[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38145819]Would you advocate the removal of all gun control?[/QUOTE]
That's a tough one, Things like background checks or CCW permits I'm not bothered by at all. Restricting a firearm based on features (like heat shields/barrel shrouds, folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips, etc.) is what I would call "bad" gun control.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38145869]That's a tough one, Things like background checks or CCW permits I'm not bothered by at all. Restricting a firearm based on features (like heat shields/barrel shrouds, folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips, etc.) is what I would call "bad" gun control.[/QUOTE]
So if you support a limited form of gun control, would you not be calling yourself an idiot?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38145882]So if you support a limited form of gun control, would you not be calling yourself an idiot?[/QUOTE]
Background checks and CCW permits don't infringe on the second amendment in either letter or spirit.
Why would you shoot a skunk anyway?
So you're one of those advocates that honestly thinks that the 2nd amendment protects them from the government yet is ready to call other people idiots?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38145894]Background checks and CCW permits don't infringe on the second amendment in either letter or spirit.[/QUOTE]
Laws get interpreted differently over time you know. It's possible to argue the exact opposite.
And why is the amendment so important?
How strict are the gun permits in the US? Over here you have to show you can safely use and store a gun as well as having to justify with a legit reason why you need it. Seems like in the US all they do is check on your criminal record and give you the license
[QUOTE=aznz888;38138770]Poor girl, at least she wasn't shot somewhere more impotant.[/QUOTE]
The shot tears through her shoulderblade, ricocheting off bone and severing two lines of tendons. Due to the tumbling action following the ricochet it becomes impossible to repair the damage done to her tendons due to the wound pattern. Whilst through and through it also strikes the Brachial artery and she begins to bleed near uncontrollably from her armpit. So for the next few hours as she lays waiting for an ambulance to arrive at a rural pennsylvanian home, she is forced to endure agony as the remaining nerves in her bone recognize the damage and signal their severe pain. All during this she can't be moved because if her arm is lifted, she will bleed to death. And even though she is taken to a hospital, her arm will be forever useless.
Sorry but getting shot anywhere is BAD. Pretty much the only "okay" places to get hit are the thigh (hits fat), buttocks (FAT), and cheek (through-and-through, might lose some teeth). Even these are not okay to be shot in, it just means there's some chance of it doing minimal damage.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38145918]Laws get interpreted differently over time you know. It's possible to argue the exact opposite.
And why is the amendment so important?[/QUOTE]
When you artificially increase the price of a gun, ammunition or accessories with 'taxes' you effectively restrict it to those who can afford it and this is an infringement on the Bill of Rights.
Doesn't matter how you interpret it, restricting someone's rights, especially based on their class in society is wrong.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38146626]When you artificially increase the price of a gun, ammunition or accessories with 'taxes' you effectively restrict it to those who can afford it and this is an infringement on the Bill of Rights.
Doesn't matter how you interpret it, restricting someone's rights, especially based on their class in society is wrong.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if it is wrong or right, that factor is irrelevant here.. I was merely stating that artificially raising the price of firearms would discourage people from obtaining them.
if the girl owned an assault rifle this wouldve never happened #libertarianparty
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38146786]It doesn't matter if it is wrong or right, that factor is irrelevant here.. I was merely stating that artificially raising the price of firearms would discourage people from obtaining them.[/QUOTE]
There's a huge difference between discouragement and making it impossible, if you make something so expensive that only the top 1-2% can afford it then you take the choice away from a huge number of people entirely.
It's not a matter of "Oh save up your money", lets see how long it takes you to save up $50,000-$100,000 when you barely make minimum wage to buy something that would normally cost one hundredth of that and that's not an exaggeration, that's an understatement.
Don't many firearms already have a massive markup?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38145918]
And why is the amendment so important?[/QUOTE]
Oh, I dunno, maybe because it's one of the original fucking amendments in the constitution! Ever tried to think of that? Probably not.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38146941]Don't many firearms already have a massive markup?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like I said above it's often 100x or more what a gun would normally cost.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38146932]There's a huge difference between discouragement and making it impossible, if you make something so expensive that only the top 1-2% can afford it then you take the choice away from a huge number of people entirely.
It's not a matter of "Oh save up your money", lets see how long it takes you to save up $50,000-$100,000 when you barely make minimum wage to buy something that would normally cost one hundredth of that and that's not an exaggeration, that's an understatement.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I only said a tax. I didn't say the actual tax rate that could be done.
If you really wanted to get rid of guns, you could increase gun prices for only middle class white males, but that would involve a whole plethora of other things that people will end up shouting about, one of which will be discrimination no doubt.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38147000]Oh, I dunno, maybe because it's one of the original fucking amendments in the constitution! Ever tried to think of that? Probably not.[/QUOTE]
That is a rather abstract way of thinking of things.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38146941]Don't many firearms already have a massive markup?[/QUOTE]IIRC in the US short-barrelled rifles and automatic firearms require additional background checks and a $200 tax stamp per purchase, no matter what state you're in. Taxes on other firearms vary wildly by state, plus the manufacturer's price markup.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38147000]Oh, I dunno, maybe because it's one of the original fucking amendments in the constitution! Ever tried to think of that? Probably not.[/QUOTE]
Laws aren't set in stone. Using an argument like that can be applied to almost any law.
"Well, this law is here protecting this thing here. We shouldn't remove it because it's been there since forever"
Hell, the Indians modify theirs at least once a year.
The Second Amendment would require actual merits for its existence other than its age.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38147036]Laws aren't set in stone. Using an argument like that can be applied to almost any law.
"Well, this law is here protecting this thing here. We shouldn't remove it because it's been there since forever"
Hell, the Indians modify theirs at least once a year.
The Second Amendment would require actual merits for its existence other than its age.[/QUOTE]
Actually, for Americans, the Constitution is set in stone. Its just we can chisel in new laws and then run a line through it afterward.
Stop thinking in other cultural terms and start thinking in American cultural terms. That's your biggest issue here.
A.Americans hate taxes.
B.Its a one time purchase so the taxes do diddly dick.(These aren't ciggerettes.)
C.Its an ineffective version of gun control. Psych Evals, CCW and Background Checks are much more effective.
Stop making this about making it expensive, make it so those who are unstable or most likely will use them for malcontent [I]CAN'T GET THEM[/I] in the first place.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38147089]Actually, for Americans, the Constitution is set in stone.[/QUOTE]
There is a word for that, and it's called fundamentalism.
And it's a moronic, backwards thought process.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38147114]There is a word for that, and it's called fundamentalism.
And it's a moronic, backwards thought process.[/QUOTE]
[B]Welcome to Amercia.[/B]
I'll take your coat after giving me 5 bucks and then give you an American flag free of charge.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38147117][B]Welcome to Amercia.[/B]
I'll take your coat after giving me 5 bucks and then give you an American flag free of charge.[/QUOTE]
But that is a rather absolute and generalist way of looking at things.
You can't just go [B]AMERICA[/B], like its some kind of reasonable excuse.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38147114]There is a word for that, and it's called fundamentalism.
And it's a moronic, backwards thought process.[/QUOTE]
yeah that's what i hate about america
i think we need to revise damn near everything, including gun laws, but in the end i think we should be able to own any amount of any small arms. honestly, americans don't deserve guns. we're too fucking irresponsible with them. if we fix our violent culture, then we should have guns. regardless of how it "should" be, guns aren't going anywhere. the next best thing is allowing personal liberties in this short life of ours.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38147089]Actually, for Americans, the Constitution is set in stone. Its just we can chisel in new laws and then run a line through it afterward.[/QUOTE]
No it fucking isn't.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]
The other 17 amendments didn't come with the original constitution.
Even then, you are assuming the constitution is a flawless document. (It's not)
Yeah lets not forget the Constitutional amendment that banned alcohol.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38147130]But that is a rather absolute and generalist way of looking at things.
You can't just go [B]AMERICA[/B], like its some kind of reasonable excuse.[/QUOTE]
Its easier to just go America, then to actually the deep complex social and cultural implications that guns have in American Society, one that will be argued by people who actually never studied it.
[editline]23rd October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38147169]No it fucking isn't.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]
The other 17 amendments didn't come with the original constitution.
Even then, you are assuming the constitution is a flawless document. (It's not)[/QUOTE]
You missed the chisel.
And I was stating what many Americans believe. NOT what I believe. Don't put words in my mouth for actually trying to find a solution that is actually a compromise.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38147438]Its easier to just go America, then to actually the deep complex social and cultural implications that guns have in American Society, one that will be argued by people who actually never studied it.[/QUOTE]
Guns have less significance today than they did 160 years ago
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38147454]Guns have less significance today than they did 160 years ago[/QUOTE]
I'd actually argue that they have a larger significance for Americans then they did 160 years ago, especially for those that are impoverished.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38147472]I'd actually argue that they have a larger significance for Americans then they did 160 years ago, especially for those that are impoverished.[/QUOTE]
Gun culture originated in a crapsack loose collection of towns and farms that barely agreed on anything. There was poor central government, the economy was primarily agrarian and many people kept firearms for defence purposes or hunting.
The United States today is a post-industrial state covering a massive swathe of land and hundreds of millions of people. The Federal government today has powers it could only dream of 160 years ago and the country had gone through insanely massive socioeconomic and political changes.
People don't need guns to protect themselves from Indians or rebelling slaves. Hunting is not required to survive. Crime rates have been in a decline and there's no threat of a foreign invasion either.
Guns are much less important to the life of an average American today than 160 years ago.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.