The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
But water was not a tool specifically designed to kill/hurt people, like guns were. BIG difference.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this statement, "specifically designed to kill/hurt people". Not to sound like Tony Stark here, but you do realize that the very technology that allows you to post that to the world was developed by the military to help kill/hurt people? The airplane you fly has design components (jet engines, navigation systems, even the swept wing) developed specifically for machines designed to hurt/kill people. Rockets and then missiles were developed to annihilate entire countries, but have been used to create the world-wide communications that we enjoy today. Are these technologies evil as well? Or only when the sum of those parts make a weapon?

Throughout history, military technology has been adapted to the civilian world with great success. Yes, even in the case of the gun. It allowed man to gather greater amounts of game and defend against larger predators. Which in turn led to greater population numbers on the frontiers of the known world, expanding and filling in the corners of the map. It later allowed the oppressed to throw off their overlords and establish governments which represented the people. Firearms continue to guard the truly free from governments that would strip them of their rights so that those people were reliant on the government for one of the most basic of human needs...security. For the last 400 years, firearms have helped to create the world as we know it, both good and bad. But I, and those who believe in gun rights, believe that the good that can be done with firearms far outweighs the bad.

It doesn't matter what something was designed to do. It matters what it can do. And in the case of modern firearms, they can be adapted to do a great many things aside from kill people. Target shooting for fun, or to inspire confidence. Hunting to provide food that isn't laced with all sorts of genetically altered substances. An audible signal that can be heard for far greater distances than a whistle or the human voice to affect the rescue of someone lost in the wilderness, while defending that person from the wilderness from which we've become so far removed.

Open your mind to the possibility that human intent can change the most non-lethal of objects into incredibly lethal tools. As has been said several times in this, and all the other threads on the subject, to ban any gun or bullet based on its method of operation is to simply stick one's head in the sand and ignore the problem of a society which is crumbling under the weight of the greatness of its former self that was built by...you guessed it. GUNS.
 
Seggy said:
There has been so much pontification about 'mental health' from your side of the argument, so with that in mind, we can use the above monies to bolster mental health treatment and other health treatment for Americans. How does the above work for y'all?
Click to expand...

So is the objective to generate money for mental health care/treatment, or to create high barriers to firearms ownership? Is the long term objective to create such high barriers that legal ownership eventually goes away? Do you also propose that citizens who are unable to pay the tax be forced to cede ownership of their personally owned firearms to the state (for destruction?)?

Most importantly, how would levying an enormous tax on law-abiding firearms owners reduce violence committed with firearms? Do you assume that once legal firearms are taken out of circulation that the problem would go away?

Either way, so long as the poll tax is still unconstitutional, I have a hard time believing that any other tax required to exercise an enumerated right would be constitutional (and suffrage isn't even a right listed in the Bill of Rights!). We can't even require someone who votes to show ID and prove that they're an American citizen and therefore entitled to vote (on the basis that it is too expensive/too inconvenient for the poor to obtain such IDs) -- so how would it possibly be constitutional that those same folks that are too poor to get an ID are henceforth WAY too poor to afford to jump through the government's barriers to exercise their right to arms?
 
Seggy said:
To begin here is what we can do...

-If you want to buy a gun there is a mandatory six month wait unless you pay a $5000 tax per gun to get it earlier provided you have completed an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-As a said an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-For every gun related death per year, so say there are 10,000 gun related deaths per year in America gun owners are expected to pay a dollar per death on their yearly income taxes, so $10,000. This is in addition to a yearly tax of $1000 per gun one owns

-Gun dealers must pay a $5000 tax per gun they sell as well. This is in addition to a one time fee of $500,000 to be allowed to sell guns per store. So Walmart or Dick's Sporting Goods would need to pay that for every store they want to sell guns.

-Yearly gun 'recurrent' classes that are between 2-3 days long that promote safety. If you want to go to more than one a year, you can get up to a $5000 rebate on the above new taxes

-If a gun dealer has more than three guns per every five years used in a violent crime, they lose the right to sell guns for a period of 5 years and then need to pay the $500,000 fee again PLUS an additional $2,000,000 reapplication fee.

-The above monies would be used to bolster law enforcement to suppress the black market on fire arms.


There has been so much pontification about 'mental health' from your side of the argument, so with that in mind, we can use the above monies to bolster mental health treatment and other health treatment for Americans. How does the above work for y'all?
Click to expand...
Your funny!
 
thevideographer said:
I hope nobody here actually thinks that there will be a "gun grab".
Click to expand...

You are right on this one -- it is one of the things that frustrates me with the firearms enthusiast forums I read and participate in. There are a whole lotta people who actually do legitimately fear that our government will pass a law and will be rolling through their neighborhoods door-to-door confiscating their firearms. There is absolutely NO chance of that happening right now. It just shows a level of ignorance and paranoia that is frankly pretty embarrassing to even be associated with as a firearms owner.

The problem is, none of us know what will happen politically and socially over the next, say 100 or 150 years. There is no guarantee that such an evolution of law in this country won't get to that point, and in fact a whole bunch of evidence in the history of organized civilization that says it will probably happen to some extent at some time in the future. There is a big segment of the US population, including elected representatives, who would be perfectly happy to have this happen tomorrow if there were legal authorization for it.
 
thevideographer said:
I hope nobody here actually thinks that there will be a "gun grab". You have to truly be an idiot to think that will happen in a country with more guns than people. Stricter gun laws, perhaps. Will they help? Probably not much. Should we be trying whatever we can to stop the next class of children from being shot? Definitely. It's rather frightening to me that people think they have such a great duty to protect freedom and keep the federal government at bay, which is a total fantasy, but forget about the freedom of everybody else to not get shot at school.

I'd like to say once again, I don't think an AWB is a good solution and I don't think it will help. But the attitude of gun enthusiasts/gun nuts is much more angering to me than than the imaginary government oppression that might come if everybody doesn't have an AR15.
Click to expand...
Shack!
 
thevideographer said:
I hope nobody here actually thinks that there will be a "gun grab". You have to truly be an idiot to think that will happen in a country with more guns than people. Stricter gun laws, perhaps. Will they help? Probably not much. Should we be trying whatever we can to stop the next class of children from being shot? Definitely. It's rather frightening to me that people think they have such a great duty to protect freedom and keep the federal government at bay, which is a total fantasy, but forget about the freedom of everybody else to not get shot at school.

I'd like to say once again, I don't think an AWB is a good solution and I don't think it will help. But the attitude of gun enthusiasts/gun nuts is much more angering to me than than the imaginary government oppression that might come if everybody doesn't have an AR15.
Click to expand...
You can do way more damage, incite a lot more fear, hell, stop the progress of an army with a nice bolt action rifle. No AR15 needed.
 
Seggy were those arbitrary numbers or was there a specific science to how you came up with them? Also, I'm curious to how that would specifically prevent future mass shootings, or even shootings in general.
 
Hacker15e said:
You are right on this one -- it is one of the things that frustrates me with the firearms enthusiast forums I read and participate in. There are a whole lotta people who actually do legitimately fear that our government will pass a law and will be rolling through their neighborhoods door-to-door confiscating their firearms. There is absolutely NO chance of that happening right now. It just shows a level of ignorance and paranoia that is frankly pretty embarrassing to even be associated with as a firearms owner.
Click to expand...
15 years ago I might have agreed with all of that. I hope you are right of course. But now, after seeing the way that 911 has frightened Americans into passively surrendering so many of their rights and freedoms, I'm not absolutely sure of anything anymore.

Hacker15e said:
The problem is, none of us know what will happen politically and socially over the next, say 100 or 150 years. There is no guarantee that such an evolution of law in this country won't get to that point, and in fact a whole bunch of evidence in the history of organized civilization that says it will probably happen to some extent at some time in the future. There is a big segment of the US population, including elected representatives, who would be perfectly happy to have this happen tomorrow if there were legal authorization for it.
Click to expand...

How about 10-15 years? Or the next major "terrorist" attack/series of school shootings. Whichever comes first.
.
.
 
Seggy said:
To begin here is what we can do...

-If you want to buy a gun there is a mandatory six month wait unless you pay a $5000 tax per gun to get it earlier provided you have completed an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-As a said an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-For every gun related death per year, so say there are 10,000 gun related deaths per year in America gun owners are expected to pay a dollar per death on their yearly income taxes, so $10,000. This is in addition to a yearly tax of $1000 per gun one owns

-Gun dealers must pay a $5000 tax per gun they sell as well. This is in addition to a one time fee of $500,000 to be allowed to sell guns per store. So Walmart or Dick's Sporting Goods would need to pay that for every store they want to sell guns.

-Yearly gun 'recurrent' classes that are between 2-3 days long that promote safety. If you want to go to more than one a year, you can get up to a $5000 rebate on the above new taxes

-If a gun dealer has more than three guns per every five years used in a violent crime, they lose the right to sell guns for a period of 5 years and then need to pay the $500,000 fee again PLUS an additional $2,000,000 reapplication fee.

-The above monies would be used to bolster law enforcement to suppress the black market on fire arms.


There has been so much pontification about 'mental health' from your side of the argument, so with that in mind, we can use the above monies to bolster mental health treatment and other health treatment for Americans. How does the above work for y'all?
Click to expand...

This has got to be one of the funniest posts I've ever read on any forum, anywhere!
 
Seggy said:
To begin here is what we can do...

-If you want to buy a gun there is a mandatory six month wait unless you pay a $5000 tax per gun to get it earlier provided you have completed an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-As a said an in depth back ground check that includes a mental health exam

-For every gun related death per year, so say there are 10,000 gun related deaths per year in America gun owners are expected to pay a dollar per death on their yearly income taxes, so $10,000. This is in addition to a yearly tax of $1000 per gun one owns

-Gun dealers must pay a $5000 tax per gun they sell as well. This is in addition to a one time fee of $500,000 to be allowed to sell guns per store. So Walmart or Dick's Sporting Goods would need to pay that for every store they want to sell guns.

-Yearly gun 'recurrent' classes that are between 2-3 days long that promote safety. If you want to go to more than one a year, you can get up to a $5000 rebate on the above new taxes

-If a gun dealer has more than three guns per every five years used in a violent crime, they lose the right to sell guns for a period of 5 years and then need to pay the $500,000 fee again PLUS an additional $2,000,000 reapplication fee.

-The above monies would be used to bolster law enforcement to suppress the black market on fire arms.


There has been so much pontification about 'mental health' from your side of the argument, so with that in mind, we can use the above monies to bolster mental health treatment and other health treatment for Americans. How does the above work for y'all?
Click to expand...

This is the most asinine and arbitrary thing I've ever read. This also favors wealthy white people and isn't an egalitarian solution to the problems you've previously listed why also creating a whole host of regulatory and economically induced problems which would be difficult to enforce. Also, why should we punish gun retailers for things their customers do? You don't charge car dealerships when a drunk-driver runs over a kid, hell, you don't revoke a liquor license if someone drives home drunk and gets caught. Indeed, why should I be taxed for the irresponsibility of others, if I use my firearms responsibly, it isn't right to tax me because others are idiots. Further, how do you plan on figuring out who has firearms (if anyone asks under this system I sure as hell wouldn't admit to having any)? Door to door tallies? "Sorry sir, not a single gun here, no you cannot come in." So unless you plan on kicking in doors to get gun counts, this wouldn't do anything at all, all it would do is punish people for other people's stupidity. How about this: If you shoot someone with a firearm, you are punished for it under the full extent of the law - oh wait we already do this.
 
ppragman said:
, hell, you don't revoke a liquor license if someone drives home drunk and gets caught.
Click to expand...

As a sidenote, this actually has happened with some club/bar establishments here in AZ, but I can't remember the outcome of it. It's wrong, IMO, but weirdly has occurred.
 
MikeD said:
As a sidenote, this actually has happened with some club/bar establishments here in AZ, but I can't remember the outcome of it. It's wrong, IMO, but weirdly has occurred.
Click to expand...
ppragman said:
How...what?! Wha......?!
Click to expand...
It has happened in multiple states. The logic goes that the bartenders are not supposed to serve intoxicated patrons. The bar employs the bartenders so therefore the bar is responsible. After multiple occurrences of DUI/DWI arrests for people drinking at that bar, the regulating body whether it be a city, town, etc revokes the liquor license and effectively puts them out of business.
 
exneophyte said:
It has happened in multiple states. The logic goes that the bartenders are not supposed to serve intoxicated patrons. The bar employs the bartenders so therefore the bar is responsible. After multiple occurrences of DUI/DWI arrests for people drinking at that bar, the regulating body whether it be a city, town, etc revokes the liquor license and effectively puts them out of business.
Click to expand...

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of happening (not your post, the concept of this). I've been damn drunk before in my life, done all sorts of humiliating and ignorant things while under the influence of alcohol, but realistically, if you're dumb enough to drive while you're blasted out of your mind, that's not the bar's fault - that's your fault and you and only you deserve to suffer the consequences therein.
 
exneophyte said:
It has happened in multiple states. The logic goes that the bartenders are not supposed to serve intoxicated patrons. The bar employs the bartenders so therefore the bar is responsible. After multiple occurrences of DUI/DWI arrests for people drinking at that bar, the regulating body whether it be a city, town, etc revokes the liquor license and effectively puts them out of business.
Click to expand...

Yet another example where American society has de-emphasized personal responsibility and transferred the responsibility to someone or something else.

It is mind blowing.

Let's restore the value of personal responsibility in life, and punish and praise appropriately.
 
Qutch said:
15 years ago I might have agreed with all of that. I hope you are right of course. But now, after seeing the way that 911 has frightened Americans into passively surrendering so many of their rights and freedoms, I'm not absolutely sure of anything anymore.



How about 10-15 years? Or the next major "terrorist" attack/series of school shootings. Whichever comes first.
.
.
Click to expand...

Thank you! The patriot act is evidence enough that constitutional rights can and will be dissolved IMMEDIATELY if they scare people enough.

This idea of being perfectly safe, where does it come from? The only way to be in absolutely no danger at any time is to already be dead. People are so afraid of death that they will give up living to feel safe from it.
 
Hacker15e said:
Yet another example where American society has de-emphasized personal responsibility and transferred the responsibility to someone or something else.

It is mind blowing.

Let's restore the value of personal responsibility in life, and punish and praise appropriately.
Click to expand...
I agree whole heartedly with you and ppragman...the issue is personal responsibility. Unfortunately, I've also spoken with multiple bar owners who choose to carry HUGE liability policies (with big premiums) in case one of their patrons drives home drunk and kills someone because they know they are getting sued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top