So your saying as a tax and spend liberal, you feel the need to personally disarm. Thats your choice. Leave it at that.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: ajf3
Maybe you're right - it probably would be a better, safer world without cars, knives, planes, baseball bats, extension cords, lamps, gas grills, gasoline, toasters, pencils, pillows, machetes, tvs, boxcutters, pipes, or water.
Face it - our guns are never going away. Guns don't commit crimes - criminals do.
Nice try. Nobody is saying you get rid of cars, planes, baseball bats. The point is that their price will include their external costs to society. It's putting the cost of the burden of such objects on the people who choose to use them. There's a difference between taxing something and not having it.
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: hscorpio
The general public wants to ban guns?
Did I say that? I said the NRA puts pressure on politicians. The pressure makes them vote against guns laws that a majority want. Pick just about any gun legislation, Brady Bill, Assault rifle ban, etc.
If anyone thinks the typical US citizen thinks anyway like the NRA you need to join the real world.
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Nice try. Nobody is saying you get rid of cars, planes, baseball bats. The point is that their price will include their external costs to society. It's putting the cost of the burden of such objects on the people who choose to use them. There's a difference between taxing something and not having it.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Nice try. Nobody is saying you get rid of cars, planes, baseball bats. The point is that their price will include their external costs to society. It's putting the cost of the burden of such objects on the people who choose to use them. There's a difference between taxing something and not having it.
So your saying as a tax and spend liberal, you feel the need to personally disarm. Thats your choice. Leave it at that.
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Nice try. Nobody is saying you get rid of cars, planes, baseball bats. The point is that their price will include their external costs to society. It's putting the cost of the burden of such objects on the people who choose to use them. There's a difference between taxing something and not having it.
So your saying as a tax and spend liberal, you feel the need to personally disarm. Thats your choice. Leave it at that.
I don't want to pay for your choice to be armed. That's your choice, so you pay for it. Leave it at that.
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Nice try. Nobody is saying you get rid of cars, planes, baseball bats. The point is that their price will include their external costs to society. It's putting the cost of the burden of such objects on the people who choose to use them. There's a difference between taxing something and not having it.
So your saying as a tax and spend liberal, you feel the need to personally disarm. Thats your choice. Leave it at that.
I don't want to pay for your choice to be armed. That's your choice, so you pay for it. Leave it at that.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
I have never gotten a ticket in my car or hurt anyone. But I pay insurance for it. Take personal responsibility for your decision to own a gun and pay for the societal costs. Mmmkay?
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
I have never gotten a ticket in my car or hurt anyone. But I pay insurance for it. Take personal responsibility for your decision to own a gun and pay for the societal costs. Mmmkay?
I do take personal responsibility as a gun owner. If I misused my guns I would pay the cost(prison). However, I do not misuse them so there is no societal costs I should have to pay.
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
I have never gotten a ticket in my car or hurt anyone. But I pay insurance for it. Take personal responsibility for your decision to own a gun and pay for the societal costs. Mmmkay?
I do take personal responsibility as a gun owner. If I misused my guns I would pay the cost(prison). However, I do not misuse them so there is no societal costs I should have to pay.
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
But what about the children? We must act like France and tax our society up the wazoo to the tune of 70% or more to pay for big liberal progams, like allowing only criminals to own guns by disarming our society.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
I have never gotten a ticket in my car or hurt anyone. But I pay insurance for it. Take personal responsibility for your decision to own a gun and pay for the societal costs. Mmmkay?
I do take personal responsibility as a gun owner. If I misused my guns I would pay the cost(prison). However, I do not misuse them so there is no societal costs I should have to pay.
I pay car insurance. The government forces me to. Even though I take personal responsibility and have never hurt anyone. Same goes for you and your possessions. You should have to pay insurance. The only reason people like you don't is because you refuse to take responsibility for your decisions.
I pay car insurance. The government forces me to. Even though I take personal responsibility and have never hurt anyone. Same goes for you and your possessions. You should have to pay insurance. The only reason people like you don't is because you refuse to take responsibility for your decisions.
Originally posted by: glenn1
I pay car insurance. The government forces me to. Even though I take personal responsibility and have never hurt anyone. Same goes for you and your possessions. You should have to pay insurance. The only reason people like you don't is because you refuse to take responsibility for your decisions.
You do realize what the ramifications of what you're proposing are, don't you? You already pay car insurance premiums that are through the roof compared to surburban and rural areas because of demographics and foolish laws and regulatory policies, now you're proposing screwing yourselves again with your foolishness. Those of us who live in areas where guns are actually a part of life and gun violence is comparitively rare will pay essentially zero premiums. Those of you gun grabbers (who by and large vastly live in the cities and don't own guns) will be forced to pay the vast bulk of the premiums since where you live is where everyone is getting shot. All for a hubristic counter-productive proposal which has no logical rationale except for a desire to "stick it" to gun owners.
Again, it's a case of the urbanites thinking their self-inflicted problems are universal, and proposing a blanket solution which is not only stupid but counter-productive. If you stopped for a moment and thought about it you'd realize that what applies to you in Compton has no bearing whatsoever once you're out of the blight infested sewers you call city centers.
Originally posted by: jtusa4
Originally posted by: glenn1
I pay car insurance. The government forces me to. Even though I take personal responsibility and have never hurt anyone. Same goes for you and your possessions. You should have to pay insurance. The only reason people like you don't is because you refuse to take responsibility for your decisions.
You do realize what the ramifications of what you're proposing are, don't you? You already pay car insurance premiums that are through the roof compared to surburban and rural areas because of demographics and foolish laws and regulatory policies, now you're proposing screwing yourselves again with your foolishness. Those of us who live in areas where guns are actually a part of life and gun violence is comparitively rare will pay essentially zero premiums. Those of you gun grabbers (who by and large vastly live in the cities and don't own guns) will be forced to pay the vast bulk of the premiums since where you live is where everyone is getting shot. All for a hubristic counter-productive proposal which has no logical rationale except for a desire to "stick it" to gun owners.
Again, it's a case of the urbanites thinking their self-inflicted problems are universal, and proposing a blanket solution which is not only stupid but counter-productive. If you stopped for a moment and thought about it you'd realize that what applies to you in Compton has no bearing whatsoever once you're out of the blight infested sewers you call city centers.
*applause*
automatic weapon ban was lifted this year
I don't want to pay for your choice to be armed. That's your choice, so you pay for it. Leave it at that.
Originally posted by: NeoV
my favorite topic here on AT
First of all, lets get a few things out of the way.
Those of you who really think that your right to 'bear arms' in relation to overthrowing the government like "the idea of the second amendment was that if this government that we set in place became tyrannical like that of england... the people have the right to form miltia and overthrow that government..."..wake up...this is 2004, good luck overthrowing the goverment with your local militia..please stop using this when discussing gun control.
Because it is difficult, does not mean it would not worth doing. If anything, it serves to guarantee that any action is worthwhile
Tabb basically summed it up - pistols, ok...rifles for hunting, ok.....anything beyond that...why?
The 2nd amendment says so. Also, see above
Then there is glenn1, who apparently thinks that 'urbanites' don't know anything about guns because where he lives, guns are a 'way of life', and he apparently lives very far from 'urbanites'. It's a nice 'talking points' line, isn't it? Doesn't really mean much of anything though.
agreed, it is irrelevant
Then there is always the guy who says "in the UK, crime actually went up when guns were banned, so gun control doesn't work.." The fact of the matter is that gun crimes make up less than half of one percent of all crimes recorded by the police in the UK-care to guess what percentage they are in the US?
Not particularly. The UK, not being the US, is no more relevant than Switzerland
Look - approximately 30,000 people are killed by guns in the US every single year. (yes, I know many more die in car accidents, but the comparison is entirely meaningless, nice try) We can all sit back and say that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people", or "over my dead body", or any other NRA-talking point line, but if we fail to admit there is a problem there will never be progress. With the NRA so deeply entrenched into American politics, a complete ban on guns is never going to happen, so you can all relax. That being said, (and let me be the first to admit that the ASSAULT - wouldn't want to word it wrong and offend anyone - weapons ban was a very poorly constructed piece of legislation - well intentioned perhaps, but a poor end-product) you don't need an AK-47..you don't need to have a Glok - however the heck you spell it....you don't need armor-piercing bullets...you don't need a gun that can kill an elephant, you aren't hunting them....you don't need plastic weapons....you don't need guns that are more powerful than what our soldiers are using in Iraq....you don't need silencers......there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Gun shows need to have the same restrictions on purchasing that gun stores have...existing laws about gun-related crimes need to be enforced...I don't have all the answers, but I can admit this country has a problem.
There is a problem. I would however argue that the guns are not the root cause of the problem. As long as the 2nd amendment is in effect, the burden of proof lies on those that would infringe upon the rights it protects
And finally, Glenn1, you can take your arrogant attitude about cities - or 'blight infested sewers' as you so nicely put it, and stick it up your A - maybe you saw Compton in a movie, or read about it somewhere, but you clearly need to get out a bit more - and you don't need to use "hubristic" to make us think you aren't a redneck.
That was uncalled for