Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[JadeBrecks]

First of all you can have restrictions on right. You got free speech. You will be arrested for going into a crowded movie theater and yell "fire!". An assault weapons ban would be uphold by the United States Supreme Court. Conservative judges have said you can place restrict the second amendment so rights are not the issue here.

The only issue here is affectiveness. No point of having a law that does not work. Now the question is will an assault weapons work? Fair question that we have argued about a great deal.

I think one issue we have failed to look at this from is a supply issue. I think an assault weapons can drie up the supply over time.

So how do that bad guys get guns specifically guns capable of taking out a large group of people?

a - Buy the gun legally from a licensed gun dealer as the have no criminal record.

b - Steal the gun from a gun owner who brought the gun legally.

c- Buy the gun illegally from someone who brought it legally.

I think we can agree that gun manufacters don't sell gun illegally on a street corners. Gun manufactors sell guns to gun dealers. Now gun dealers may sell guns illegally and the people they sell them to may resell them illegally.

So how would an assault weapons help stop criminals from obtaining them? Follow this train of thought.
a- Assault weapons are not produced by gun manufactors except for military purposes.
b- No distribution of guns to gun dealers because no guns are being made to be distributed.
c- So there are no gun dealers to buy from illegally or legally because there is no supply.
d- There are still are ton of these types of guns out there but over time the supply will run out.

Bottom line a criminal can't buy a new AR 15 if there are no AR 15s being produced.

I have heard comments along the lines that bad people will always break the law. The problem is without a supply even if bad guys won't to break the law they won't be able to because of availability because over time the supply will dry out up.

So if the USA stops allowing people to buy ar type firearms nobody else in the world would ever make them? They would just cease to exist in the world? Look at illegal drugs. We can agree that most cocaine and other drugs aren't grown in mass quantities in the US. (We can agree on that right) You can still get these drugs in the US though. Whatever you outlaw will still be made outside the US and then will be smuggled in just like drugs. You will also still have people make them inside the US it will just be under cover just like the dude growing pot in his basement. As far as these guns just magically drying up how do you see that happening? It is a firearm not a block of ice. If I properly bury my ar in the back yard when I dig it up 20 years from now it will still work. These guns won't simply drop into black holes and be lost to the face of the earth. They might be harder to locate but they will still be there. Look at the last "assault weapons" ban. These guns didn't cease to exist. The gun violence didn't just disappear. During this gun ban is when Columbine happened.

If you wouldn't mind taking a look look back at what life was like before these mass shootings. You would go back to times when everyone was allowed to own a gun. There weren't all these gun laws saying who could and couldn't own one or what you could have. Everyone was trained on how to use and not to use a gun. You didn't go into the local meeting place and try and shoot everyone up because you would be dead in no time. Your parents were also allowed to raise you. If you ever acted up while you were being raised you would be bent over your fathers knee and smacked. You were taught that certain things have consequences and you were brought up to be a respectable individual. Now kids aren't even allowed to be told no from their parents let alone disciplined in any way. They are taught shooting people is cool and if you do kill someone the go back to the respawn point and start over. They aren't taught there are no consequences for their actions. I know you are going to say now that we will just go back to the "wild west" and people will shoot anyone who looks at them cross eyed. First off your version of the wild west is taken off what you saw in the movies and second society is a little different now. You can't just shoot someone and move on to the next town where nobody has heard of you or what happened in another town. You will have to answer for what you did. In todays society you will probably be on a security camera somewhere and it won't even be your word verses someone else's. Also back then your "word" meant something too.

 

[JadeBrecks]

If you want to destroy something, tax it.

Nope. Wrong. Cigarettes are still selling despite the massive taxes and rules enforced on them.

 

[chicago51]

If you want to destroy something, tax it.

That actually works. Rather you like Obama Care or not the Supreme Court ruling on it basically says it all. The United States can tax anything and everything if they so choose.

 

[JadeBrecks]

The assault weapons Senate bill lets you keep your current firearms. It simply permits the sale and future manufactor for private consumer use. The goal of the bill is a long term, dry up the supply type of thing.

FYI I think the assault weapons ban fails anyway it will get fillibustered. There is 51 votes for it but not 60.

I do think universal background checks including the end of the gun show loop hole will pass.

I also think tougher gun traffic measures will pass.

50/50 on high capacity magazines passing.

So what happens when someone goes into a school and shoots up people with a shotgun. Ok you ban the new sale of them. Then someone shoots up a place with a pistol. Those things are dangerous too. We need to get rid of those too. Ok now no new guns are being made in the US. Crap people are using guns that are already here now to shoot people. Lets get rid of those. Dang nab it those persistent little buggers (family friendly forum) are using illegally smuggled firearms now. What then? Make them illegal? You can tell me till you are blue in the face that this won't happen but look at any place the government has gotten its foot in the door. They don't stop until they have taken over. Look at other aspects of the government as examples. Also banning one style gun won't change the minds of messed up people from doing others harm. Where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? This is the real world. You can't make everyone safe. It sucks but making more people unsafe doesn't help the situation.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Planning on heading to the Orange County Fairgrounds tomorrow for the gun show. I am planning on a huge crowd, overinflated prices on everything, and hopefully some protesters. Definitely need to see if I can stock up on some 9mm and as many spare mags as I can get my hands on. I highly doubt I will be able to find an AR for under $2000, but if I do, I might have to snatch it up.

Can't wait for comments when I am walking out with my wheeled cart hopefully loaded with 2000 to 3000 rounds of ammo and my bill of sale on a new evil AR.

 

[DSully1995]

We live in a fascist nation. That's not a shot at Obama, it's the same whether it's red or blue in power. Different sides of the same coin. Major banks launder money for blacklisted nations and drug cartels and they are too big to prosecute, but copyright violators get 20+ years and you can be thrown in jail for drug use, not even dealing, simple possession with the three strikes laws.

No you dont, start your own political party, the people still hold the power, and the power is distributed in the way that they wish.

 

[JadeBrecks]

The assault weapons Senate bill lets you keep your current firearms. It simply permits the sale and future manufactor for private consumer use. The goal of the bill is a long term, dry up the supply type of thing.

So since it allows me to protect my family how I see fit then I should be good with it? I should forget about my children or any other person who could legally purchase one before the ban went into affect? The goal is to dry up the legal supply over time is not something I want to be for. That will end poorly for anyone wanting to remain legal.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Planning on heading to the Orange County Fairgrounds tomorrow for the gun show. I am planning on a huge crowd, overinflated prices on everything, and hopefully some protesters. Definitely need to see if I can stock up on some 9mm and as many spare mags as I can get my hands on. I highly doubt I will be able to find an AR for under $2000, but if I do, I might have to snatch it up.

Can't wait for comments when I am walking out with my wheeled cart hopefully loaded with 2000 to 3000 rounds of ammo and my bill of sale on a new evil AR.

Dude pm inbound.

 

[JadeBrecks]

If you wouldn't mind taking a look look back at what life was like before these mass shootings. You would go back to times when everyone was allowed to own a gun. There weren't all these gun laws saying who could and couldn't own one or what you could have. Everyone was trained on how to use and not to use a gun. You didn't go into the local meeting place and try and shoot everyone up because you would be dead in no time. Your parents were also allowed to raise you. If you ever acted up while you were being raised you would be bent over your fathers knee and smacked. You were taught that certain things have consequences and you were brought up to be a respectable individual. Now kids aren't even allowed to be told no from their parents let alone disciplined in any way. They are taught shooting people is cool and if you do kill someone the go back to the respawn point and start over. They aren't taught there are no consequences for their actions. I know you are going to say now that we will just go back to the "wild west" and people will shoot anyone who looks at them cross eyed. First off your version of the wild west is taken off what you saw in the movies and second society is a little different now. You can't just shoot someone and move on to the next town where nobody has heard of you or what happened in another town. You will have to answer for what you did. In todays society you will probably be on a security camera somewhere and it won't even be your word verses someone else's. Also back then your "word" meant something too.

If you don't want to reply to all my posts or the entirety of them can I please at least get your input on this part?

 

[Downinthebend]

That actually works. Rather you like Obama Care or not the Supreme Court ruling on it basically says it all. The United States can tax anything and everything if they so choose.

I don't agree with this in the slightest. I'll stay away from Statism thank you very much.

Somehow I believe that if the government was intended to have the power to tax anything for any purpose and any agenda it would have been laid out in the constitution, instead the constitution lays out several purposes that the federal government ought to perform, gives that government the power to acquire taxes to accomplish those specific ends. The Constitution then lays out specific rights (which some of the founding fathers did not agree with being included, because they believed that it was clear the government would not be able to infringe with those rights, whether they were explicitly laid out or not.).

Where in that is the right to tax anything for any purpose?

 

[mgriff]

No you dont, start your own political party, the people still hold the power, and the power is distributed in the way that they wish.

You know what fascism means, right?

 

[DSully1995]

You know what fascism means, right?

The end is a one party system where no one can oppose the government, but enlighten me

 

[mgriff]

The end is a one party system where no one can oppose the government, but enlighten me

Where corporations are merged with the government. If that isn't America right now then I don't know what is. As I stated above, too big to fail banks get money while the average American loses his house. Average Americans are prosecuted for copyright infringement and a myriad of other issues while zero people on Wall St. were held accountable for the meltdown. Then, we have HSBC laundering money for IRAN and the DRUG CARTELS, and there is no prosecution. Would you prefer corporatism?

 

[Downinthebend]

Where corporations are merged with the government. If that isn't America right now then I don't know what is. As I stated above, too big to fail banks get money while the average American loses his house. Average Americans are prosecuted for copyright infringement and a myriad of other issues while zero people on Wall St. were held accountable for the meltdown. Then, we have HSBC laundering money for IRAN and the DRUG CARTELS, and there is no prosecution. Would you prefer corporatism?

Prefer corporatism over.. fascism? I'd personally prefer a world where the government doesn't force me to buy into corporations that they choose. In my opinion, looking at your definition at fascism, I would not say that the problem there is the corporations, but rather the government holding that gun to your head to make you do stuff.

 

[DSully1995]

Where corporations are merged with the government. If that isn't America right now then I don't know what is. As I stated above, too big to fail banks get money while the average American loses his house. Average Americans are prosecuted for copyright infringement and a myriad of other issues while zero people on Wall St. were held accountable for the meltdown. Then, we have HSBC laundering money for IRAN and the DRUG CARTELS, and there is no prosecution. Would you prefer corporatism?

My words of advice, vote 3rd party or leave, and dont put money in wall st's hands, they bastards, but money making basterds (most days...)


/ petition to end the fed

 

[mgriff]

My words of advice, vote 3rd party or leave, and dont put money in wall st's hands, they bastards, but money making basterds (most days...)


/ petition to end the fed

I did vote third party...and why in the **** do I have to leave my country? I was born here, I pay taxes. Simply because I despise the way it's being run doesn't mean I'm going to leave. I do my part trying to educated people on my line of thinking, which isn't always popular.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I don't agree with this in the slightest. I'll stay away from Statism thank you very much.

Somehow I believe that if the government was intended to have the power to tax anything for any purpose and any agenda it would have been laid out in the constitution, instead the constitution lays out several purposes that the federal government ought to perform, gives that government the power to acquire taxes to accomplish those specific ends. The Constitution then lays out specific rights (which some of the founding fathers did not agree with being included, because they believed that it was clear the government would not be able to infringe with those rights, whether they were explicitly laid out or not.).

Where in that is the right to tax anything for any purpose?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

 

[brandonnash]

Nope. Wrong. Cigarettes are still selling despite the massive taxes and rules enforced on them.

Too much money involved. Cigarettes will never be banned. Even if you go back to say mid 2000s after the last ban was lifted, you will have ARs selling for $500 on the low end. Tax that how you want. 20% will put you at $100 per gun sold. In that year you sell a million guns and its $100,000,000 in tax revenue. The majority of people who will get ban AR will buy one or two at the most. Get that same tax on smokes (its more than that and a lot more than that in some areas like NYC) and a $3 pack of cigarettes gets $.60 tax. More people smoke than buy guns. Let's say 50,000,000 smoke a pack a day on average. That's $30,000,000 in tax revenue...a day! The government can take the hit from some guns not being bought if they were taxed like that even though they weren't. Taxing guns is a double edged sword. You will potentially put a price so high on something that people won't buy them. But then there is no tax coming from it.

 

[Downinthebend]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

I am going to post the entire Art I, Section 8, if no one minds. (side comment: PLEASE ADD SPOILER TAGS, THEY ARE USEFUL). (I am going to post this response to check that I did the quote right then I will edit in my response.

Bold in the constitution is my emphasis.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It is my understanding that the sentence structure is the following: Congress shall have the power to tax IN ORDER to accomplish X Y Z ... N. If the intention was that congress shall have the power to tax unconditionally, why would they lay out an an extensive list of tax purposes.

 

[mgriff]

I am going to post the entire Art I, Section 8, if no one minds. (side comment: PLEASE ADD SPOILER TAGS, THEY ARE USEFUL). (I am going to post this response to check that I did the quote right then I will edit in my response.

Bold in the constitution is my emphasis.


It is my understanding that the sentence structure is the following: Congress shall have the power to tax IN ORDER to accomplish X Y Z ... N. If the intention was that congress shall have the power to tax unconditionally, why would they lay out an an extensive list of tax purposes.

You're right, however, they claim carte blanche under the interstate commerce clause. I like the more hands off approach of keeping trade regular, not regulating, but it grows their power and humans are usually apt to take that route when possible. ****ing legal interpretation...

 

[Booslum31]

I am going to post the entire Art I, Section 8, if no one minds. (side comment: PLEASE ADD SPOILER TAGS, THEY ARE USEFUL). (I am going to post this response to check that I did the quote right then I will edit in my response.

Bold in the constitution is my emphasis.


It is my understanding that the sentence structure is the following: Congress shall have the power to tax IN ORDER to accomplish X Y Z ... N. If the intention was that congress shall have the power to tax unconditionally, why would they lay out an an extensive list of tax purposes.

I was looking for re-distribution on that list of reasons to tax and couldn't find anything close.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I am going to post the entire Art I, Section 8, if no one minds. (side comment: PLEASE ADD SPOILER TAGS, THEY ARE USEFUL). (I am going to post this response to check that I did the quote right then I will edit in my response.

Bold in the constitution is my emphasis.


It is my understanding that the sentence structure is the following: Congress shall have the power to tax IN ORDER to accomplish X Y Z ... N. If the intention was that congress shall have the power to tax unconditionally, why would they lay out an an extensive list of tax purposes.

It's the General Welfare Clause.

I don't like taxes any more than you do, but there is no constitutional prohibition on any type of uniform, non-discriminatory taxing and spending, as long as it's a legit gov't objective.

Congress could also accomplish the same thing under the Necessary and Proper Clause, but that's a longer and much more boring discussion.

 

[Downinthebend]

It's the General Welfare Clause.

I don't like taxes any more than you do, but there is no constitutional prohibition on any type of uniform, non-discriminatory taxing and spending, as long as it's a legit gov't objective.

Congress could also accomplish the same thing under the Necessary and Proper Clause, but that's a longer and much more boring discussion.

I do not agree with that interpretation.

If the founders intended the government could tax anything for virtually any cause as long as they say "general welfare" why did they even make a constitution?

It is my opinion that "general welfare" is simply a preamble the public goods that follow it. If "general welfare" was a cover all, why did the founders lay out an explicit list of purposes for taxation following that?

Any other interpretation (that I can envision at this moment) would grant the government unlimited power on.. anything as long as they mention "general welfare" somewhere.

Japanease internment would be fine as long as it provided for "general welfare"
Killing American citizens would be fine as long as it provided for "general welfare"
invading the privacy (wiretapping) of every citizen would be fine as long as it provided for "general welfare".
Censorship would be fine as ling as it provided for "general welfare"

I do not think that was the intended purpose of the government that the founders proposed.

 

[BobD]

Nope. Wrong. Cigarettes are still selling despite the massive taxes and rules enforced on them.

The cigarette market in the US is sinking like an anchor. Less than 13% of people smoke here in California and we're down to about 25% nationally.

 

[chicago51]

The cigarette market in the US is sinking like an anchor. Less than 13% of people smoke here in California and we're down to about 25% nationally.

I think one element we can take from cigarettes is to go on a massive and I mean massive public education campaign about the dangers of guns. Including how the danger can outweigh the defense.

 

[BobD]

I think one element we can take from cigarettes is to go on a massive and I mean massive public education campaign about the dangers of guns. Including how the danger can outweigh the defense.

Yeah I think an educational campaign combined with laws similar to automobile operation (registration for all that must be renewed annually along with an operator's licence and testing), higher fees, special firearms taxes to make them much more expensive and limits to the types of models available....we'd be on our way to a better world.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Can i ask why nobody would respond to my last several posts? Especially the one i requested be talked about. I was very kind yesterday and answered all questions asked of me. I post a few replies and everyone stops posting and waits for someone to talk about a different idea.
The problem with registration that i have is two fold. First when the government wants to make all guns illegal (don't give me they won't crap. Some politicians want it and they won't stop till they get it) they know exactly who's door to knock on to get them. Second what happens when some stupid newspaper posts that list? You then put everyone in danger. Criminals will try to steal the guns in the one houses and know who can't defend themselves in the other.

As far as your education campaign it won't work. You have far more stories of law abiding firearms than not. You have thousands of competitions, hunts, recreational shooting, and self defense stories to your problems. Will you have stories yes. Any time you deal with a dangerous object you will have people misuse or not respect it. I'm sure you can dig up a knife sports car or even battery drill tragic story where someone didn't respect its power or flat out misused it. This is life danger will never disappear.

Again please go back and read my last several posts and don't just skip them. If you have a different opinion on it give it to me or if i made a good point that you agree with acknowledge it don't skip it and wait for some else to post something you don't agree with.

 

[irishff1014]

Jade is right on. And he said is perfect.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Yeah I think an educational campaign combined with laws similar to automobile operation (registration for all that must be renewed annually along with an operator's licence and testing), higher fees, special firearms taxes to make them much more expensive and limits to the types of models available....we'd be on our way to a better world.

Because all those things would also be applied to the illegal AK's being sold out of the back of a Chevy that was just driven across the border?

 

[BobD]

So if the USA stops allowing people to buy ar type firearms nobody else in the world would ever make them? They would just cease to exist in the world? Look at illegal drugs. We can agree that most cocaine and other drugs aren't grown in mass quantities in the US. (We can agree on that right) You can still get these drugs in the US though. Whatever you outlaw will still be made outside the US and then will be smuggled in just like drugs. You will also still have people make them inside the US it will just be under cover just like the dude growing pot in his basement. As far as these guns just magically drying up how do you see that happening? It is a firearm not a block of ice. If I properly bury my ar in the back yard when I dig it up 20 years from now it will still work. These guns won't simply drop into black holes and be lost to the face of the earth. They might be harder to locate but they will still be there. Look at the last "assault weapons" ban. These guns didn't cease to exist. The gun violence didn't just disappear. During this gun ban is when Columbine happened.

If you wouldn't mind taking a look look back at what life was like before these mass shootings. You would go back to times when everyone was allowed to own a gun. There weren't all these gun laws saying who could and couldn't own one or what you could have. Everyone was trained on how to use and not to use a gun. You didn't go into the local meeting place and try and shoot everyone up because you would be dead in no time. Your parents were also allowed to raise you. If you ever acted up while you were being raised you would be bent over your fathers knee and smacked. You were taught that certain things have consequences and you were brought up to be a respectable individual. Now kids aren't even allowed to be told no from their parents let alone disciplined in any way. They are taught shooting people is cool and if you do kill someone the go back to the respawn point and start over. They aren't taught there are no consequences for their actions. I know you are going to say now that we will just go back to the "wild west" and people will shoot anyone who looks at them cross eyed. First off your version of the wild west is taken off what you saw in the movies and second society is a little different now. You can't just shoot someone and move on to the next town where nobody has heard of you or what happened in another town. You will have to answer for what you did. In todays society you will probably be on a security camera somewhere and it won't even be your word verses someone else's. Also back then your "word" meant something too.

Most AR/M16 weapons aren't very good offering proof that people buying them don't know much about guns.

Back in the days before mass shootings these weapons weren't readily available.