NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Look at another part of 1A...freedom of religion. Tell me, how many tax dollars did churches submit to the Federal and State governments last year?
There's nothing unconstitutional about taxing churches, that's purely legislative. Provided, of course, they weren't charging churches more than other similar entities in an effort to eradicate them.
 
Homicides in 2009

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm#tab10

Table 14

Other argument, abuse, conflict - 1033 deaths
Precipitated by other crime - 853 deaths of which the most was during robberies with 313 homicides.

Arguments over money and lovers, coded separately can add another 291 to the argument total. Brawls account for another 40 deaths.
What about gang feuds? Does that count as "conflict"?
 
There's nothing unconstitutional about taxing churches, that's purely legislative.

Agreed.

WildCat said:
Provided, of course, they weren't charging churches more than other similar entities in an effort to eradicate them.

Technically I agree with you, but personally I do not. We could do with far less religions in this country.
 
How about insurance policies for bullets. Own any gun you want but every time you buy a bullet you need to get a policy. After all it is the liberty projectile that freedoms patriots after all. Works for the 2nd Ammendment, the right to bear arms. Doesn't say those arms have to have bullets.

After all guns are only as dangerous as hammers or spoons, so why do you even need bullets.

You could even have free policies for bullets for well organized militia so they could even load their guns
 
No, he benefits because as a nation we decided that the costs of Rights are bourn by those who CAN pay.

You're still wrong. Almost all our constitutional rights are negative rights. As such, they don't require any money at all.
 
I hold some truths to be self evident, that I'm endowed with certain unalienable rights. I don't agree with you.
Great rhetoric to argue a very different point. Don't take even Jefferson's words as literally factual without some critical analysis. (A point you should realize when you already had to edit them to remove the more obvious flawed portion about a creator.)

Although all people deserve certain rights, you cannot name a one that is truly unalienable, one that cannot be removed from you.
 
So how much insurance should I be required to purchase to buy beer? Or which ideas and speech require insurance because of the danger they might cause? How much should golf club owners pay? People who are large and can more easily harm others? Now the argument of degree and slippery slope comes in, but how about a billion dollar insurance on bars and other places that sell alcohol? Meets your requirements just fine.

And of course the abortion clinic, apart from the arguments that it's murder and causes harm to third parties that way (which I don't believe by the by), being targets for bombings can harm third parties.

And again, it's an end around of Constitutional protections.

Because it is. That's why the terms are so absurd and the amount so high. Even if it wasn't, it still has the effect and the government would have to show strong compelling interests just like with other restrictions on Constitutionally protected actions like speech.

How much of an insurance should anti-vaccine advocates be required to buy before they can espouse that, in case someone takes their advice?
Reply from Olympic Arms.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=573076246049586&id=114264921930723

Olympic Arms is a staunch believer in and defender of the Constitution of the United States, and with special attention paid to the Bill of Rights that succinctly enumerates the security of our Divinely given Rights. One of those Rights is that to Keep and Bear Arms.

Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines. We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller - 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago - 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.

Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity - will no longer be served as customers.

In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York - henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.
 
...

When they change it to the Bill of Privileges, let me know.

I've lost all respect for you.
Why did you have any to start with?

Sorry, Mudcat. I hadn't seen this exchange.

Mudcat said:
If you said something along the lines of "a privilege for everyone who is not a criminal or lunatic", I would have gotten your point the first time, because it's still your right until you break the law or become a danger to society.

I guess I should have made that clear. I'm sorry, it's completely my fault.
Yes, it was.
 
Last edited:
Great rhetoric to argue a very different point. Don't take even Jefferson's words as literally factual without some critical analysis. (A point you should realize when you already had to edit them to remove the more obvious flawed portion about a creator.)

Although all people deserve certain rights, you cannot name a one that is truly unalienable, one that cannot be removed from you.

I suppose you're right, and maybe I should buy a gun. You've convinced me! ;)
 
For the uninitiated, there was a time in the US when the NRA was all in favor of gun control...if it meant fewer guns in the hands of negroes:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...gun-fight-author-on-gun-control-s-racism.html

Yeah, he doesn't really connect the dots. While the NRA may have supported "common-sense" gun control laws in the past, in practice it was Democrat politicians and officials who applied them selectively to keep guns out of the hands of negroes (for a century and a half) - a situation that appears to have escaped the notice of Adam Winkler.
 
Last edited:
That's what the gun was worth, not what it cost him. How much did it cost your friend to obtain the firearm? Could he afford that amount?

Nothing. It cost him precisely nothing. Not even a beer to me as payment.

Nothing. I GAVE it to him. Meaning, I took one out of my collection, and gifted it to him. It is legally his now. Along with the ammo too.

So yes, he could afford the $0.00 that I charged him. Had he purchased it from an FFL, it would have cost him OVER $400.
 
Actually, AFAIK, in the US, you have to have a special licence for an automatic weapon.

Sort of. You have to go through a through background check, including fingerprint checks, and pay up to $200 for a special "tax stamp". It's a license in essence. And the cost of a full auto weapon ranges from about 4k, upwards of 15k. And it takes about 5-6 months to get the stamp.
 
Apparently some motor insurance policies in the US (this was in the state of arizona) have the minimum coverage which by law is $15000.

Yes we did actually consult a personal injuries lawyer, who was every bit as slippery as you would expect him to be.

He explained that the insurance is there to protect the insured. The minimum required by law is $15000 and so that is all the insurers will pay out.

The only way to get that increased would be to show that the insurer had been negligent in discharging their duties with regard to their insured, in other words if they failed to settle the claim in a timely manner or put unreasonable conditions on the settlement, such as indemnifying everyone in the entire state. Then, the insured person could claim against their insurance company and the payout would be greater, but it was still a case of going after the owner of the car and since a search of records indicated that the owner had no assets there was only the insurance cover available from the policy.

That's why I say it was an eye opener.
The girl (the injured party) was in her early twenties and living away from home with only a part time job. She couldn't afford any medical insurance.

My point was that any third party insurance, mandated by government, must be sufficient to reflect the cost of damage caused through negligence.

And it shouldn't be up to individuals who are not gun owners or car drivers to insure themselves against the recklessness of others.

(crikey, I haven't had a post count like this since the good old days on the conspiracy forum....yeeehaw, and so forth.)

Then it's time Arizona up the minimum to $1M to ensure this type of incident doesn't happen again, right?

Well, that premium would run.......oh......about 400 a month for the average driver.
 
How about insurance policies for bullets. Own any gun you want but every time you buy a bullet you need to get a policy. After all it is the liberty projectile that freedoms patriots after all. Works for the 2nd Ammendment, the right to bear arms. Doesn't say those arms have to have bullets.

After all guns are only as dangerous as hammers or spoons, so why do you even need bullets.

You could even have free policies for bullets for well organized militia so they could even load their guns

Circumventing the 2nd Amendment is not cool, nor is it legal.

We'll sell you all the guns you want, but the firing pin is sold seperately, for $1,000.....bwahahahahahaha!!

Yeah, never gonna fly.
 
Great rhetoric to argue a very different point. Don't take even Jefferson's words as literally factual without some critical analysis. (A point you should realize when you already had to edit them to remove the more obvious flawed portion about a creator.)

Although all people deserve certain rights, you cannot name a one that is truly unalienable, one that cannot be removed from you.

The right to an attorney. Even if you're flat broke, without two pennies to rub together, you get an attorney.

Also, you cannot be FORCED to present testimony against yourself, no matter how much they pout and scream. Cannot be done.

So, there's two. Wanna try again? :D
 

Back
Top Bottom