Yes
No
Neutral
Why would you want to deprive the poor from their right to keep and bear arms? We've tried this with voting before (poll taxes). It didn't end well.Originally Posted by muck
Firearms are already a relatively expensive hobby nowadays. A quality "assault rifle" can rarely be found for under a thousand dollars. Ammunition always seems to be rising in cost. Accessories (optics, magazines, etc.) are relatively expensive for quality items. There's a reason why you don't see many gang shootings with custom 1911s or tricked out AR-15s.
Gun costs shouldn't be artificially inflated from a crime policy standpoint. Doing so only attempts to deter firearms ownership, which is contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. Such an action would be found unconstitutional, specifically for guns, under U.S. v. Miller. If the intent is to raise revenue, it would be constitutional at its face.
Furthermore, we've already tried making certain items prohibitively expensive. In 1934, the NFA was passed, which levied a $200 tax on certain firearms. $200 is not a lot of money today, but it certainly was in the 1930s. It was also a tax wildly in excess of the value of most of what was taxed; a Thompson submachine gun cost ~$100 in 1934, a suppressor could be had for around $3-5, and your average "short barreled shotgun" was no different in price than a hunting shotgun, and probably cost around $20 at best. Compliance with the measure was very low until the 1960s, when a combination of inflation and a general amnesty for NFA items made registration no longer prohibitively expensive.
I'm glad there are others who view the 2nd Amendment the way I do. As a check against tyranny. Just a few years ago, a statement like that would label you a tin foil hat wearer.
I hate when people try and make it seem like it's for hunting, because "Back then, you had to hunt for your food". Really? There weren't any cattle/pig/chicken farms in 1776?
Why would prices rise on ammo and guns? Do you mean taxes paid to the govt. as a means of punishment of those buying same?
Sure. I mean, prices would go up in the short run as demand outstripped supply. But prices would come down over the long run as the supply side comes back into equilibrium with the demand.
Also, Georgia's laws are a little restrictive, but only with fully automatic weapons (and that's only if the authorities know about them,). I really don't care what the other states do so long as our genius politicians in Atlanta or Washington don't try to change the laws here.
We have gun control here in CA. It don't really work.
The top 50 countries in the world couldn't **** with the US I fail to see what a modern day militia could do? without just been added to a terrorist watchlist and spanked by the FBI.
@commanding/ needsabettername
It was just an example for a hypothetical scenario were altogether it would become more comfortable and easy for law-abiding citizens to acquire and possess firearms, but at the price of a new "inconvenience": a compromise between "gun control" and "no gun control" would inevitably mean that while one interest is favoured the other has to stand back.
I chose that of rising prices because I imagined if traders were to install additional safety nets (to unburden citizens from additional hassle) they would most likely pass the expenses on to the buyer.
Take this with a pinch of salt, I'm blabbering into the blue right now just to find out how much opponents of gun control are willing to compromise should the government try to pass new firearms legislation.
Are M1 Abrams tanks and F22's going to deliver the mail, collect taxes, or answer 911 calls?
Do we need to cover the basics of insurgency?
Do firearms and ammunition cost more in Georgia? Why would the price have to rise?
Well they were gonna use cruise missiles to deliver the mailAre M1 Abrams tanks and F22's going to deliver the mail, collect taxes, or answer 911 calls?
Do we need to cover the basics of insurgency?
Insurgency in some piss ant country is a bit different than insurgency in the USA the current breed haven't done so well.
nvm disregard.
They will as it gets closer to the election and everyone around here starts buying like crazy. You know, just in case....
Shhh, don't give away secrets!Are M1 Abrams tanks and F22's going to deliver the mail, collect taxes, or answer 911 calls?
Do we need to cover the basics of insurgency?
Wrong, AK-47s and AR-15 style rifles were both designed primarily to wound, not kill. There's a huge difference in the terminal ballistics when comparing an intermediate round like a 5.56/7.62x39 and a larger bullet like a 30-06 or 7.62x51 NATO/7.62x54R etc. Namely, the larger rounds are designed to put someone down in one hit because of the shock of a large bullet traveling through the body. An intermediate sized round is designed to wound, because armies realized that it is more effective to wound your enemies instead of outright killing them. If you wound someone, someone else has to look after them, so in effect, you are taking 2 or more out of the fight. On top of this is the logistics cost in transporting a casualty in and out of a battlefield, and after that, getting them medical treatment, which is even more time and material consuming.
I've hunted wild boar with a WASR-10 before, and trust me, I wouldn't consider it again. A wounded boar is one hell of a pissed off animal, and I've heard horror stories of what they can do to unprepared hunters. On one occasion it took 4 shots to the torso to bring a boar down, whereas with an M14 it has always been consistently a one shot takedown. The same is generally true for humans, so long as you are hit in a non critical area.
Another thing, you aren't taking hunters into account. Do you really think hunters are going to want around hunting with revolvers and pistols? That's so impractical, I don't even see how it would be reliably done. A lot of hunters favor a Semi-automatic AR over a bolt action rifle because you are able to make a quick follow up shot. I'll go back to the wounded boar. If you are fumbling around with a bolt action rifle while a boar is running through the underbrush towards you, there's a good chance it'll be able to be right on top of you before you get another clean shot.
Another thing, how many crimes are actually committed with assault rifles? Surely the high profile crimes are, but those are few and far between. Most crimes are committed with handguns because they are easier to conceal and carry, and much more affordable and available. Almost all the crimes I hear about in my neighborhood are committed with handguns (along with the occasional shotgun), be it a mugging, robbery, home invasion, shooting, etc.
And whats a good deterrent to pistol armed opponent? An AR. The vast majority of all gun owners uphold and obey the law. Why penalize them because certain rare individuals are apesh!t insane?
See post #67.
Not really. Micheal F once had a brilliant post about this. It doesn't take heavy weapons to make a government impotent. Once a government needs troops to deliver basic services such as mail collection a wedge starts to be driven between the people and their government (The whole point of terrorism).Well they were gonna use cruise missiles to deliver the mail
Insurgency in some piss ant country is a bit different than insurgency in the USA the current breed haven't done so well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
