Students’ gun protest turns violent in Stockton, California and leads to arrests - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53164304]I think if you want to require something for gun owners, it should be: 1.) UNIVERSAL background checks 2.) UNIVERSAL mental health evaluations additionally there should be a record of every purchase and sale of a gun in the United States so that the serial number for a weapon used in a crime can be traced back to whoever sold a weapon to a criminal, to crack down on straw purchases, and to see what licensed dealers are selling without a background check and crack down on them. Lastly, ALL sales in the USA must go through this process, so no more gun show or person-to-person/under the table sales. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Sex education is necessary; if you don't learn sex ed then there is a higher rate of teen pregnancy in your area, since everyone has sex. Gun education is not necessary, since not everyone owns a gun or even wants to own a gun. The two things are not the same.[/QUOTE] So who's footing the bill for the financial barriers to what is literally and plainspokenly, a right of mine?

[QUOTE=evilweazel;53164780]So who's footing the bill for the financial barriers to what is literally and plainspokenly, a right of mine?[/QUOTE] It's only my opinion but I think people who decide to own a gun should have to pay for any gun-related infrastructure and the people who don't own guns shouldn't have to.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164819]It's only my opinion but I think people who decide to own a gun should have to pay for any gun-related infrastructure and the people who don't own guns shouldn't have to.[/QUOTE] Yeah this isn't how rights work. If you're putting the ability to use a right behind any barrier it is to be 100% accessible and free to the public and must explicitly remain that way permanently. Anything else is tyrannical, just like it would be for any other right in the constitution. Of course, if you view the 2nd as an inconvenient paragraph to be worked around and skipped over and not as an explicit right of the people chances are you won't agree with that.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;53164852]Yeah this isn't how rights work. If you're putting the ability to use a right behind any barrier it is to be 100% accessible and free to the public and must explicitly remain that way permanently. Anything else is tyrannical, just like it would be for any other right in the constitution. Of course, if you view the 2nd as an inconvenient paragraph to be worked around and skipped over and not as an explicit right of the people chances are you won't agree with that.[/QUOTE] Except financial consequences to using your rights is an integral part of society in many ways. You have a right to open and maintain a business but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to own property but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to have your own income but you're still taxed based on it. The list goes on. Financial hurdles [I]are[/I] an inherent part of rights, since rights more than often gravitate around having and spending money. Otherwise if we pushed your logic far enough you'd be entitled to free guns just because you have the right to bear arms and you'd be entitled to a free plot of land in order to enjoy your right to own property. If you have the income to purchase a single firearm you should have the income to pay taxes proportional to the owning of one registered firearm, and if you own fifty registered firearms you should pay taxes proportional to owning that many guns. The same way income or property tax works. IMHO gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right because it requires a set of skills and knowledge which is not innate. You have to learn it its learning is critical to the proper use and care of a firearm and thus you should have to prove you fulfill these conditions. The second amendment makes mention of the right to bear [I]arms[/I], not guns in particular. Arms can be anything from a pointy stick to a sword to a gun. But guns being a rather special thing even in the realm of weapons, as wide as it is, I think it requires some extra precautions of its own. The same way owning a bicycle doesn't require an extra set of permission but owning a motorbike does.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164896] But guns being a rather special thing even in the realm of weapons, as wide as it is, I think it requires some extra precautions of its own.[/QUOTE] "Shall not be infringed" Literally any law that limits types of firearms, ammo count, accessories , etc are not legal.

[QUOTE=Episode;53164919]"Shall not be infringed" Literally any law that limits types of firearms, ammo count, accessories , etc are not legal.[/QUOTE] did you miss the part where he said [QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164896]IMHO gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Episode;53164919]"Shall not be infringed" Literally any law that limits types of firearms, ammo count, accessories , etc are not legal.[/QUOTE] Again, if you still have the ability to bear arms, [I]any arms[/I], then it can be interpreted that your right is not infringed. Infringement is not a synonym with limitation. OFC this is going by the second amendment alone which I still think is a fairly outdated piece of the constitution seeing as it's well over 200 years of age. Legal documents rarely if ever last that long without becoming obsolete to some degree. These arguments have been pushed hundreds of time but I'll refresh them if only to be clear on my stance. The way the constitution was written did not account for the demographic and geographic explosion which the US underwent over the next two centuries. It also did not account for its development of wide urban centers and was, for the most part, known to be focused primarily on the idea that the US would remain an agricultural nation of land owners. The founding fathers were smart enough to put a nation together but they didn't have the foresight to plan two hundred years ahead, no one does.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164896]Except financial consequences to using your rights is an integral part of society in many ways. You have a right to open and maintain a business but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to own property but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to have your own income but you're still taxed based on it. The list goes on. Financial hurdles [I]are[/I] an inherent part of rights, since rights more than often gravitate around having and spending money. Otherwise if we pushed your logic far enough you'd be entitled to free guns just because you have the right to bear arms and you'd be entitled to a free plot of land in order to enjoy your right to own property. If you have the income to purchase a single firearm you should have the income to pay taxes proportional to the owning of one registered firearm, and if you own fifty registered firearms you should pay taxes proportional to owning that many guns. The same way income or property tax works. IMHO gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right because it requires a set of skills and knowledge which is not innate. You have to learn it its learning is critical to the proper use and care of a firearm and thus you should have to prove you fulfill these conditions. The second amendment makes mention of the right to bear [I]arms[/I], not guns in particular. Arms can be anything from a pointy stick to a sword to a gun. But guns being a rather special thing even in the realm of weapons, as wide as it is, I think it requires some extra precautions of its own. The same way owning a bicycle doesn't require an extra set of permission but owning a motorbike does.[/QUOTE] Just wondering, how do you feel about poll taxes? Our courts decided that they're illegal for pretty much the exact reasoning evilweazel cited.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53164960]Just wondering, how do you feel about poll taxes? Our courts decided that they're illegal for pretty much the exact reasoning evilweazel cited.[/QUOTE] Assuming you mean the one tried in the UK in the early 90s, it was an absolute shitshow of an idea because the way it calculated taxation was horribly unfair. It was in many ways the opposite of what I claimed. Individuals with fewer property and lesser income were smacked over the head with disproportionate taxation. It was a whack idea that didn't work for being absolutely out of touch. It's obvious that what exactly you base the proportion of the taxation on needs to be studied adequately. The Poll Tax based its calculation on something flat out idiotic. Any system of taxation can be both horribly unfair and perfectly fair entirely based on its means of calculation.

Sorry, I should have specified. In the US, poll taxes were historically used in the 19th and early 20th centuries to disenfranchise blacks, by setting a cost on the privilege of voting that many could not afford. In 1937 our Supreme Court ruled that putting a tax on a right was unconstitutional, because a right is something that everyone is entitled to, not something that must be purchased from the government. The examples you gave aren't 'rights' as enshrined in the Constitution, they're privileges enabled by the government. If they were actually protected as inalienable rights, then yes, a citizen could challenge the government over being forced to pay to exercise them, and they'd probably win. A system where rights must be bought is incredibly open to abuse. Sure, you have the right to free speech, just pay a $10,000 tax for a public speaking permit, otherwise it's off to jail. Sure, you have the right to a jury trial, but you're on the hook to pay the court's fees to host it. Our courts have determined that protecting individual rights requires that the government remove any undue burden to their exercising, and any taxes or ancillary costs are typically considered an undue burden. If restrictions are placed on gun ownership that require gun owners to jump through additional hoops, either we'll have to reform the law such that gun ownership is no longer a right, or the government will be responsible for those costs. Anything else is contrary to legal precedent.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164398] And if it was 30, more may have died. Maybe reduce the sizes more, idk[/QUOTE] only allow guns that hold one bullet. well, maybe only zero bullets. that seems reasonable. /sarcasm

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;53165020]only allow guns that hold one bullet. well, maybe only zero bullets. that seems reasonable. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] Or just 5 - 10 for semi automatic... Or only have non semi-automatic

[QUOTE=catbarf;53165012]Sorry, I should have specified. In the US, poll taxes were historically used in the 19th and early 20th centuries to disenfranchise blacks, by setting a cost on the privilege of voting that many could not afford. In 1937 our Supreme Court ruled that putting a tax on a right was unconstitutional, because a right is something that everyone is entitled to, not something that must be purchased from the government. The examples you gave aren't 'rights' as enshrined in the Constitution, they're privileges enabled by the government. If they were actually protected as inalienable rights, then yes, a citizen could challenge the government over being forced to pay to exercise them, and they'd probably win. A system where rights must be bought is incredibly open to abuse. Sure, you have the right to free speech, just pay a $10,000 tax for a public speaking permit, otherwise it's off to jail. Sure, you have the right to a jury trial, but you're on the hook to pay the court's fees to host it. Our courts have determined that protecting individual rights requires that the government remove any undue burden to their exercising, and any taxes or ancillary costs are typically considered an undue burden. If restrictions are placed on gun ownership that require gun owners to jump through additional hoops, either we'll have to reform the law such that gun ownership is no longer a right, or the government will be responsible for those costs. Anything else is contrary to legal precedent.[/QUOTE] Oh, yeah, that's fairly different. Thing is that I'm pretty sure you are already paying for elections to take place near you. I can't see where else the money would come from seeing as maintaining the voting infrastructure is in itself quite costly. Adding extra taxes on top of it just to segregate a specific category of individuals is just as bullshit here as it was in the UK when similar measures were used to fuck over the poor. In fact come to think of it the moniker of Poll Tax (which was not the official name) was likely given to it in reference to the American system from way earlier. As for the part regarding property and whatnot, the bill of rights does make express mention of property as a right, not a privilege. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165032]Or just 5 - 10 for semi automatic... Or only have non semi-automatic[/QUOTE] A modern firearm is far too simple to operate in trained hands and far too quick to reload to make this sort of metric valid however. It seriously does not take very long to swap a magazine and you would be surprised how quickly someone who actually learns how to use a gun can manually cycle a bolt. Goes without even mentioning shotguns.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164896]Except financial consequences to using your rights is an integral part of society in many ways. You have a right to open and maintain a business but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to own property but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to have your own income but you're still taxed based on it. The list goes on. Financial hurdles [I]are[/I] an inherent part of rights, since rights more than often gravitate around having and spending money. Otherwise if we pushed your logic far enough you'd be entitled to free guns just because you have the right to bear arms and you'd be entitled to a free plot of land in order to enjoy your right to own property. If you have the income to purchase a single firearm you should have the income to pay taxes proportional to the owning of one registered firearm, and if you own fifty registered firearms you should pay taxes proportional to owning that many guns. The same way income or property tax works. IMHO gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right because it requires a set of skills and knowledge which is not innate. You have to learn it its learning is critical to the proper use and care of a firearm and thus you should have to prove you fulfill these conditions. The second amendment makes mention of the right to bear [I]arms[/I], not guns in particular. Arms can be anything from a pointy stick to a sword to a gun. But guns being a rather special thing even in the realm of weapons, as wide as it is, I think it requires some extra precautions of its own. The same way owning a bicycle doesn't require an extra set of permission but owning a motorbike does.[/QUOTE] While you can attach financial costs to things that are guaranteed rights, you can't deny access with those financial barriers. So, for example, you can make people pay for their right to legal representation, but if a person can't afford it, then the state has to provide it for free. In the same way, you wouldn't be able to block access to guns with financial barriers. So if someone couldn't afford the cost of fulfilling guns regulations, then the state would be required to provide it for free.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164896]Except financial consequences to using your rights is an integral part of society in many ways. You have a right to open and maintain a business but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to own property but the government still taxes you for it. You have a right to have your own income but you're still taxed based on it. The list goes on. Financial hurdles [I]are[/I] an inherent part of rights, since rights more than often gravitate around having and spending money. Otherwise if we pushed your logic far enough you'd be entitled to free guns just because you have the right to bear arms and you'd be entitled to a free plot of land in order to enjoy your right to own property. If you have the income to purchase a single firearm you should have the income to pay taxes proportional to the owning of one registered firearm, and if you own fifty registered firearms you should pay taxes proportional to owning that many guns. The same way income or property tax works. IMHO gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right because it requires a set of skills and knowledge which is not innate. You have to learn it its learning is critical to the proper use and care of a firearm and thus you should have to prove you fulfill these conditions. The second amendment makes mention of the right to bear [I]arms[/I], not guns in particular. Arms can be anything from a pointy stick to a sword to a gun. But guns being a rather special thing even in the realm of weapons, as wide as it is, I think it requires some extra precautions of its own. The same way owning a bicycle doesn't require an extra set of permission but owning a motorbike does.[/QUOTE] There's an easily discernable difference between taxes on property and putting up prequalifiers to a right recognized by the constitution. No one here would tolerate a barrier to entry, financial or otherwise, to free speech, press, religion, etc., I'm not sure where you're from but its probably similar there. Thats what the right to keep and bear are kept alongside here. Rights aren't really rights anymore if the government that is supposed to protect them starts putting up qualifiers that 100% of the law abiding population can't achieve, its why voter ID and fees are a big deal here. As for the cost of the weapon, it's irrelevant, there's a difference between the right to, and the right to keep. Its simple english. And as for saying the 2nd doesn't even include firearms.... well, that's certainly a, uh, fresh perspective. :v:

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53165058]Thing is that I'm pretty sure you are already paying for elections to take place near you. I can't see where else the money would come from seeing as maintaining the voting infrastructure is in itself quite costly.[/QUOTE] Oh, of course we're still paying for it in the end. It's the taxpayers paying taxes, after all. But then it's borne as a societal cost shared by all, rather than an individual cost for the person who chooses to exercise that right.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164619]I have a feeling you'll always have an excuse for why it isn't working.[/QUOTE] The fact that it's perfectly legal in any state nearby isn't much of an excuse ffs

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165280]The fact that it's perfectly legal in any state nearby isn't much of an excuse ffs[/QUOTE] So you think that if it didn't work in a few states, the natural next step is to enforce those same laws in ALL states even though we've already explained that even if you got a nationwide ban, the changes would be non-existent and the laws would still easily circumvented?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165280]The fact that it's perfectly legal in any state nearby isn't much of an excuse ffs[/QUOTE] Right, and if it were banned federally, then you would complain that they were available in other countries and/or that there was a huge black market. This is ignoring, of course, that it almost certainly wouldn't have any effect anyway.

[QUOTE=St33m;53164524]Well let me explain. Your nation seen from the outside is a dystopian horror story, a foreboding thesis on the dangers of human greed, a slow-motion political civil war, and a clown show all rolled into one. I can't not use all that material in an argument, i don't have the self-control.[/QUOTE] I would argue that everything you said is a good reason for us to be armed

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53165403]So you think that if it didn't work in a few states, the natural next step is to enforce those same laws in ALL states even though we've already explained that even if you got a nationwide ban, the changes would be non-existent and the laws would still easily circumvented?[/QUOTE] and how would they be circumvented?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164366]Well first off, mag sizes would slow shooters a whole lot. Ammo types could stop hollow points and that kind of thing[/QUOTE] Really, this is a bad argument. Reloading is actually really quick when you have a crap ton of mags or just carry multiple firearms and perform New York reloads. [video=youtube;MCSySuemiHU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU[/video]

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165430]and how would they be circumvented?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings[/url] Like they were in the 2014 Moncton shootings, perhaps? We've had magazine capacity restrictions on rifles of 5 rounds since 1992, they're still easily circumvented by anyone who actually intends to do harm.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53164748]No. For the exact same reason correlation doesn't mean causation, inverse correlations don't mean non causation. Events can have several causes. If the studied cause goes up while others go down, then the result goes down. It's also disingenuous to talk about murder rates when the subject matter of this thread, mass shootings, have increased in frequency in recent years. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] And? None goes to the same extremes as the US. It makes sense that a parameter that varies relatively little from country to country doesn't have a significant impact and does when it comes to doubling the amount of firearms per capita of the second most armed nation. Apples and oranges also shouldn't be compared. If you want to prove a point, then a comparison should be made with first world countries, not ones where poverty and unrest is such that it becomes a major component. On that note, could you show a correlation among first world countries that would support an alternative hypothesis? I've yet to see any.[/QUOTE] Still waiting for an actual response BTW. Judging by the ratings, there should be more than enough people willing to provide one.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53165403]So you think that if it didn't work in a few states, the natural next step is to enforce those same laws in ALL states even though we've already explained that even if you got a nationwide ban, the changes would be non-existent and the laws would still easily circumvented?[/QUOTE] I don't think SIRIUS realizes that we [i]had[/i] a nation-wide ban from 1994-2004. If you want, you can easily look up the DoJ's report on why it didn't have any apparent effect.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53165430]and how would they be circumvented?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zombinie;53164651]Or they could just un-pin the pinned magazines. Or if they stopped selling pinned magazines, they could just make 30 rounders out of 4 10 rounders and a hacksaw and some duct tape. Magazine restrictions are some of the most useless, feelgood laws, and one of the easiest to circumvent.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=_Axel;53165533]Still waiting for an actual response BTW. Judging by the ratings, there should be more than enough people willing to provide one.[/QUOTE] Probably because people don't want to do your work for you along with it being a pretty pointless question.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53164929]Infringement is not a synonym with limitation.[/QUOTE] I don't think you know what the definition of infringe is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53165603]Probably because people don't want to do your work for you along with it being a pretty pointless question.[/QUOTE] You're the one who talks about inverse correlation and talks about murder rates when the actual subject of the conversation is mass shootings, but hey it's not like you're going to even acknowledge that. You're not going to admit that your entire line of reasoning is disingenuous. I'm the one who has mentioned any actual figures here. You failed to show any actual evidence yourself despite having demanding standards in that regard. You demand that I present complete proof and yet you fail to provide any that would show a correlation between an alternative cause and mass shooting occurrences. So far the [I]only[/I] hypothesis that has any data behind it is gun availability. How about you start doing some work yourself for once to actually defend your point? That "pretty pointless question" is the exact same question you asked me. How about you stop being so hypocritical?

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;53163515]wait old people in the us have to redo driving tests?[/QUOTE] No but they should. Everyone should. (in my state you only have to retake a driving test if you let your license expire)