Maggie's Farm

RE Woodpile:

I don't call him simple, I'd call his position childish, except I know he knows he's pimping an asshat-grade idea to the simple which makes him a lying fraud.

"ol' reamus" has no respect for the Constitution, he promotes his personal idea of a fantasy that encourages a total disrespect for constitutional processes that have been in place since early in the Republic.

ProTip 1: no constitutional right is absolute. none of them. how a private constitutional right like the second amendment is balanced against public interest a matter that appears to be well above ol' reamus's mental paygrade, but it exists.

ProTip 2: if you know how this balancing process works, you can explain, as a sane adult, why gun laws barring private ownership of a 30mm chain gun are constitutional while a $1 tax on every .22 cartridge are not; i.e., you can participate in persuasive debate and not sound like ol' jackass.

here are basic examples of how public interest vs private rights work.

first look at how important is the right being regulated. start with bag limits for California condors. condor hunting is not a constitutionally identified right, its more of an economic issue. so a law that regulates hunting of condors will be constitutional if there's a reasonable connection between the law and the public interest, which is saving condors.

on the other hand, consider a law that bans ownership of 25mm autocannons. since the right to bear arms is an extremely important private right, the public interest has to be extremely strong. so line up the reasons for and against.

pro: they're cool and who doesn't like to blow up pumpkins in the desert? there are probably other reasons why individuals should own one, but I can't think of any.

con: the public interest is public safety. autocannons are extremely destructive, have only military uses, could and probably would be widely used by bank robbers and terrorists if easily available. they're not analogous to muskets in the same way that constitutionally protected AR-15s are.

so the law meets a compelling state interest (public safety) that only minimally affects the overall second amendment right to bear arms. even though the balance is heavily weighted towards the second amendment, the public interest is weighty enough to tip the scales. note that you can still own full auto Browning Machine Rifles, even auto versions of the AR-15. this law would be constitutional.

how about a dollar tax on .22 LRs? the proposed law falls the balancing test, because "reasonable" isn't enough. in fact, you should point out that a law that, under the guise of trying to regulate, actually has the effect of eradicating the constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. demoncraps did this to potential Black voters by imposing poll taxes, property requirements and literacy tests in the 20th century, these were not constitutional under civil rights law.