Where's my free firearm then? Why should I have to pay so exercise my right to bear arms?
But, but, then they wouldn't be able to inflate their numbers and make it seem like a much bigger problem than it is, then what would they do?
The requiring of an ID to vote isn't the problem, it's having to pay for an ID that is the issue. Paying for something in order to vote is considered a poll tax and that is specifically forbidden by the constitution, there is no equivalent rule for bearing arms nor is there an equivlent rule for freedom of speech..
We need to stop using suicide numbers in gun control statistics.
Remember that when you dial 911 become someone just kicked in your front door in the middle of the night that the cops will eventually arrive and call the coroner to remove your body, and that of your family, and investigate what happened.
The police are under no obligation to protect you and your family, that is your job. And when your family is a victim, or worse dead, that is your doing for simply being unwilling or unprepared to defend them.
I have been through CCW class, and it includes gun safety, shooting proficiency, and the laws as they apply in my state. My militiary training played no role in this, for the military has an entirely different goal in mind when they train individuals to shoot.
The emphasis on CCW, and home defense is not to shoot, not to kill, but to stop the threat, shooting only if necessary.
You can call 911 (maybe the cops will come, maybe they won't. Here's a fact about the reality. Fact: Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.), I'll reach for my gun. In the worst outcome, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
My wife and I are alive today because I lawfully carry a concealed handgun. Two POS felons invaded our home with intent to do us bodily harm. I defended my wife and myself, now they are no longer a threat to my wife, myself or society in general. Your theory of a gun being more dangerous to a law abiding gun owner than the predators is bullshite plain and simple.
Where's my free firearm then? Why should I have to pay so exercise my right to bear arms?
But, but, then they wouldn't be able to inflate their numbers and make it seem like a much bigger problem than it is, then what would they do?
Rights can be restricted, freedom of speech has restrictions, voting has restrictions, and guns have restrictions. The difference between those rights are the types of restrictions allowed and voting has quite a few restrictions on how that right can be restricted. The requiring of an ID to vote isn't the problem, it's having to pay for an ID that is the issue. Paying for something in order to vote is considered a poll tax and that is specifically forbidden by the constitution, there is no equivalent rule for bearing arms nor is there an equivlent rule for freedom of speech.
Making it harder/more expensive to own guns is no different than the republicans making it harder to have abortions.
So Abortions are now a constitutional right? WTF. Are you stupid?
Bull shit! Even in the states where they were offering to have FREE Issued Voter ID's it was labeled as " voter suppression " by the liberals.
About Voting " Rights"? it isn't even a constitutional right unlike the right to own a gun:
The trouble is the Supreme Court doesnt see it that way.
In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, The Court affirmed the district courts interpretation that our Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. And its state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is qualified.
Freedom of speech does have some loose guidelines set by the supreme court:
Limits of Freedom of Speech
Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.
Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests for example, national security, justice or personal safety override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.
Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] fighting words when said without a disarming smile. Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker including classical fighting words, words in current use less classical but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats. Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.
Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?
Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.
Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of obscenity established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the utterly without redeeming social value test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.
In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered obscene:
Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
One must distinguish obscene material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from indecent material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that higher standards may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.
Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.
To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a gag order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.
Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.
You did see how it's not my "theory" right? It has been the subject of study by people with more education (and time) than myself.
I'm glad that you were able to dispatch those who were coming to do you harm (or whatever their intent was). Doesn't change the statistics.
Anecdotal evidence is not actual evidence.
Other than you not understanding how abortion falls under the right of privacy the rest of your post confirms exactly what I said.
We have rights, some of those rights have restrictions, the restrictions don't apply to all rights universally.
It's really not a hard concept to understand, I'm not sure why you guys are struggling with it.
Abortion is Not a Right. It is a medical procedure.
Abortion = A Right to Privacy?
No not the same.
Abortion is Not a Right. It is a medical procedure.
Abortion = A Right to Privacy?
No not the same.
If it actually is 1 in 3, that's because those states with high rates of uninsured drivers are run by idiots with rules that don't work. Some states (NY) enjoy incredibly low rates of uninsured drivers.Most states have mandatory car insurance also, but 1 in 3 drivers don't have insurance. Most of them also don't have a valid drivers license either, and like all criminals, they don't give a damn.
Who is penalized, the responsible that follow the rules, and also find it necessary to carry insurance to cover those that don't.
If it actually is 1 in 3, that's because those states with high rates of uninsured drivers are run by idiots with rules that don't work. Some states (NY) enjoy incredibly low rates of uninsured drivers.
Anyway, back on the subject, mandatory insurance to cover costs associated with guns would be like a poll tax to cover the cost of running the polls. The later proved to be unconstitutional, therefore I would assume so is the former. Thus, why make a law only so that the state can go through the expense of legal fees to fight it to the Supreme Court, only to have it overturned.
I really really wish my legislators wouldn't waste money having a circle jerk to appease their more idiotic constituents. Why can't they simply tell them, "yes, that sounds like a great idea, but it would be unconstitutional. Your tax dollars would ultimately be wasted on a legal battle."
Sounds to me like the camel getting its nose under the tent. Should liability insurance be legally required the government would be free to mandate so much cost that only the truly wealthy could afford to be armed, effectively negating the Second Amendment with plausible deniability. Legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens has nowhere near the damage rate of, say, automobiles and should not be treated as such. And as you say, criminals would be unaffected.
A corollary would be the First Amendment. What if we had to take out a $1,000,000 libel/slander insurance before being allowed to offer an opinion on a politician or athlete?
Evidence is not evidence, but a biased study done by political activists that deliberately skews statistics is "evidence"? wow
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Is there a dust deduction? The #1 activity of my gun is collecting dust, like every other gun ever.