Colo. sheriff refuses to enforce gun-control bills

Yes, I understand how poll taxes were found to violate the equal protection clause.

It's not applicable to the subject we're discussing. State governments have the authority to tax purchases, this is nothing new or unconstitutional. Voting is not a purchase.

Oh, what a surprise.

Second amendment nutters don't even know what 'bear arms' means.

NOOKYULURR BOOOMBS SHOULD BE ALLOWED, THEN!!!

The founding fathers were big on hunting, taxidermy, and furry militias.

So you have nothing and you're pulling a garamet. You have been advocating for a limit on magazine size for all of this thread, with your questions angled toward that end, including the question you ask directly below.

Because there shouldn't be any limits, period.

Exactly, you want to limit rights you don't agree with more than the ones you agree with, whereas I treat them all more or less equally.

Don't you project onto me.

You aren't helping me to pay for my guns.

That case also upholds the government's ability to impose taxes on guns (e.g. charging gun buyers for a background check) and to regulate guns (e.g. magazine limits). It established that there is a line as to what is considered reasonable and unreasonable for a private citizen to own. Thus this Colorado Sheriff is not acting based on constitutionality, but rather based on his own politics and/or the limits of his department. If the former, boot his ass to the curb. If the latter, an auditing of his department may be needed.

So then you'd have no problem pointing to any post where I stated that I support a limit on magazine sizes? I've questioned the argument that limiting magazine sizes is unconstitutional (because I don't think it is), not that I support Colorado's bill to limit the magazine size to 15 rounds.

But why? If the number of bullets does not matter, why does it matter if a limit is imposed? How does that violate the 2nd Amendment? Your argument is essentially "there should not be a limit because there should not be a limit" which isn't good enough.

I don't view unrestricted access to weaponry a right, just as I don't view unrestricted free speech as a right. I view regulated access to firearms as a right, in accordance to the text and court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

You've been deflecting for most of the thread, and you've been unable/unwilling to answer many straightforward questions.

Not at all. Do you seriously not recognize that money changing hands is taxable by the government?

OK, so why should a Colorado citizen who doesn't own guns pay for another Colorado citizen to purchase guns via taxes? That's exactly the way it's setup right now without this bill. Why should their money subsidize gun buyers?

Miller v US was 1939. Look it up. I'll wait.

And it says 'weapons in common usage' - however, it was upholding a law that banned tommy guns - which were definitely in common usage at the time.

Indeed, it explicitly denotes 'common use' as common military use in the furtherance of the creation of an effective, 'well regulated' militia.

So answer me again - why is it that there's specific laws regulating military equipment? Certainly would not a grenade launcher or M60 be considered 'regular' military equipment?

But we do limit these things. Some we ban outright.

So hard to take Miller at its word when it specifically broke its own guidelines.

Furthermore, Miller didn't definitively answer even this legal case - it was remanded back to federal court for further proceedings. As Miller died shortly thereafter, these proceedings never took place.

So we have military equipment in common usage banned or regulated that constitutes 'arms' - weapons born by an individual combatant, as opposed to ordinanance.

You go on to say so directly after this. You are arguing in favor of something from the standpoint of actually being in favor of it, and you admit as much yourself.

If you want to argue that it doesn't matter and therefore the number should be limited, you're making an extremely flawed argument that can be easily flipped around to be that if it doesn't matter, why are you in favor of having a limit? You are the one arguing in favor, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that there is exceptional public harm if what you propose is not put into effect.

See above - it's not on me to prove the negative, you must make your case for the additional legislation. At best this is a pointless, paternalistic law, and at worst it limits the ability to bear arms, which frankly is the stated goal.

Big fan of hate speech laws then, right? All you're doing by making such an argument is showing that you are only in favor of rights you agree with, so making my point for me.

Considering the actual findings by courts, your view is still wrong because you insist on trying to pile on more limitations when courts have already found such limitations to be pointless, unreasonable, or unconstitutional.

Wrong. You have been the one trying to play garamet here. I have been nothing but straightforward and direct.

It's already being taxed - or did you forget about the sales tax?

They aren't. You seem to keep missing that point. The gun is purchased by the buyer, who also pays an additional amount in the form of sales tax, usually at local and state levels together. This background check is something else, something imposed by the government, and something it has to make sure is not a limitation on the exercise of an individual's rights. Which is why the state cannot require a state-issued ID to exercise the right to vote, because that costs money and could act to limit an individual's right to vote.

Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Disagreeing with one side of an issue does not equate with agreeing with the opposite side of the issue. Believe it or not, there can be more than two views on a single issue. One can think limiting magazine sizes is constitutional but not agree that limiting magazine sizes to 15 should be done.

I made no such argument, I've only been questioning you why you think magazine sizes should be limitless, and you have now spent several pages dancing around that question.

I don't think magazine size limits are unconstitutional because it doesn't decrease one's ability to own a firearm, only how much ammunition is within the firearm at any given time. You have argued that size limits are unconstitutional and have failed to show why that is so.

Not at all. I'm demonstrating to you that every one of our rights has its limits, but you seem to think that only gun rights should be limitless. If anything, you are giving special treatment to a pet hobby rather than recognizing that every right does indeed have limits.

As discussed on this page, the courts have already found that reasonable regulation of firearms is constitutional. I'm not insisting on piling on additional limitations, you're pulling that completely from your ass.

Nearly every one of your posts, you have countered with "so what about this unrelated topic, huh?" You did so in this very post with your comment about hate speech laws. You have gone beyond deflecting and dancing around the issue to outright floundering in an attempt to not actually argue and defend your opinions.

Right, and the state government has the authority to increase or decrease that tax.

And where does the government get the money to pay for a background check, if not the taxpayer? Keep in mind that background checks are already in place in Colorado and taxpayers are footing the bill. The proposed legislation instead charges the purchaser of the gun for their background check. You have already agreed that the government issues sales taxes (and even additional taxes for certain products), this is simply an extension of that.

And Demiurge proves once again that he has gone FULL RETARD! YAY!

(Miller vs. US was about sawed off shotguns, not Tommy Guns.)

An unlimited magazine size is indeed laughable, as it would violate the laws of physics. Unless somebody's invented a gun that's able to make use of Hammerspace.

I have unlimited magazine size when I play Unreal Tournement.

Still trying to find the cheat code on my RL .45.

Garamet II: Electric Boogaloo

When never. Need is never a relevant factor in recognizing natural rights. Never.

We are Amerians why should we not have as many bullets in our guns as we can load.

No seriously why shouldn't we? It is the legitimate question that has to be asked and answered well in order to put restrictions on my freedoms.

Becuz 0.01% of you might be bad and shoot someone you're not suppose to.

Because it makes an increasingly corrupt Federal government nervous?

What's the difference between three huge dicks and a joke?

American women can't take a joke.

So, Megatron is just like an American woman?

What did BearTM say when he got to the ball?

Nothing. He gagged!

True. But I was talking seriously and not at a comedy show.

By the way I may have hit the wrong button and reported that post because of my phone.