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.
I'd have alot more trust in gunowners if they stopped comparing handguns to spoons.
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.
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.
----------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.
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.