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

[triforcharity]

I'll grant you that it is a long thread, but there appears to be a long term memory problem going on here. People are having trouble remember what they are arguing against.

Here is what you were responding to:

US Citizens have a right to own a gun. They do not have the right to own a gun even if they cannot afford to purchase one. You provided your friend as an example, but as you have admitted, he was able to afford the gun he currently owns (which you provided to him at a cost of $0.00).

You have not countered my statement in the least. You have, in fact, supported it.

Wow, you're really not paying attention, and those bait and switches are nice. You in sales by chance?

Here, let me go through this, one more time. I'll go slow for you.

My friend has his house burglarized. So far? Good.

He is afraid for his and his wife's safety. Ok, still following along?

They're not rich, and struggle to make ends meet. (They're literally broke. I helped them pay their water bill last month. )

He wanted to obtain a firearm. Still with me? Good.


Here's where you get lost.

He was NOT able to PURCHASE a firearm, as putting food in their bellys and keeping a roof over their head, is INCREDIBLY important.

HOWEVER, he still has the RIGHT to OWN one.

Nowhere does that sentence imply that one shall be provided, or offered for temporary use. NOWHERE. He still has the RIGHT. The legal ability. The permission.

Still there? Hope you're not drifting off.

I provided him with the bullets, the magazines, and the gun itself, in full working order, to be able to protect himself.

NOWHERE does that statement say that he looses his RIGHT to own a firearm because he is broke. Because he is broke, he doesn't have the ability to exercise that right. He still has the RIGHT, just not the ability to do so.

Does that help you understand the conversation?

Nobody is advocating that free guns should be provided. Nobody. That is your "sides" own strawman.

 

[tyr_13]

Having just read the Supreme Court decision, that was expressly not the case.

It's sad to see that such a blatant failure of a proposal is getting this much attention, even from people who should know better. So speaking of the Supreme Court...

As this imposes on a fundamental right (one in the Bill of Rights plus some) it automatically triggers strict scrutiny. Because of this the burden would be on the government to prove that the measure is not only in order to achieve a compelling state interests, but also that the specific measure is necessary to do so. The level of intrusiveness or restriction has to be the minimum to achieve the compelling state interest.

This would in all likelihood not even meet intermediate scrutiny.

 

[BenBurch]

So, is it really supportable to claim (and I mean directly and not in some feeble, round-about way i.e. "fewer guns means more safety") that this is an actual effort to address an actual problem?

Yes, and if for no other reason than no guns would mean no gun accidents.

Gun accidents kill on average one child every three days.

 

[triforcharity]

The fact that a gun costs money to purchase must surely violate the 2A on those terms.

Nope, you still have the right, though not the ability.

All the 2A appears to give you is the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say those arms are to be free.

Nope, it doesn't. Again, a strawman of your own making.

Yes, the weapon in question could be a gift to you, but somebody still had to buy it in order to gift it to you.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!


Water is wet.

We return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

The right exists, but someone needs to have the financial wherewithall to implement it. Either that or the government should be supplying arms to any who ask for them.

You're kidding me, right? This stupid strawman still?

You're confusing right, and ability.

The argument has been put forward that somehow adding on a cost to the current price of a gun becomes unconstitutional but this doesn't even take into account that in order to purchase a weapon you first have to buy a licence (for the first time, but it's still an add-on cost) and if you buy from a dealer it could be argued that the price you pay for the gun has been increased by whatever fee the dealer pays to do the background check on you.

But that is a one time cost. To continue to pay for the ability to continue to exercise the right, is wrong.

How on earth have you allowed all of these additional costs to be applied in order to exercise your 2A rights?

Again, one time fee versus continued, monthly cost.

And since you have allowed those costs, what makes you think it is wrong for further costs to be added if they are commensurate with the damage which could be caused by irresponsible use of that weapon?

How about this. You charge me with a crime if I am irresponsible with my gun. Since, you know, that is what would most likely happen anyway, we'll just enforce the laws that already stand.

Or, how about this. Sue me. Imagine that concept.

I sympathise, seriously, with the prospect you may find yourself in of having to pay monthly or yearly an insurance premium which might make it unviable for you to hold a weapon.

I doubt that, seriously.

I suspect that the actual premiums won't be nearly as high as people imagine, especially given that the larger the pool of contributors the more the premiums can be reduced by.

You guess whatever you want, it's a silly assumption.

And, of course, the more responsible the gun owner the lower the risk and the lower the premium.

In theory, yes. But, that doesn't account for the criminal aspect that the law asks for.

If the insurance proposed in the US was $40 per year would that still be an infringement of your 2A rights?

Yes.

 

[BStrong]

I don't know the Heller and McDonald decision but I'm interested. In any case, I think you have pretty well nailed it, they know this is developing into something a lot more dangerous to their cause than banning of certain weapons or magazines or even registration and screening.

Are there indications to that effect outside this forum? There has to be!

Heller and Mcdonald are the SC decisions as follows:

Heller

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

An individual has a right to have a firearm in common use for self defense, period

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Pp. 47–54.

The types of firearms in question must be in common use (non-NFA) and suitable for militia use, which ******** any type of ban on any non-NFA AR platform rifle.

Mcdonald:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protectsthe right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amend-ment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded forfurther proceedings.

The court finds that the Second Amendment is incorporated onto the states through due process clause of the 14th Amendment, meaning that individual anti-gun laws will need to be litigated seperately, which is why anti-Second Amendmen proposals are flying through legislatures left and right - they know they'll lose most of the court actions, but are hoping pro-Second groups will run out of money before the states run out of taxpayer money.

These are not good days to be a supporter of half-baked gun control proposals.

 

[fuelair]

I have an idea or two about what you could do to boast theiir esteem.

Oops, boost

 

[Mudcat]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever, that 75% of all handguns in the USA are in the hands of criminals?

Would it be more, but not exactly, accurate to say only about 25% of all handguns are in the hands of criminals?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Yes, and if for no other reason than no guns would mean no gun accidents.

And no automobiles would mean no automobile accidents. You'd make a better case for that than firearms, as in the US you have a right to keep and bear arms, but owning and using an automobile is a privilege.
Just think of how many lives could be saved if you did away with those nasty personal cars and trucks.

Gun accidents kill on average one child every three days.

That depends on your definition of a child.
If you include all gangbangers under the age of 21 as children then you come up with 150 for the year 2010, an average of 1 every 2.44 days.
If, OTOH, you consider children as anyone under the age of 17, the total is 84 for the same period, or 1 every 4.357 days.
Out of a total population of over 87 million children.
And the number of unintentional deaths is shrinking, and has been for years, even while the number of firearms has grown.
The number of unintentional firearms deaths in children 0-20 has dropped from 197 in 2005, to 150 for 2010, while the number of firearms has risen by about 4 million guns per year in the same period.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-firearms-in-the-u-s/

 

[Mudcat]

And no automobiles would mean no automobile accidents. You'd make a better case for that than firearms, as in the US you have a right to keep and bear arms, but owning and using an automobile is a privilege.
Just think of how many lives could be saved if you did away with those nasty personal cars and trucks.

That's laughable. Really.

The reason why is that the number of people who are licensed gun owners is a mere fraction of the number of people who are license car owners. And yet gun related fatalities aren't that far off from traffic related fatalities.

Since people spend far more time behind the wheel of the car as opposed to behind the barrel of a gun, even if you remove suicides from the equation it becomes apparent that guns are far more dangerous than cars despite gun owners being a functional minority.

Why are you defending this right? No really. What the heck is the disconnect here?

 

[triforcharity]

Would it be more, but not exactly, accurate to say only about 25% of all handguns are in the hands of criminals?

I'd say you're off by about 24.5%, but I don't know honestly. It's a very small number compared to the number of handguns in the US.

 

[Mudcat]

I'd say you're off by about 24.5%, but I don't know honestly. It's a very small number compared to the number of handguns in the US.

Agreed. It would be nice if they weren't in the hands of criminals at all, though.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

That's laughable. Really.

The reason why is that the number of people who are licensed gun owners is a mere fraction of the number of people who are license car owners. And yet gun related fatalities aren't that far off from traffic related fatalities.

Since people spend far more time behind the wheel of the car as opposed to behind the barrel of a gun, even if you remove suicides from the equation it becomes apparent that guns are far more dangerous than cars despite gun owners being a functional minority.

Why are you defending this right? No really. What the heck is the disconnect here?

Possibly laughing has interfered with your ability to use reason and logic, or maybe that inability is the cause of your mirth.
Either way, you are attempting to use fallacies of logic to make your case.
Ben did not mention "licensed" gun owners, and I did not mention" licensed" automobile owners. The legality of the possession of either of these items is not applicable, nor is the raw number of gun related fatalities, only unintentional gun fatalities.
The number of traffic fatalities in 2010 was 33,808, and I would feel comfortable saying that the vast majority of them were unintentional. The number of unintentional firearms deaths in 2010 was 606.
There are (also as of 2010) 137 million automobiles ( private and commercial) and 300 million (estimated) firearms in the US with about 1 person in four owning at least one gun.
Statistically, 55 times the number of people were killed accidentally by vehicles during that time than by firearms even though there are more firearms than automobiles and roughly the same number of people (1 in 4) possess each.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-09-1Aroaddeaths09_ST_N.htm
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-automobiles-in-the-us/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_united_states_of_America

That owning a firearm is a right, one guaranteed by the Constitution and affirmed by SCOTUS makes it the default position. I do not need to defend it, you need to provide a compelling reason for requesting the government interfere with it.
Appeals to emotion, fallacies of substitution, broad brush statements,appeals to incredulity and laughing moronically at what you believe to be witty and urbane quips, does not meet the standard of a compelling reason.
There is no disconnect, save the one that prompts the anti-2nd Amendment crowd to utter misconceptions, half truths, and fallacies of logic such as the ones used by you and Ben.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Agreed. It would be nice if they weren't in the hands of criminals at all, though.

I couldn't agree more. It's too bad no one on the anti-2nd Amendment side is willing to look at the problem objectively. Rather than focus on the implements used in crime, it would be more logical to focus on proactive solutions that target the offenders.
But that does not further the anti-2nd Amendment agenda so it cannot be rationally discussed without running the risk of being seen as politically unreliable, or even worse, someone with an independent streak who can think for themselves.

 

[Mudcat]

There is no disconnect, save the one that prompts the anti-2nd Amendment crowd to utter misconceptions, half truths, and fallacies of logic such as the ones used by you and Ben.

I'm perhaps the most reasonable person across the aisle from you, but lumping me in with anti-gunners and calling my arguments appeal-to-emotion is perhaps the biggest mistake you can do. I never once appealed to anyone's emotions here. I gave facts that are easily researched.

And the only inch I gave you was to allow you to retract suicides with guns only. You gun-lovers seemed so hung up with the thought because that a large part of gun related deaths are suicides, that they should somehow not be counted when comparing statistics. Personally I think it's cowardice to do so but I gave you that inch anyhow.

But I'm not giving you a mile. You do not get to restrict it only to accidental deaths with guns. I'm sorry but its just not going to happen.

And thus you are stuck with that uncomfortable truth that guns are far less safe than cars, despite far more people driving cars far more often than guns are used. These are facts, statistics easily obtained by anyone interested to check them.

No emotion, just an obvious conclusion based upon observable data.

 

[Mudcat]

I couldn't agree more. It's too bad no one on the anti-2nd Amendment side is willing to look at the problem objectively. Rather than focus on the implements used in crime, it would be more logical to focus on proactive solutions that target the offenders.
But that does not further the anti-2nd Amendment agenda so it cannot be rationally discussed without running the risk of being seen as politically unreliable, or even worse, someone with an independent streak who can think for themselves.

Okay, let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment, that guns really are dangerous and needs to be strictly controlled, and focus on what can be done to cut down on crime and violence.

A lot of the problem stems from education, medicine, economics, and a fair few other social problems that seem to be plaguing the country at the moment, such as the unpopular and unworkable war on drugs, et cetera. Right now it seems the biggest barriers to fixing the problem are the politicians and certain religious groups.

What can be done about it? If we are to move forward in a tolerable manner, I don't see how we can avoid treading on someone's rights.

 

[uk_dave]

Nope, you still have the right, though not the ability.

So how can placing an additional cost on the ownership of a weapon be any more of an infringement?

Nope, it doesn't. Again, a strawman of your own making.

So you agree?
Not really a strawman. You have the right to own weapons provided that you can afford to own weapons since those weapons are not provided freely along with those rights.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!
Water is wet.
We return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

And you don't address the point.
Where does the 2A give you the right to sell or gift a weapon to another person?
You said on another thread that you was all for background checks for everyone. And on this thread you describe gifting a weapon and ammunition to someone. Did you do a background check?

You're kidding me, right? This stupid strawman still?

You're confusing right, and ability.

No I'm countering the argument that the government can't impose an additional cost upon gun ownership by pointing out that gun ownership already costs money.

But that is a one time cost. To continue to pay for the ability to continue to exercise the right, is wrong.

Again, one time fee versus continued, monthly cost.

It's still a cost, something which you are at pains to claim is contrary to your right to bear arms. Just because it is a one off doesn't negate that the cost involved has nothing to do with the physical gun, but everything to do with the gun owner.

How about this. You charge me with a crime if I am irresponsible with my gun. Since, you know, that is what would most likely happen anyway, we'll just enforce the laws that already stand.

Or, how about this. Sue me. Imagine that concept.

And if, like your friend, you have no money?
How do I pay my medical bills? Get compensated for loss of earnings?

I doubt that, seriously.

There's no need to be rude. I do seriously sympathise with those gun owners who are being told that they will have to pay enormous sums of money to obtain the insurance.

If this is the case then the insurance companies are either fleecing their customers or they perceive the risk of gun ownership to be so great that none of you can actually be trusted to own weapons.

Or maybe the premiums won't be nearly as high as certain news stories would have you believe.

 

[GlennB]

He was NOT able to PURCHASE a firearm, as putting food in their bellys and keeping a roof over their head, is INCREDIBLY important.

HOWEVER, he still has the RIGHT to OWN one.

You've missed the point people were trying to make and have ended up agreeing with them.

They were pointing out that just as the 2nd doesn't create a right to free guns, neither does it absolve gun owners from insurance requirements.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm perhaps the most reasonable person across the aisle from you, but lumping me in with anti-gunners and calling my arguments appeal-to-emotion is perhaps the biggest mistake you can do. I never once appealed to anyone's emotions here. I gave facts that are easily researched.

You didn't, and I did not say you did.I said:

There is no disconnect, save the one that prompts the anti-2nd Amendment crowd to utter misconceptions, half truths, and fallacies of logic such as the ones used by you and Ben.

OTOH, Ben has used it continuously.

only[/I]. You gun-lovers seemed so hung up with the thought because that a large part of gun related deaths are suicides, that they should somehow not be counted when comparing statistics. Personally I think it's cowardice to do so but I gave you that inch anyhow.

You're not giving anything. There is only one correlation that has ever been established between firearms ownership and suicide by firearm: by definition, all firearm suicides employ a gun.
That could be said of anything used to commit suicide, such as there is a correlation between tall buildings and suicide by falling, or lakes and suicide by drowning. It is meaningless.
There has never been any direct correlation established between possession of a firearm and an increased proclivity to commit suicide caused by mere possession.
If that were so, then countries that have highly restrictive firearms laws would have lower rates than the more permissive ones, yet of the countries with the highest suicide rates, the top 25 all have either virtual gun bans or very highly restrictive laws against firearms possession. The US ranks 34th and Switzerland 42nd.

But I'm not giving you a mile. You do not get to restrict it only to accidental deaths with guns. I'm sorry but its just not going to happen.

I didn't, Ben did.

Yes, and if for no other reason than no guns would mean no gun accidents.
Gun accidents kill on average one child every three days.

And thus you are stuck with that uncomfortable truth that guns are far less safe than cars, despite far more people driving cars far more often than guns are used. These are facts, statistics easily obtained by anyone interested to check them.

I was not making the case that guns are more, or less, safe than anything else, including automobiles. I was responding to Ben's statement and showing, by example, the faulty logic he employed. A statement that, in addition to being factually incorrect, was itself an appeal to emotion.
It was you who expanded the field to include fatalities outside of unintentional ones.

No emotion, just an obvious conclusion based upon observable data.

And what conclusion would that be?
What observable data?
When I look at the statistics, something immediately stands out. Over half the violent crime in this country is limited to a demographic subset of citizens that comprise less than 13% of the total population. The majority of victims fall into this category and the majority of offenders fall into a subset within that group.
Poor, urban minorities are victimized at a much greater rate than any other demographic subset in the country, and those individuals fitting the profile of gang members are almost invariably the culprits.
If you would like hard figures on these allegations, I'll be happy to provide them. Again.
Targeting firearms, which have a legitimate use, is like treating Bubonic plague by lancing the buboes.
Targeting the offenders and, more importantly, the root causes that drive them to become offenders is the antibiotic.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You've missed the point people were trying to make and have ended up agreeing with them.

They were pointing out that just as the 2nd doesn't create a right to free guns, [I]neither [/I]does it absolve gun owners from insurance requirements.

And what other Amendments to the Bill of Rights would you apply this theory to?

 

[uk_dave]

And what other Amendments to the Bill of Rights would you apply this theory to?

What other amendments to the bill of rights can lead to direct physical harm to another citizen?