Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The criminals don’t need to purchase: they take yours and mine as they will always have an access to guns mostly illegal as it is now - you are only punishing law abiding sane people with the additional taxes.
Mental health issues and polarization of the society should be addressed first; more taxes is just that- more taxes
Columbine and Sandy Hook shooters used their parents guns.
In case of Sandy Hook - after killing the parent.
How would you have prevented that after let’s say the parents paid your taxes?
The wealthy can afford any taxes.
The people who might needs guns for self defense the most: the ones who live in dangerous crime ridden neighborhoods due to all they can afford and where the police only arrives after the shooting is over - if at all- what should they do?
As an immigrant you should know that in the US the police officer’s first obligation is to come home alive.
It was settled by our Supreme Court. The police have no duty to save you - to put it bluntly.
You are on your own.
Basically you are saying school kids are on their own too you know.
The US is a gun culture society but the situation is way out of control. There will never be broad confiscation of lawfulł firearms. The federal government should take responsibility for firearms registration and regulation since the states are incapable of managing the task. Increased taxes are not the answer. We need to get firearms off the streets and responsibly managed.
The elephant in the room is assault weapons and super sized magazines and any modifications to increase capacity or assault capability. These should be uniformly defined at the federal level and banned outright with a time limit for surrender with compensation. After that point possession will be a felony. Hand guns will come under registration and annual renewal. All fire arms will require permits. All sales or transfers will be registered with reliable background checks, including inheritance or gifts. Taxation is not a substitute for regulation and we have no idea of actual ownership and it places the control and enforcement burden on tax departments.
You seem to conveniently forget the US Constitution. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but how about the 4th which prohibits illegal search and seizure? The 4th also guarantees people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. I guess you just throw that out huh? Or maybe the 5th and 14th Amendments that require due process before the government can steal your property?
Every time someone spouts "assault weapons" it's patently obvious they know nothing about firearms and are just spouting leftist rhetoric.
Are you talking about Spencer repeaters? They were military issue "Assault Weapons", issued to the US military and used in war. They were rapid fire and held 15 rounds.
Or maybe you're talking about M-1 Garrand's. Again, military issue, a very effective 30-06 round, rapid fire semi automatic, held multiple rounds, I could go on but the foolishness of your reasoning doesn't warrant any more time.
What you're advocating is a complete federal government attack on the law-abiding citizens of free and sovereign states which would only cause a far greater bloodshed than it would ever stop through removing legal weapons from the citizenry.
What you're advocating would be civil war, and it would not go in your favor.
You seem to conveniently forget the US Constitution. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but how about the 4th which prohibits illegal search and seizure? The 4th also guarantees people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. I guess you just throw that out huh? Or maybe the 5th and 14th Amendments that require due process before the government can steal your property?
Every time someone spouts "assault weapons" it's patently obvious they know nothing about firearms and are just spouting leftist rhetoric.
Are you talking about Spencer repeaters? They were military issue "Assault Weapons", issued to the US military and used in war. They were rapid fire and held 15 rounds.
Or maybe you're talking about M-1 Garrand's. Again, military issue, a very effective 30-06 round, rapid fire semi automatic, held multiple rounds, I could go on but the foolishness of your reasoning doesn't warrant any more time.
What you're advocating is a complete federal government attack on the law-abiding citizens of free and sovereign states which would only cause a far greater bloodshed than it would ever stop through removing legal weapons from the citizenry.
What you're advocating would be civil war, and it would not go in your favor.
You seem to conveniently forget the US Constitution. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but how about the 4th which prohibits illegal search and seizure? The 4th also guarantees people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. I guess you just throw that out huh? Or maybe the 5th and 14th Amendments that require due process before the government can steal your property?
Every time someone spouts "assault weapons" it's patently obvious they know nothing about firearms and are just spouting leftist rhetoric.
Are you talking about Spencer repeaters? They were military issue "Assault Weapons", issued to the US military and used in war. They were rapid fire and held 15 rounds.
Or maybe you're talking about M-1 Garrand's. Again, military issue, a very effective 30-06 round, rapid fire semi automatic, held multiple rounds, I could go on but the foolishness of your reasoning doesn't warrant any more time.
What you're advocating is a complete federal government attack on the law-abiding citizens of free and sovereign states which would only cause a far greater bloodshed than it would ever stop through removing legal weapons from the citizenry.
What you're advocating would be civil war, and it would not go in your favor.
Plus, they continue to bring up "registration". The only reason for that is confiscation if they are truly being honest.
It's not just the 'pockets' you are mentioning. In fact that is the 'tribal' mentality I mentioned in my earlier post. "It's not us, it's them". It's not just 'them'. It's 'all over'. Looking at some of the more recent mass shootings- they have largely been committed by people from rural / suburban areas. SC church killings, Buffalo, Sandy Hook, Texas x2(?)
I agree pockets of urban areas are combat zones, but the bigger picture still remains.
The map clearly shows that it happens all over. That is not in dispute. However, it also clearly shows that the number of incidences of crime do not correlate with the difficulty in getting a gun. This is why a gun ban will never be effectively put in place. Gun owners have a legitimate right to own a gun. For the government to take away a citizen's right to something, it must have a very good reason.
Gun control advocates wish to simply avoid using science as the basis of an argument towards a massive change like this. It's lazy, and clearly, wrong to insist that gun violence will drop with gun controls. The more times the control lobby continues to use emotive appeals not actually linked with results, the less and less likely anyone will actually listen to them.
Accept the rule of the day. Understand the requirements of what will be needed to change something so paramount. Simplify, with scientific integrity the causes of gun related violence and then propose an action to mitigate the root causes.
I would wager that honest findings and research would reveal that there are many other root causes behind what causes someone to take a life. I would also venture that in some areas, those supports are so low in other related areas that the decision to take a life comes cheaper. If those other inputs cannot be changed, then and only then would one look at a proper way of identifying and the criteria that would cause a significant increase in the likelihood of an armed attack. If that could be somehow drafted into an effective policy that could be readily executed...I believe most people would agree.
The running a tragedy like a bumper sticker will not work. If someone actually feels strongly at looking to stop homicide like this....then they should do the work. Sadly, with all the noise and built up positions, it's going to be hard for real science to prevail here.
Basically you are saying school kids are on their own too you know.
That’s unacceptable and a tragic way of thinking.
The ”unacceptable” way of “thinking” according to you is the actual reality of our lives and was settled many times by courts.
Children were involved in some of the cases.
Read a little write up which mentions some of the court cases if you think I am making it up.
Repeat after me:”police have no duty to protect the public individually”
It could be a wake up call of reality for some and may change the course of the way they think and the policies they might support or be against.
Even paramedics aren’t allowed in to a school, etc. to save lives when the bullets are still flying and the firefighters won’t start extinguishing the fires …
Last edited by L00k4ward; 05-29-2022 at 05:53 AM..
The ”unacceptable” way of “thinking” according to you is the actual reality of our lives and was settled many times by courts.
Children were involved in some of the cases.
Read a little write up which mentions some of the court cases if you think I am making it up.
Repeat after me:”police have no duty to protect the public individually”
It could be a wake up call of reality for some and may change the course of the way they think and the policies they might support or be against.
Even paramedics aren’t allowed in to a school, etc. to save lives when the bullets are still flying and the firefighters won’t start extinguishing the fires …
These court rulings that you've cited legally define the word "duty" in the sense meaning that, should a police officer not succeed in the act of protecting a citizen, he/she is not open to litigation on account of such lack of success. It does not mean that the job of the police officer is not to "serve and protect" the citizenry.
Hmm, 4 blocks and they arrived on the same day, that is pretty good.
I have never gotten that kind of 'fast response'.
Every time I have called, they tell me they will send a LEO around on the next business day.
There are 180 of them, and a high school was in session a block away.
During this "situation", I spoke with a 20 year veteran; who said:
"Everyone seems to have guns now, it wasn't like this when I started".
So I don't think taxing firearms at this point will do anything more than provide government more revenue to waste.
Think I'll buy some body armor, to go along with the shottie; before that gets banned from sales.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
