Freedom is a beautiful thing, but a violent gun culture where you might get mowed down going to the grocery store, or loose your kids when you send them off to school.....that crap has got to stop.
No one on this thread has ever remotely suggested they wanted to see people mowed down getting groceries or to see kids killed at school and I absolutely resent the inference. Some of you sicken me, do you have no shame to suggest it? How about we do something like, say, not let crazy people wander about our society, or perhaps remove or imprison the criminal element that use weapons to kill for their on purposes but I will not support anything that even remotely limits my liberty when I am not the problem. Why don't we do something about the real problem?
No one on this thread has ever remotely suggested they wanted to see people mowed down getting groceries or to see kids killed at school and I absolutely resent the inference. Some of you sicken me, do you have no shame to suggest it? How about we do something like, say, not let crazy people wander about our society, or perhaps remove or imprison the criminal element that use weapons to kill for their on purposes but I will not support anything that even remotely limits my liberty when I am not the problem. Why don't we do something about the real problem?
Nobody wants to see these things happen, but they are happening, and it is time to stop this madness. Nobody has suggested that anyone, either on this forum, or anywhere else, wants to see these things happen. But the fact remains that people are being murdered in random mass kilings by people who use military weapons for that purpose. If we are to preserve our civil society, it is time to de-militarize. Enough is Enough. I would also sugest that you sicken yourself, because you are not thinking clearly about what has been said and why.
We already have the world's largest prison population, and treatment and care for the mentally ill is expensive. Personally, I would love to see a hefty tax slapped on the sale of both guns and ammo specifically for that purpose. That would be a fiscally responsible approach, I think. Additionally, I would suggest that those who ignore the reality of the problem and say that they will not support anything that "remotely limits my liberty" either wants the problem to be solved magically, by somebody else with little or no effort from them, or they do not want a solution, which is a nhilistic view of the situation.
the fact remains that people are being murdered in random mass kilings by people who use military weapons for that purpose. If we are to preserve our civil society, it is time to de-militarize.
this is a weak argument. people are killing other people without guns as well. they just dont get reported on. one of the big ones in recent history was a man who killed his wife and kids with a crossbow and then went on a stabbing spree. one of the largest school killings ever was a guy that used explosives.
id doesnt get reported. it doesnt fit the anti-gun agenda. the jury is still out on if those statements are related. not sure i can sport the tinfoil hat and still look good.
the other "fact that still remains" is that a criminal will get his hands on a gun, a knife, a bomb, a bludgeoning weapon, poison, etc and use them to kill others no matter what the laws are. ...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession. it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated. i will not give up my rights to do anything just because somebody else refuses to act civil.
JDH:
We already have the world's largest prison population
this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument.
JDH:
and treatment and care for the mentally ill is expensive. Personally, I would love to see a hefty tax slapped on the sale of both guns and ammo specifically for that purpose. That would be a fiscally responsible approach, I think. Additionally, I would suggest that those who ignore the reality of the problem and say that they will not support anything that "remotely limits my liberty" do not want a solution, they want the problem to be solved magically, by somebody else, with little or no effort from them.
the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be.
and i am not expecting a "magic solution." to suggest that i am or that others are is borderline insulting and absolutely condescending. i am simply saying that many of the gun control measures being proposed are measures that i am against.
there are solutions out there, but just because people are not screaming for those other solutions does not mean that we must go forward with a bad idea simply because "something must be done. "
you do bring up an very good point that i dont wanna overlook and that is the price of mental health care is freakin crazy.
i guess the gist of my minor rant here is that banning some guns is a simple solution that wont work for a very complex problem that has no easy solution.
im not sure ill be hitting on this thread again because it seems that many of us are beating a dead horse here-- rehashing many of the same old arguments to the point of frustration while not convincing anyone to agree. however, this has been an interesting read.
No one on this thread has ever remotely suggested they wanted to see people mowed down getting groceries or to see kids killed at school and I absolutely resent the inference. Some of you sicken me, do you have no shame to suggest it? How about we do something like, say, not let crazy people wander about our society, or perhaps remove or imprison the criminal element that use weapons to kill for their on purposes but I will not support anything that even remotely limits my liberty when I am not the problem. Why don't we do something about the real problem?
There was no inference of that at all, on the contrary he was saying he wants instances like that to never happen again and so was I. Dont let you personal defenses cloud your reading of a persons opinion please.
the fact remains that people are being murdered in random mass kilings by people who use military weapons for that purpose. If we are to preserve our civil society, it is time to de-militarize.
this is a weak argument. people are killing other people without guns as well. they just dont get reported on. one of the big ones in recent history was a man who killed his wife and kids with a crossbow and then went on a stabbing spree. one of the largest school killings ever was a guy that used explosives.
id doesnt get reported. it doesnt fit the anti-gun agenda. the jury is still out on if those statements are related. not sure i can sport the tinfoil hat and still look good.
the other "fact that still remains" is that a criminal will get his hands on a gun, a knife, a bomb, a bludgeoning weapon, poison, etc and use them to kill others no matter what the laws are. ...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession. it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated. i will not give up my rights to do anything just because somebody else refuses to act civil.
JDH:
We already have the world's largest prison population
this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument.
JDH:
and treatment and care for the mentally ill is expensive. Personally, I would love to see a hefty tax slapped on the sale of both guns and ammo specifically for that purpose. That would be a fiscally responsible approach, I think. Additionally, I would suggest that those who ignore the reality of the problem and say that they will not support anything that "remotely limits my liberty" do not want a solution, they want the problem to be solved magically, by somebody else, with little or no effort from them.
the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be.
and i am not expecting a "magic solution." to suggest that i am or that others are is borderline insulting and absolutely condescending. i am simply saying that many of the gun control measures being proposed are measures that i am against.
there are solutions out there, but just because people are not screaming for those other solutions does not mean that we must go forward with a bad idea simply because "something must be done. "
you do bring up an very good point that i dont wanna overlook and that is the price of mental health care is freakin crazy.
i guess the gist of my minor rant here is that banning some guns is a simple solution that wont work for a very complex problem that has no easy solution.
im not sure ill be hitting on this thread again because it seems that many of us are beating a dead horse here-- rehashing many of the same old arguments to the point of frustration while not convincing anyone to agree. however, this has been an interesting read.
"...the other "fact that still remains" is that a criminal will get his hands on a gun, a knife, a bomb, a bludgeoning weapon, poison, etc and use them to kill others no matter what the laws are. ...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession. it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. According to this logic, there should be no laws at all because criminals will always find a way around them.
"...this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument. ..."
That's exactly why we have the worlds largest prison population, however that doesn't change the fact of the matter, and these prisons are costing the taxpayers a lot of money. If we're going to have this gulag, I'd much rather it actually imprisoning people who deserve it, instead of the ones you mention.
"...the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be. ..."
I would wait until the Supreme Court rules on the "well regulated militia" clause before using this argument. Besides, the sale of guns and ammo is already taxed. They are not immune to taxation, they will just be taxed at a higher rate than they are now.
"...the price of mental health care is freakin crazy. ..."
...and that's why an increase in taxes on the sale of guns and ammo will be allowed, besides, .......
I would wait until the Supreme Court rules on the "well regulated militia" clause before using this argument. Besides, the sale of guns and ammo is already taxed. They are not immune to taxation, they will just be taxed at a higher rate than they are now.
Not sure if you're being serious here or not, hard to tell with you, but your argument is wrong. Heller already decided this issue. Since you've apparently never bothered to actually read the US Supreme Courts decision before talking about it, I'll break it down into some bite size pieces for you:
The Supreme Court holds:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Understand now? The word "militia" has already been ruled on, your argument is invalid.
As for your argument about ammo taxes, well, let's just say it's not a very original idea - the idea's been batting around the gun grabber crowd for decades now, but it's never quite been able to pass muster, even in the most liberal States, and I doubt it ever will.
I'd lay out an argument for why, but we both know you ignore long arguments and prefer soundbites so I'll leave you with "Ain't gonna happen"
I would wait until the Supreme Court rules on the "well regulated militia" clause before using this argument. Besides, the sale of guns and ammo is already taxed. They are not immune to taxation, they will just be taxed at a higher rate than they are now.
Not sure if you're being serious here or not, hard to tell with you, but your argument is wrong. Heller already decided this issue. Since you've apparently never bothered to actually read the US Supreme Courts decision before talking about it, I'll break it down into some bite size pieces for you:
The Supreme Court holds:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Understand now? The word "militia" has already been ruled on, your argument is invalid.
As for your argument about ammo taxes, well, let's just say it's not a very original idea - the idea's been batting around the gun grabber crowd for decades now, but it's never quite been able to pass muster, even in the most liberal States, and I doubt it ever will.
I'd lay out an argument for why, but we both know you ignore long arguments and prefer soundbites so I'll leave you with "Ain't gonna happen"
Time will tell. Care to wager???
See how I made my statement without insults? It's easy. You should try it.
the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be.
There is not a single word in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights that prohibits the taxation of any activity that would be considered a right--wait a minute, I'm sorry, one amendmen prohibits the poll tax.
Newspapers can be taxed by states. Businesses are taxes by the federal government. Cigarettes are already taxed. Even churches and nonprofits that derive a portion of income from activities not specifically related their mission can be taxed on this income. All of these things represent expressions of 'rights' guaranteed by the first amendment.
There is absolutely nothing that prohibits the federal government from imposing a separate standalone tax on guns, just as it does on cigarettes and gasoline. The Bill of Rights only says that you have the right to own or purchase a gun; it doesn't guarantee that everyone who wants a gun should be able to get one for free, at a discount, or untaxed. Just like if I want to disseminate my political opinions to as many people as possible without using forums, blogs or social media, I have to pay for the privilege, either by printing brochures, hiring telemarketers, buying TV time or getting lobbyists in my pocket. America has never NOT been a pay to play society.
And certainly the government has the right to define who has these rights. Until the 19th century, most voters had to be white property owners. Until the end of the Civil War, both slaves and freedmen couldn't vote. Until the 20th century, women couldn't vote. Until the passage of the Civil Rights act, southern states could legally prevent blacks from voting.
the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be.
There is not a single word in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights that prohibits the taxation of any activity that would be considered a right--wait a minute, I'm sorry, one amendmen prohibits the poll tax.
No, but there's centuries of case law that says Rights can't be taxed.
There's a reason we don't have a Free Speech tax on word counts, and it's not because Congress or the White House has the warm fuzzies for people speaking out on political issues. The courts have routinely repealed such taxes, and it's the main reason no one has ever imposed a tax on ammo (and the liberal ones like CA, NY and IL have thought hard about it and tried) - it would be struck down as soon as it was enacted, the same as a tax on word counts that infringed on the First would.
raisindot:
Just like if I want to disseminate my political opinions to as many people as possible without using forums, blogs or social media, I have to pay for the privilege, either by printing brochures, hiring telemarketers, buying TV time or getting lobbyists in my pocket. America has never NOT been a pay to play society
Those are private actors, not the State. Your argument makes no distinction between the private sector and the public sector, between the Constitution and case law interpreting it, between acts of Congress and a business owner charging for services, and that's why it's incorrect.
Second, you're claiming the US is a pay-to-play society, without either 1) Saying there's ever NOT been a society where you need to pay to get your message out (there hasn't), and 2) Specifically excluding the free methods of disseminating your message, the internet. Bloggers, websites and such have made the news many times, from RedStateBlog to the Daily Kos - websites have a large amount of sway, especially as more and more people get their news from online.
There is not a single word in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights that prohibits the taxation of any activity that would be considered a right--wait a minute, I'm sorry, one amendmen prohibits the poll tax.
No, but there's centuries of case law that says Rights can't be taxed.
There's a reason we don't have a Free Speech tax on word counts, and it's not because Congress or the White House has the warm fuzzies for people speaking out on political issues. The courts have routinely repealed such taxes, and it's the main reason no one has ever imposed a tax on ammo (and the liberal ones like CA, NY and IL have thought hard about it and tried) - it would be struck down as soon as it was enacted, the same as a tax on word counts that infringed on the First would.
I don't know what you mean by "word count." Never heard of such a thing. And there can be a sales tax on newspapers and books, and since the freedom of the press is protected right, the pretty much invalidates the "you can't tax rights" argument. Property ownership is also a right in America, and nearly every state has property taxes. Thus, a right that is taxed although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution/BOR. I already mentioned that churches can be taxed even with the separation of church and state cause; thus, another right that can be taxed. I have never seen a single U.S. Supreme Court or appelate court case that has said that a 'right can't be taxed.' If you can cite concrete examples (with links, please) of where federal (not state) courts have said that a right can't be taxed and these rulings are still valid I'm certainly willing to be educated.
But that his nothing to do with taxing guns. I have never seen a single federal court case where the U.S. government has said that a state cannot charge a sales tax on gun and ammunition sales. The only reason why the government might not be able to apply a federal gun tax is because it might not comply with the interstate law clause. However, given that cigarettes are federally taxed and gasoline is federally taxed (because these products generally do cross state lines) there's no reason why the federal government can't legally tax guns and ammo shipping from one state to another. Again, if federal cases have overruled federal taxes on guns I'd be happy to be educated on when this occurred. I certainly know that if I want to buy and ammo here in Massachusetts I will pay a 6.25% sales tax on the purchase.
From the ATF website describing excise taxes. Scroll down to the last two entries, pistols and revolvers & other firearms and ammunitions - respectively 10% & 11%.
Additionally, the States levy sales taxes on these products.
"...the other "fact that still remains" is that a criminal will get his hands on a gun, a knife, a bomb, a bludgeoning weapon, poison, etc and use them to kill others no matter what the laws are. ...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession. it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. According to this logic, there should be no laws at all because criminals will always find a way around them.
no. that is not the logic at all. you are twisting it. the logic is that some are attempting to make the item illegal or regulate it. the violation of rights is illegal. Objects are not inherently good or evil but the people using them can be. making an object illegal changes zero. Controlling the sales of an object changes zero. if it changes nothing why pass a new law? if the old law already covers the illegality of the action why is a new law required? because some people dont like guns?
it only violates rights of those who want to own an object and never use it for evil.
should we outlaw/regulate knives because some dont like them and they can be used for evil?
rat poison?
how about big rocks?
all of those items can be used to kill quite easily. does it matter what is used to kill or does it matter that the murder has happened? killing a person using any object is illegal. why do we have to ban or control any object that can kill when in the hands of an evil person if the act of killing is already illegal?
the logic that you twisted is articulated better by saying it this way: passing redundant laws only violates rights of those who are abiding by the original laws.
this is another case of over regulation but this time it is not over regulating an industry or company it is over regulating an individual.
this is the point where someone says something ridiculous along the lines of: " well then should we allow atomic bombs to be owned by the common man?"
now that is an interesting argument.
one question on that is: can an atomic bomb be used for anything other than a rights violation?
im fairly sure the answer is no (again that is a very different argument), where as a gun can be used for things other than rights violations, such as upholding property rights and the right to life; and to a less important degree, target shooting, hunting, basic collecting, etc..
JDH:
"...this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument. ..."
That's exactly why we have the worlds largest prison population, however that doesn't change the fact of the matter, and these prisons are costing the taxpayers a lot of money. If we're going to have this gulag, I'd much rather it actually imprisoning people who deserve it, instead of the ones you mention.
uh... yes. im there with ya on that.
JDH:
"...the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be. ..."
I would wait until the Supreme Court rules on the "well regulated militia" clause before using this argument. Besides, the sale of guns and ammo is already taxed. They are not immune to taxation, they will just be taxed at a higher rate than they are now.
"...the price of mental health care is freakin crazy. ..."
...and that's why an increase in taxes on the sale of guns and ammo will be allowed, besides, .......
i see others have gone into that one. im not gunna keep going on this argument.
"...the other "fact that still remains" is that a criminal will get his hands on a gun, a knife, a bomb, a bludgeoning weapon, poison, etc and use them to kill others no matter what the laws are. ...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession. it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. According to this logic, there should be no laws at all because criminals will always find a way around them.
no. that is not the logic at all. you are twisting it. the logic is that some are attempting to make the item illegal or regulate it. the violation of rights is illegal. Objects are not inherently good or evil but the people using them can be. making an object illegal changes zero. Controlling the sales of an object changes zero. if it changes nothing why pass a new law? if the old law already covers the illegality of the action why is a new law required? because some people dont like guns?
it only violates rights of those who want to own an object and never use it for evil.
should we outlaw/regulate knives because some dont like them and they can be used for evil?
rat poison?
how about big rocks?
all of those items can be used to kill quite easily. does it matter what is used to kill or does it matter that the murder has happened? killing a person using any object is illegal. why do we have to ban or control any object that can kill when in the hands of an evil person if the act of killing is already illegal?
the logic that you twisted is articulated better by saying it this way: passing redundant laws only violates rights of those who are abiding by the original laws.
this is another case of over regulation but this time it is not over regulating an industry or company it is over regulating an individual.
this is the point where someone says something ridiculous along the lines of: " well then should we allow atomic bombs to be owned by the common man?"
now that is an interesting argument.
one question on that is: can an atomic bomb be used for anything other than a rights violation?
im fairly sure the answer is no (again that is a very different argument), where as a gun can be used for things other than rights violations, such as upholding property rights and the right to life; and to a less important degree, target shooting, hunting, basic collecting, etc..
JDH:
"...this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument. ..."
That's exactly why we have the worlds largest prison population, however that doesn't change the fact of the matter, and these prisons are costing the taxpayers a lot of money. If we're going to have this gulag, I'd much rather it actually imprisoning people who deserve it, instead of the ones you mention.
uh... yes. im there with ya on that.
JDH:
"...the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms" this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be. ..."
I would wait until the Supreme Court rules on the "well regulated militia" clause before using this argument. Besides, the sale of guns and ammo is already taxed. They are not immune to taxation, they will just be taxed at a higher rate than they are now.
"...the price of mental health care is freakin crazy. ..."
...and that's why an increase in taxes on the sale of guns and ammo will be allowed, besides, .......
i see others have gone into that one. im not gunna keep going on this argument.
I don't know what you mean by "word count." Never heard of such a thing.
Think of this: A penny for every word of a written speech. You can talk fishing and hunting and cars all you want, but once the talk moves to the written word, you pay a penny for every word, maybe with an exception for recognized news outlets - everyone else pays though. That kind of word count. The analogy to guns would be a five cent tax on every bullet sold with the exception of law enforcement.
In both instances, the single amount is trivial, but added up, it becomes tremendously expensive for non-government recognized entities to exercise their rights. That's the kind of thing the Court won't stand for, since it's essentially an end run around the Constitution - can't ban free speech or guns, so the legislature makes it so expensive that no one can afford to exercise the right
raisindot:
And there can be a sales tax on newspapers and books, and since the freedom of the press is protected right, the pretty much invalidates the "you can't tax rights" argument.
You're right; I misspoke and what I said was inaccurate. What I should've said was that you can't tax rights prohibitively, as in taxing it so much that it becomes too expensive to exercise that right. An example would be a poll tax, a word count tax, or an ammo tax. Such taxes are essentially a legislative attempt to do an end run around the courts, and it never works
raisindot:
Property ownership is also a right in America, and nearly every state has property taxes. Thus, a right that is taxed although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution/BOR. I already mentioned that churches can be taxed even with the separation of church and state cause; thus, another right that can be taxed. I have never seen a single U.S. Supreme Court or appelate court case that has said that a 'right can't be taxed.' If you can cite concrete examples (with links, please) of where federal (not state) courts have said that a right can't be taxed and these rulings are still valid I'm certainly willing to be educated.
Yup, you got me there; I was wrong in that argument, and should've said it can't be taxed prohibitively
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-*** Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Very well written, polite, thoughtful, and accurate. Also entirely pointless. Facts and logic roll off the anti-gun crowd like water off a duck's back. All the history, all the statistics, all the examples from here or from overseas, all combine to show that disarming citizens does not deter, but rather encourages violent crime; while long and bloody history has so amply demonstrated that the day will ineluctably come when the People themselves will have to prevail over their government or an invader. All this fact rolls off the duck's back. All their arguments, every one, regardless of fact or history, confidently assume that it has been shown that more regulations will bring fewer violent deaths, even when the reverse is all around them. And you are not going to shake them from that belief.
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
I've removed the rest of the 'letter' (because there's no point in arguing about banning semi-automatics since it will never happen) to instead focus on the fallacy of this argument against background checks. And, again, to reiterate, I do fervently believe that the second amendment does guarantee the right of citizens to own and use firearms for legal purposes, but I also believe that the government has the right to define the limitations of this right, just as it limits the parameters of free speech and assembly, freedom of the press, and the exercise of religion.
1. The "background check will cause black market sales" argument. To argue that background checks will cause criminals to 'resort to other avenues' is ridiculous. 'Criminals with connections' already get guns illegally anyway through a gigantic illegal weapons market that has existed for a century or more. Background checks won't expand this market; if you're a criminal with connections, you'd never try to buy a gun legally anyway. What background checks will do is keep guns out of the hands of 'criminals without connections,' since it can't be assumed that all criminals necessarily have access to these weapons. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you should have nothing to fear from background checks. If you do have a record of felony criminal activity, then you should be denied the chance to own a weapon. If you have a criminal record and fail a background check, then this doesn't necessarily mean you will know someone who can score you an illegal weapon.
2. The "universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy" argument. The Brady Bill has already demonstrated the falseness of this claim, since background checks have been going on since the 1990s and the existing technology and records already exist.
3. The "universal background checks means universal registration argument." Not true at all, again as the Brady Bill provided. Registration of firearms is still handled at the state level. Personally, I wish that there were uniform registration and licensing standards for all states that required background checks, and proof that the purchaser had taken a gun training ans safety course. But this will probably never happen so it's not worth strongly advocating for it.
4. "Universal registration leads to confiscation and removal of protection against tyranny." Now, this is entirely possible, since it a state or federal government knows who owns guns, in a coup situation they could potentially try to confiscate weapons from individuals. Then again, should such a coup ever occur, there will BE no second amendement rights to protect. And, frankly, no number of individual gun owners, no matter how well they band together, will be able to overcome the lethal force than an army controlled by a dictator could unleash. Does anyone really think that a bunch of AK-47 wielding hobbyists has any chance of succeeding against an army equipped with artillery, tanks, bombers, and nuclear weapons? At best, your weapons may protect you against the other gun-wielding hobbyists who want to try to kill you as the chaos erupts, but in the end you'll end us being smoked by those who can shoot better than you or those who band up with other gangs to form their little warlord armies.
But the "protection against tyranny" argument is not valid to this discussion. There's not a single provision in the Constitution or any other government document that says that the purpose of personal firearms ownership is to protect against tyranny. This is one's own philosophy, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of possible gun control (widely defined to include registration even if doesn't encompass outlawing semi-automatic weapons). Everyone has their own definition of what 'protection against tyranny." My definition of is a free press that isn't owned or controlled by a small number of corporations. Well, the majority of local TV and radio stations and newspaper are owned either by Newscorp or Clear Channel, two very right wing organizations. I find this far more threatening to my rights than some vague threat of a government coup. But you know, that's just me. As always, your mileage may vary.
"But the "protection against tyranny" argument is not valid to this discussion. There's not a single provision in the Constitution or any other government document that says that the purpose of personal firearms ownership is to protect against tyranny."
The men who risked their lives to throw off King George called themselves militia, and that's specifically what the Constitution speaks of.
"But the "protection against tyranny" argument is not valid to this discussion. There's not a single provision in the Constitution or any other government document that says that the purpose of personal firearms ownership is to protect against tyranny."
The men who risked their lives to throw off King George called themselves militia, and that's specifically what the Constitution speaks of.
That is absolutely true--many of those who fought against England were militia. However, most of the main battles of the War were won by the men who belonged to the Continental Army under the leadership of General Washington. He HATED state militias, since they were unreliable, undisciplined, and only committed to defending their own states, and often deserted in trying times. Part of the spurring the Constitutional Convention was Shay's Rebellion, an uprising of militia members who threatened to overthrow the government because they were made at bankers who were forcelosing on their homes (the first "99 percenters!). President Washington himself led an army designed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, an uprising of armed bootleggers against liquor taxes.
The Second Amendment begins with the phrase, "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." Notice that phrase "well regulated." The implication here is that militias needed to be regulated by someone--in this case, the state in which they resided. Notice the use of the words "security" and "state." Nothing in this phrase at all suggests that it sanctions the creation or use of heavily armed, privately managed Shay's/Whiskey Rebellion style militia. Nor is there a single word in there suggesting the purpose of the militia is to protect against a government that tries to suppress citizens' rights, only to protect the security of a state (indeed, notice the use of the word "state" versus the word "'nation"; the founders were thinking of militia purely as tools of their states. Yet, it was always expected that militias would serve in defense of the country, since the right of militias to serve in this role is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution does not, however have a single word in it that says that militias have the right to fight AGAINST the government.
Certainly the Founders were very concerned about the potential for federal armies to take over--that's what the Third Amendment was for--to prevent soldiers from taking over private homes without the owner's permission at all in times of peace or in war except under the dictates of law. But there's nothing in there saying that "well regulated militias" or gangs of gun-toting private armies have the right to kick regular soldiers out of private homes.
It's true that some of the Founding Fathers, including Hamilton and Madison, were concerned about the power of standing armies and saw militias of armed citizens as offering protection against tyranny, but theirs was not the only point of view. If you look at various drafts of the second amendment, some versions stressed that the arms ownership and use was restricted for defense of the nation; other versions included clauses that exempted conscientious objectors from having to forcibly own or use firearms. There were all sorts of opinions out there, but the only one that matters is the finished text. And that one in no way defined the role of militias (or armed groups of private citizens) as serving as protection against tyranny. That's because the Founding Fathers EXPLICITLY did not want to appear to sanction Shay's Rebellion-style militias.
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-*** Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Those are two sources I would trust, but not Mr. Beck, and since Beck was the only source provided, that is, and will continue to be my reaction regarding his legitimacy. I am not ignoring the argument, BTW, but have not made comment of late. One reason for that is because your comments seem to be focused as much on personal attacks as with discussing the facts of the discussion. It is not necessary to insult the people you are having a discussion with in order to make your point. So why would I waste my time trying to discuss something with someone who just can't keep it civil?
It's hard not to be sarcastic when someone ignores the argument and attacks the source instead like you've done. It's like the media going after Rubio for his water grab faux pas - it's ridiculous that it's even a story, but it's run over 100 times on the big networks, but hey, it distracts from the weak economy and soaring gas prices, so it's played, just as you attacked the source of the Columbine letter to distract from the underlying argument.
Those are two sources I would trust, but not Mr. Beck, and since Beck was the only source provided, that is, and will continue to be my reaction regarding his legitimacy. I am not ignoring the argument, BTW, but have not made comment of late. One reason for that is because your comments seem to be focused as much on personal attacks as with discussing the facts of the discussion. It is not necessary to insult the people you are having a discussion with in order to make your point. So why would I waste my time trying to discuss something with someone who just can't keep it civil?
I knew immediately what you would do once I posted the source. The same thing you always do. Impugn and ridicule the source. How childish. And your sources, CNN MSNBC, the emperor? Ha, what lying idiots they are. JHD, you're like a tea party stalker, dude. Get a life.
Comments
We already have the world's largest prison population, and treatment and care for the mentally ill is expensive. Personally, I would love to see a hefty tax slapped on the sale of both guns and ammo specifically for that purpose. That would be a fiscally responsible approach, I think. Additionally, I would suggest that those who ignore the reality of the problem and say that they will not support anything that "remotely limits my liberty" either wants the problem to be solved magically, by somebody else with little or no effort from them, or they do not want a solution, which is a nhilistic view of the situation.
id doesnt get reported.
it doesnt fit the anti-gun agenda.
the jury is still out on if those statements are related.
not sure i can sport the tinfoil hat and still look good.
the other "fact that still remains" is that a criminal will get his hands on a gun, a knife, a bomb, a bludgeoning weapon, poison, etc and use them to kill others no matter what the laws are.
...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession.
it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated.
i will not give up my rights to do anything just because somebody else refuses to act civil. this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument.
the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms"
this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be.
and i am not expecting a "magic solution."
to suggest that i am or that others are is borderline insulting and absolutely condescending. i am simply saying that many of the gun control measures being proposed are measures that i am against.
there are solutions out there, but just because people are not screaming for those other solutions does not mean that we must go forward with a bad idea simply because "something must be done. "
you do bring up an very good point that i dont wanna overlook and that is the price of mental health care is freakin crazy.
i guess the gist of my minor rant here is that banning some guns is a simple solution that wont work for a very complex problem that has no easy solution.
im not sure ill be hitting on this thread again because it seems that many of us are beating a dead horse here-- rehashing many of the same old arguments to the point of frustration while not convincing anyone to agree. however, this has been an interesting read.
...and a law abiding citizen will not kill anyone regardless of how many tools of death they have in their possession.
it is 100% impossible to prevent crime. the more we try and do so the more rights will be violated.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. According to this logic, there should be no laws at all because criminals will always find a way around them.
"...this probably has more to do with imprisoning minor drug offenders that are not violating any rights than the gun situation. but that is a WAY different argument. ..."
That's exactly why we have the worlds largest prison population, however that doesn't change the fact of the matter, and these prisons are costing the taxpayers a lot of money. If we're going to have this gulag, I'd much rather it actually imprisoning people who deserve it, instead of the ones you mention.
"...the problem with taxing guns is that we have the Second Amendment. it recognizes the right " to keep and bear Arms"
this means that it would then become acceptable to tax a right. it is never acceptable to tax a right. it never has been acceptable to tax rights and it never will be. ..."
I would wait until the Supreme Court rules on the "well regulated militia" clause before using this argument. Besides, the sale of guns and ammo is already taxed. They are not immune to taxation, they will just be taxed at a higher rate than they are now.
"...the price of mental health care is freakin crazy. ..."
...and that's why an increase in taxes on the sale of guns and ammo will be allowed, besides, .......
Understand now? The word "militia" has already been ruled on, your argument is invalid.
As for your argument about ammo taxes, well, let's just say it's not a very original idea - the idea's been batting around the gun grabber crowd for decades now, but it's never quite been able to pass muster, even in the most liberal States, and I doubt it ever will.
I'd lay out an argument for why, but we both know you ignore long arguments and prefer soundbites so I'll leave you with "Ain't gonna happen"
See how I made my statement without insults? It's easy. You should try it.
Newspapers can be taxed by states. Businesses are taxes by the federal government. Cigarettes are already taxed. Even churches and nonprofits that derive a portion of income from activities not specifically related their mission can be taxed on this income. All of these things represent expressions of 'rights' guaranteed by the first amendment.
There is absolutely nothing that prohibits the federal government from imposing a separate standalone tax on guns, just as it does on cigarettes and gasoline. The Bill of Rights only says that you have the right to own or purchase a gun; it doesn't guarantee that everyone who wants a gun should be able to get one for free, at a discount, or untaxed. Just like if I want to disseminate my political opinions to as many people as possible without using forums, blogs or social media, I have to pay for the privilege, either by printing brochures, hiring telemarketers, buying TV time or getting lobbyists in my pocket. America has never NOT been a pay to play society.
And certainly the government has the right to define who has these rights. Until the 19th century, most voters had to be white property owners. Until the end of the Civil War, both slaves and freedmen couldn't vote. Until the 20th century, women couldn't vote. Until the passage of the Civil Rights act, southern states could legally prevent blacks from voting.
There's a reason we don't have a Free Speech tax on word counts, and it's not because Congress or the White House has the warm fuzzies for people speaking out on political issues. The courts have routinely repealed such taxes, and it's the main reason no one has ever imposed a tax on ammo (and the liberal ones like CA, NY and IL have thought hard about it and tried) - it would be struck down as soon as it was enacted, the same as a tax on word counts that infringed on the First would. Those are private actors, not the State. Your argument makes no distinction between the private sector and the public sector, between the Constitution and case law interpreting it, between acts of Congress and a business owner charging for services, and that's why it's incorrect.
Second, you're claiming the US is a pay-to-play society, without either 1) Saying there's ever NOT been a society where you need to pay to get your message out (there hasn't), and 2) Specifically excluding the free methods of disseminating your message, the internet. Bloggers, websites and such have made the news many times, from RedStateBlog to the Daily Kos - websites have a large amount of sway, especially as more and more people get their news from online.
From the ATF website describing excise taxes. Scroll down to the last two entries, pistols and revolvers & other firearms and ammunitions - respectively 10% & 11%.
Additionally, the States levy sales taxes on these products.
it only violates rights of those who want to own an object and never use it for evil.
should we outlaw/regulate knives because some dont like them and they can be used for evil?
rat poison?
how about big rocks?
all of those items can be used to kill quite easily. does it matter what is used to kill or does it matter that the murder has happened? killing a person using any object is illegal. why do we have to ban or control any object that can kill when in the hands of an evil person if the act of killing is already illegal?
the logic that you twisted is articulated better by saying it this way: passing redundant laws only violates rights of those who are abiding by the original laws.
this is another case of over regulation but this time it is not over regulating an industry or company it is over regulating an individual.
this is the point where someone says something ridiculous along the lines of: " well then should we allow atomic bombs to be owned by the common man?"
now that is an interesting argument.
one question on that is:
can an atomic bomb be used for anything other than a rights violation?
im fairly sure the answer is no (again that is a very different argument), where as a gun can be used for things other than rights violations, such as upholding property rights and the right to life; and to a less important degree, target shooting, hunting, basic collecting, etc..
uh... yes. im there with ya on that. i see others have gone into that one. im not gunna keep going on this argument.
just when it was getting fun.
In both instances, the single amount is trivial, but added up, it becomes tremendously expensive for non-government recognized entities to exercise their rights. That's the kind of thing the Court won't stand for, since it's essentially an end run around the Constitution - can't ban free speech or guns, so the legislature makes it so expensive that no one can afford to exercise the right
You're right; I misspoke and what I said was inaccurate. What I should've said was that you can't tax rights prohibitively, as in taxing it so much that it becomes too expensive to exercise that right. An example would be a poll tax, a word count tax, or an ammo tax. Such taxes are essentially a legislative attempt to do an end run around the courts, and it never works Yup, you got me there; I was wrong in that argument, and should've said it can't be taxed prohibitively
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted. Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-*** Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program? Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line. This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
1. The "background check will cause black market sales" argument. To argue that background checks will cause criminals to 'resort to other avenues' is ridiculous. 'Criminals with connections' already get guns illegally anyway through a gigantic illegal weapons market that has existed for a century or more. Background checks won't expand this market; if you're a criminal with connections, you'd never try to buy a gun legally anyway. What background checks will do is keep guns out of the hands of 'criminals without connections,' since it can't be assumed that all criminals necessarily have access to these weapons. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you should have nothing to fear from background checks. If you do have a record of felony criminal activity, then you should be denied the chance to own a weapon. If you have a criminal record and fail a background check, then this doesn't necessarily mean you will know someone who can score you an illegal weapon.
2. The "universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy" argument. The Brady Bill has already demonstrated the falseness of this claim, since background checks have been going on since the 1990s and the existing technology and records already exist.
3. The "universal background checks means universal registration argument." Not true at all, again as the Brady Bill provided. Registration of firearms is still handled at the state level. Personally, I wish that there were uniform registration and licensing standards for all states that required background checks, and proof that the purchaser had taken a gun training ans safety course. But this will probably never happen so it's not worth strongly advocating for it.
4. "Universal registration leads to confiscation and removal of protection against tyranny." Now, this is entirely possible, since it a state or federal government knows who owns guns, in a coup situation they could potentially try to confiscate weapons from individuals. Then again, should such a coup ever occur, there will BE no second amendement rights to protect. And, frankly, no number of individual gun owners, no matter how well they band together, will be able to overcome the lethal force than an army controlled by a dictator could unleash. Does anyone really think that a bunch of AK-47 wielding hobbyists has any chance of succeeding against an army equipped with artillery, tanks, bombers, and nuclear weapons? At best, your weapons may protect you against the other gun-wielding hobbyists who want to try to kill you as the chaos erupts, but in the end you'll end us being smoked by those who can shoot better than you or those who band up with other gangs to form their little warlord armies.
But the "protection against tyranny" argument is not valid to this discussion. There's not a single provision in the Constitution or any other government document that says that the purpose of personal firearms ownership is to protect against tyranny. This is one's own philosophy, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of possible gun control (widely defined to include registration even if doesn't encompass outlawing semi-automatic weapons). Everyone has their own definition of what 'protection against tyranny." My definition of is a free press that isn't owned or controlled by a small number of corporations. Well, the majority of local TV and radio stations and newspaper are owned either by Newscorp or Clear Channel, two very right wing organizations. I find this far more threatening to my rights than some vague threat of a government coup. But you know, that's just me. As always, your mileage may vary.
The men who risked their lives to throw off King George called themselves militia, and that's specifically what the Constitution speaks of.
The Second Amendment begins with the phrase, "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." Notice that phrase "well regulated." The implication here is that militias needed to be regulated by someone--in this case, the state in which they resided. Notice the use of the words "security" and "state." Nothing in this phrase at all suggests that it sanctions the creation or use of heavily armed, privately managed Shay's/Whiskey Rebellion style militia. Nor is there a single word in there suggesting the purpose of the militia is to protect against a government that tries to suppress citizens' rights, only to protect the security of a state (indeed, notice the use of the word "state" versus the word "'nation"; the founders were thinking of militia purely as tools of their states. Yet, it was always expected that militias would serve in defense of the country, since the right of militias to serve in this role is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution does not, however have a single word in it that says that militias have the right to fight AGAINST the government.
Certainly the Founders were very concerned about the potential for federal armies to take over--that's what the Third Amendment was for--to prevent soldiers from taking over private homes without the owner's permission at all in times of peace or in war except under the dictates of law. But there's nothing in there saying that "well regulated militias" or gangs of gun-toting private armies have the right to kick regular soldiers out of private homes.
It's true that some of the Founding Fathers, including Hamilton and Madison, were concerned about the power of standing armies and saw militias of armed citizens as offering protection against tyranny, but theirs was not the only point of view. If you look at various drafts of the second amendment, some versions stressed that the arms ownership and use was restricted for defense of the nation; other versions included clauses that exempted conscientious objectors from having to forcibly own or use firearms. There were all sorts of opinions out there, but the only one that matters is the finished text. And that one in no way defined the role of militias (or armed groups of private citizens) as serving as protection against tyranny. That's because the Founding Fathers EXPLICITLY did not want to appear to sanction Shay's Rebellion-style militias.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Here's some more sources, but hey, just keep ignoring the actual argument and obfuscate:
MSN: http://news.msn.com/us/columbine-survivor-to-obama-youre-wrong-on-gun-control
Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/columbine-survivor-obama-gun-talks-fast-furious/