Reply With QuoteI've been looking for an older post of yours for an argument in the Guns Poll thread.Originally Posted by Michael F
The last time they did that, in this Country, was the "Saturday Night Special" laws. Get cheap, small caliber handguns off the streets? Great idea, right? Turns out the laws mostly disarmed minority inner-city females.
I've been looking for an older post of yours for an argument in the Guns Poll thread.
Nah
everybody has the right to be in bad mood from time to time. You are all forgiven. Check your mail more often, my card is a singing one...
It worked somehow in several countries (Brazil, Venezuela, Guatemala)
Well if was only a peace time of several months, nothing stays forever
Thanks! I admit to being in a foul mood when gun control comes up....my wife knows to stay clear of that sujbect. Glad you understood that was just a joke.
Seriously....I do wonder though, if some of the early posters, were just trying to stir an argument for fun, or if they were just not well informed.
They're just not well informed. That said, there's nothing wrong with playing devils advocate, aslong as it's done with an intelligent line of argument, which is understandable even if you disagree with it.
I'd have alot more trust in gunowners if they stopped comparing handguns to spoons.
Ohh 2.5 million? Where please, do 2.5 million people are affected by a planned attempt to Murder them.
I lost a Brother in Law just on his front door, and he was packing a serious arsenal for a solitary. Lost two friends in good company, all armed, all dead.
But hey...2.5 million defensive gun uses cannot be wrong...or can they? Mexico? Honduras? Slavador? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Gang to gang violence? I mean it is already rich.
Now poll taxes...
1. Capitation was specifically found constitutionnal by your own Supreme Court. Did it not? Were not poll taxes abolished by an Amendment? IE a Federal legislative act?
2. Capitation is not comparable to any possible taxation over firearms and ammunition. In case you missed the point Taxation over firearms is already effective.
3. Confer point 1...do you understand what it does imply, right? So...I guess you mised that.
Now explain to me which minorities would be targeted by taxation over firearms...especially as the said taxation already exists...I can see hundred of means to tax firearm makers at the source while and making you feel the brunt. It is big G for a reason.Our Bill of Rights is a list of items that the government will not f*ck with. At times, they are subject to reasonable regulations, mainly when they infringe upon the rights of others (slander, for example). Equivocating something not on the list with something included in the Bill of Rights and asking "what's the problem?" ignores two hundred years of legal precedent.
Lawb: the Issue here is legality...as said in the beggining of the thread my position was and still is that what happens in the US concerns only the US folks. One poster threw the idea of over taxation, others said it was going to be illegal. Happens that it is not that easy.
Seraosha: I got NO cat in this fight. To the contrary. I was onnly bemused that people keep offering statistics over gun ownership and drop in crime rate...like coming outs and drop in fertility rates.
Mexico has pretty strict gun laws. What's their gun crime like?
Probably not for fun, after all we are all grown up personsSeriously....I do wonder though, if some of the early posters, were just trying to stir an argument for fun, or if they were just not well informed.
Anyway you have to understand that your gun culture is very strange to most of us, europeans, and very alien.
So we are looking for answers about something we don't fully understand (and probably never will)
Ad on that a pinch of misinformation, media shortcuts as well as the very defensive reaction of most of US posters and you could understand that we have sometimes a hard time to follow and appreciate all the tiny details on the issue.
As such i think that in this thread in particular (as i said so far prety much quiet in regard to previous same kind of threads) the questions and discussions are more on an informative path than not.
In the US firearms are a right that most don't want to give up and most would prefer the government kept it's fvcking hands OFF. Why wouldn't people get irritated at others who attack it?
"Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." - Jeff Cooper
It's all about situational awareness, but having right tools in the hand make self-defense a lot easier.
Strict gun laws? Where? Private party sales are unchecked...no limit number for weapons owned and there is always the Northern Border.
Tell me more about it. I would like to appreciate your wit, with my sister.
Nobody said that. There are 2.5 million incidents annually were people use firearms to protect life and property. That can mean chasing off a burglar, stopping your crazy niece's ex from bashing you in the head with a steel bar (that is one from personal experience), chasing away car thieves trying to break into a van parked in the alley behind your house (another one from personal experience), and so on.
----------Sorry for your loss. Carrying a gun is no guarantee. Life does not come with guarantees. All you can do is to shift the odds in your favor by carrying the tools that allow you to fight back.I lost a Brother in Law just on his front door, and he was packing a serious arsenal for a solitary. Lost two friends in good company, all armed, all dead.
----------All except the last two are places where citizens cannot own guns to defend themselves. The last two are war zones, and thus not relevant to this discussion.But hey...2.5 million defensive gun uses cannot be wrong...or can they? Mexico? Honduras? Slavador? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Gang to gang violence? I mean it is already rich.
I have a friend who was murdered. He had a CCW permit, but was unarmed because he worked in one of those mythical gun-free zones. I don't know if having a gun on him would have saved him; I do know that he would have had an additional option to respond to a violent attack, which is what CCW is all about.
You're intentionally being obtuse. What exactly constitutes a "planned attack?" If I walk down the street with a gun in my waistband, am I planning yet? What about if I do that with the intent to commit a crime, using the weapon to further that crime? What if, in a drunken rage, I decide that I'll walk around in my neighbor's lawn with a shotgun? Have we reached "planning" yet? Is it only "planned" if I pull some sort of JFK-style assassination attempt? You're right: there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do about a determined shooter who you're not aware of. Now demonstrate exactly how common these assassination-style killings are. Or don't, and continue your bullsh*t red herring argument.
Like it or not, a response to a violent attack with equal or greater violence is your best option of stopping an attack. But I guess that never happens, and the 2.5 annual DGUs are just an aberration in statistics.
On poll taxes:
1. Jim Crow wasn't found unconstitutional either. Mainly because nobody challenged it. The fact remains that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens (Jim Crow denied this), and also guarantees that no citizen shall be deprived of the rights, privileges, or immunities inherent in being a US citizen without due process of law. But I guess in your fairy-tale universe, some court has to specifically state that something is wrong before you believe it to be so.
2. A change in the constitution that specifically prohibits an action makes that action... unconstitutional. Guess you missed that while you were trolling.
3. Segregation (Plessy v. Fergusen) was held to be constitutional for over fifty years. It became the legal precedent relied on in a number of cases. I guess that was OK, however, since the Court didn't reverse that decision until the 1950s. The Court never reversed Dredd Scott either (case that stated blacks were legally property), so I guess that's still constitutional despite the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
Taxation on firearms to raise revenue would not disproportionally impact the poor, which is what I claimed. Taxation specifically designed to make an item prohibitively expensive (which we did in this country with the National Firearms Act) would do so.
Posting Permissions
