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.
From the article:
Gun violence takes more than 33,000 lives and injures over 84,000 Americans, costing the US economy $127 billion each year,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence,
$127 Billion?? 117,000 deaths and injuries per year cost our economy $127 billion.
Let those numbers digest for a moment..................
ETA: I find it ironic that many of the same people who complain that requiring an ID is unduly burdensome (so that someone can prove he is who he says he is when it comes time to vote), are the same people who have no problem with placing an additional financial burden on law abiding American citizens who wish to exercise their 2A right.
Sure, if the government could figure out how to actually tax someone by how many words they type on the internet, I would be first more impressed that they did something near impossible.
I didn't ask you how impossible the task was or how impressed you'd be with it, I asked you if you would be ok with a tax on every word in principle? If it could be done, would you be fine with it?
Quote:
Yes, reasonable restrictions, why are gun nuts against any reasonable restrictions when it comes to their precious guns?
Because we se where "reasonable restrictions" ends up. Refer to the OP.
Quote:
No, in the US, a gun is more for recreational activities than it is for survival and protection....
I suggest you re-read the Heller decision. The Supreme Court did not say that a gun is for recreational activities, it said that the core of the right was self-protection. Anything else is just your opinion, but at least you openly acknowlege that you don't really view the 2A as seriously as other rights protected by the Constitution. I guess we get to just pick and choose which rights are important and which aren't, but this illustrates perfectly why we don't trust people like you when you say that you only want "reasonable restrictions" on guns.... You don't even take our Constitutional right to owbn a gun seriously.
Quote:
So how exactly am I avoiding questions when I am answering questions being asked? I don't think you guys know what deflection means.....
Sure... When we ask if you'd be ok with a tax on every word typed on the internet, instead of answering, you say ghow impressed you'd be with the accomplishment of such an impossible feat. Deflecting. The real question is whether you'd be ok with the principle of taxing speech.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-30-2015 at 10:05 PM..
From the article:
Gun violence takes more than 33,000 lives and injures over 84,000 Americans, costing the US economy $127 billion each year,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence,
$127 Billion?? 117,000 deaths and injuries per year cost our economy $127 billion.
Let those numbers digest for a moment..................
ETA: I find it ironic that many of the same people who complain that requiring an ID is unduly burdensome (so that someone can prove he is who he says he is when it comes time to vote), are the same people who have no problem with placing an additional financial burden on law abiding American citizens who wish to exercise their 2A right.
It's because they don't really take your 2A right seriously.
Why does he want to make it harder for the poor to buy firearms, does not sound very Democratic to me. Smells more like a another way to make money through more taxes than gun control. Passive tracking, LOL, anything someone can put on a gun can be removed. He is a suggestion, do not want to own guns then do not own them, that is your right, my right per the Constitution, is to own them if I wish.
Always love the stupidity some display when it comes to guns and safety, funny how it never comes someone that actually has any experience with firearms.
Don't forget the call for inexpensive guns a few decades back.
In leftspeak "This will disenfranchise the poor and unfortunate in disproportionate numbers".
Someone should stand up for them as they have the right to self defense as much as anyone for any other economic strata.
“Gun violence takes more than 33,000 lives and injures over 84,000 Americans, costing the US economy $127 billion each year,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, in support of the measure.
What they fail to mention is that over 60% of those deaths are suicides and the vast majority of the rest are gang bangers in Chicago and Baltimore killing each other. Those gang bangers don't get their guns legally of course so as usual, this law will do ZERO good. Its like putting a band-aid on a cancer patient. If these PC liberal democrats REALLY wanted to do something about gun violence and people who shouldn't own guns getting them, they would be taking their anti-gun message to the streets of Chicago and Baltimore. You know, all those kids running around who look like they could be one of Obama's sons...
It would all depend. Is there actually a fire in the theater? If so, there is no laws being broken. You see, the court only said that shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected by the first amendment when:
(1) the person knows that his words will cause immediate harm, (2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm, and (3) that the end result is predictable, that the speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
Otherwise, the speech is protected. See, that restriction is narrowly tailored to meet a very specific public interest. It can't be overly broad. So if you want to apply those same parameters to gun control, I'd be more than happy to do it, but I doubt you'd like where we ended up.
FRor a very good read on the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example and how it applies to guns, click on the following link. You won't regret reading it, even if you don;t agree. Very interesting analysis...
I didn't ask you how impossible the task was or how impressed you'd be with it, I asked you if you would be ok with a tax on every word in principle? If it could be done, would you be fine with it?
Because we se where "reasonable restrictions" ends up. Refer to the OP.
I suggest you re-read the Heller decision. The Supreme Court did not say that a gun is for recreational activities, it said that the core of the right was self-protection. Anything else is just your opinion, but at least you openly acknowlege that you don't really view the 2A as seriously as other rights protected by the Constitution. I guess we get to just pick and choose which rights are important and which aren't, but this illustrates perfectly why we don't trust people like you when you say that you only want "reasonable restrictions" on guns.... You don't even take our Constitutional right to owbn a gun seriously.
Sure... When we ask if you'd be ok with a tax on every word typed on the internet, instead of answering, you say ghow impressed you'd be with the accomplishment of such an impossible feat. Deflecting. The real question is whether you'd be ok with the principle of taxing speech.
Yes.
Well there are always going to be politicians proposing crazy ideas. How many which hunts have Republicans done this year in Congress? That doesn't we shouldn't be compromising.
Yes, I am sure there are some who think their gun will protect them, and I am sure the Supreme Court agreed with them. That doesn't change my opinion.
And again, please tell me where I am specifically deflecting? I don't think you know what that word means.
Would I be okay with a tax on free speech? Maybe, depends on the details. This idea of generalizingly taxing free speech in nonsense.
No one has proposed an idea that would benefit in any way.
As soon as there is a "compromise" there will be another
shooting, since the new laws didn't help, and there will
need to be another "compromise." Then there will be
another shooting, since the new laws didn't help, and
there will need to be another "compromise."
...repeat as necessary.
No one has proposed an idea that would benefit in any way.
As soon as there is a "compromise" there will be another
shooting, since the new laws didn't help, and there will
need to be another "compromise." Then there will be
another shooting, since the new laws didn't help, and
there will need to be another "compromise."
...repeat as necessary.
Creeping incrementalism. No. Not one inch.
Yes, because the sticking our heads in the sand approach has been working so well for this country. So which state will the next mass shootings happen and how many will the gunman kill? We should start taking bets on this.
Yes, because the sticking our heads in the sand approach has been working so well for this country. So which state will the next mass shootings happen and how many will the gunman kill? We should start taking bets on this.
Come up with an idea that has a chance of working.
Not just stupid stuff in the name of doing "something."
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.
