting your constitution.
That ship has sailed, and gun control is just one aspect of it. Here's another example:
During the Civil Rights era, Whites committing crimes against Blacks were getting off free in jury trials. Juries understood that they had the power to nullify laws, and they used it.
The proper response? Legislation or if necessary an amendment specifying that nullification could not be used for some crimes. It could have been a short list. Perhaps murder, rape and battery would have been exempt, leaving juries free to nullify other laws with which they didn't agree such as 2 years for smoking a joint.
The actual response? Judges lying to jurors, telling them there's no such thing as nullification, and/or anybody who mentions it being disqualified for jury duty. See also, plea bargaining in which defendants are coerced into admitting guilt in order to avoid ridiculous jail time. Being tried by a jury of your peers? It almost never happens now.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So anyone that is a by strange or a loner will get held for mental review ?
Quite correct. .223 rounds aren't designed to kill, they're designed to wound. It keeps battlefield fatalities down and results in more than one soldier being removed from action in order to care for a wounded comrade.
That doesn't stop people from being scared to death of them and treating them like the bogeyman.
I'm not sure who you've talked to, but to everyone I've heard from who do not support gun rights, a gun nut is anyone who supports gun rights (whether they own guns or not).
It depends on precisely which "gun rights" you're talking about. IIRC, the majority of gun owners were in favor of the badly named assault weapons ban; whatever you think about that, I argue that it would be unreasonable to call such people "gun nuts".
But I do agree that gun ownership has an image problem. Part of the problem is that there really is no advocacy group for gun owners. The NRA is the closest thing there is, and it consistently and predictably campaigns against the interests of gun owners if it would hurt the interests of gun manufacturers.
It's a symptom of how sick the political process is, and how easy many people find it to demonize those with whom they do not agree.
Indeed. Of course, it goes both ways. The "Obama is going to try to get your guns" rhetoric doesn't exactly help.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
They could simply have made a proper democracy which has institutionalized revolutions using something close to free-and-fair elections. Many countries undergo bloodless revolutions regularly. Opportunities of this are presented every 4/5/6 years, and even mid-term in case of legally defined crises. The "government" even pays for such revolutions.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
My point wasn't that private individuals should have the weaponry to stand up to the army. Personally, I am conflicted on that argument. I am anti-authoritarian, but some people I wouldn't trust with nerf gun.
My main point was that the correct way to restrict weapons is to change the second amendment, not pretend it doesn't exist.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
I believe that it is a great thing when people understand the things they talk about.
Just pointing that out as a general rule. I am in no way insinuating that it applies in in way to the statement that you just made.
In fact I would go as far as to state that it in fact does not in the slightest apply to your statement.