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

[AlBell]

Oh I can discuss your views and opinions all right. And I don't lie.

Hard to tell based on the rhetoric and sophistry that's all too many of your posts contain.

 

[Mudcat]

My comment/question pointed out that guns are a Bill of Rights issue, cars a privilege.

See? More hand waving. Any more and I'm sure you'll take flight.

You care to actually address the points or are just going to keep that stupid mantra as if it actually meant anything?

That's the dichotomy that makes your comparisons useless.

More like a false dichotomy. If all you have is hand waving than you have nothing.

 

[tyr_13]

The consumption of alcohol is the subject of the 23rd Amendment, so it is a right.

No it isn't. It is neither the subject of the 23rd amendment (which gives the residents of Washington DC the right to vote in presidential elections) nor is it a right. The 21st amendment repeals the 18th, but does not make consumption, transportation, or purchase of alcohol a right.

I would licence people to drink. Commit a crime whilst under the influence and you lose your licence and cannot buy or be served alcohol as part of your sentence.

I don't find that a bad idea generally because of the huge effect alcohol has on society, but would prefer less intrusive ways.

 

[smartcooky]

See? More hand waving. Any more and I'm sure you'll take flight.
You care to actually address the points or are just going to keep that stupid mantra as if it actually meant anything?
More like a false dichotomy. If all you have is hand waving than you have nothing.

Yep, in that respect, gungoons are very similar to truthers and Apollo HBs. They dismiss arguments against their opinion with handwaving, as if that is all that is needed for a convincing argument, then flounce off when the debate doesn't run their way.

 

[AlBell]

See? More hand waving. Any more and I'm sure you'll take flight.

You care to actually address the points or are just going to keep that stupid mantra as if it actually meant anything?


More like a false dichotomy. If all you have is hand waving than you have nothing.

As long as you continue to discuss guns and cars as a worthwhile similar topic, you haven't even got to the hand waving stage.

Maye if you type louder?

 

[Mudcat]

As long as you continue to discuss guns and cars as a worthwhile similar topic, you haven't even got to the hand waving stage.

I view them as different but not dissimilar topics.

Maye if you type louder?

You could try actually addressing points.

But hey, you don't want facts to be brought up how about you stop shrugging off guns being dangerous by saying, "So are cars."

But then again, you don't have any other arguments so I guess you can't help it.

 

[Nessie]

No it isn't. It is neither the subject of the 23rd amendment (which gives the residents of Washington DC the right to vote in presidential elections) nor is it a right. The 21st amendment repeals the 18th, but does not make consumption, transportation, or purchase of alcohol a right.

Sorry, 21st. So do some amendments create rights and others do not? The gun lot do seem to like to make this up as they go along and what applies to them and what does not.

I don't find that a bad idea generally because of the huge effect alcohol has on society, but would prefer less intrusive ways.

How intrusive is it to get a simple licence and then you lose if if you commit a crime whist drunk?

 

[smartcooky]

But hey, you don't want facts to be brought up how about you stop shrugging off guns being dangerous by saying, "So are cars."

But then again, you don't have any other arguments so I guess you can't help it.

Its the old one - two shufflle, a bit like the shell game. Its how almost every debate with Gun Goons goes

Anti Gun: Guns are dangerous!

Gun Goon: Well, so are cars!

Anti Gun: Yes, but guns are more dangerous!

Gun Goon: Prove it then, show me the numbers

Anti Gun: OK here are the numbers...

Gun Goon: You can't make comparisons between guns and cars

See what the Gun Goon did there?

Priceless!!

 

[BStrong]

The Bill of Rights does not create any rights, it recognizes them.

 

[Sabretooth]

But yeah, traffic fatalities and gun fatalities aren't very far apart from each other at all. There were 35,000 traffic fatalities and 30,000 gun fatalities in 2009, without accounting for such things as suicides.

Yeah, but the 35,000 auto deaths...we can agree those are about 99% accidental deaths, yes?

Accidental gun deaths are ~600.

The rest of the gun deaths are suicides or criminal intent. Items that insurance won't cover.

So tell me again how crucial it is for gun owners to carry one million dollars worth of insurance?

 

[Sabretooth]

BTW, I just thought I might mention, for those who think I am some kind of rabid anti-gun nut, that I am actually a gun owner. I have two guns...

► A Remington 700, .270 centrefire bolt-action hunting rifle, which I have owned for about 30 years.

► A Beretta model 686 over-under shotgun, which I bought second hand a couple of years ago to replace my ageing 1957 Browning Superposed. I use it for only a couple of weeks each year for duck shooting.

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.
There is a BIG difference.

This is my exact stance as well.

 

[Sabretooth]

Its the old one - two shufflle, a bit like the shell game. Its how almost every debate with Gun Goons goes

Anti Gun: Guns are dangerous!

Gun Goon: Well, so are cars!

Anti Gun: Yes, but guns are more dangerous!

Gun Goon: Prove it then, show me the numbers

Anti Gun: OK here are the numbers...

Gun Goon: You can't make comparisons between guns and cars

See what the Gun Goon did there?

Priceless!!

You're a little off on the dialog there. When these gun threads exploded a while back, AG's vehemently lambasted the PG crowd about trying to compare guns to cars (or anything else for that matter), saying they cannot be compared.

Now in this thread, that comparison is just dandy because it's the only form of argument they have on this particular subject.

 

[Cylinder]

Sorry, 21st. So do some amendments create rights and others do not? The gun lot do seem to like to make this up as they go along and what applies to them and what does not.

Yes. Amendments are just changes to the Constitution. Some protect rights, such as the 1st-9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

Some create powers for Congress, such as the 16th amendement.

Some restrict the powers of Congress, such as the 27th.

The 21st Amendment does not protect any right:

Section 1

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3

The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It repeals the federal prohibition of alcohol, allows the states to enforce their laws concerning alcohol and reiterates the ratifification process.

 

[uk_dave]

So maybe insurance isn't such a great idea, if you've got that pesky 2A to deal with.

I could see some benefit in an increased sales tax in order to cover the cost of the damage caused by guns within US society.

That way a properly funded victims compensation plan could be produced so, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by accident or criminal act, the victim and/or victim's family would have access to compensation.

It would be a one off payment at the point of sale, and although it wouldn't curb private sales, in fact it would make them more attractive, it would slow down the number of new weapons coming in to circulation.

Sales tax could also fund the registration system and background checks.

And, apparently, it's not in contravention of the 2A

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So maybe insurance isn't such a great idea, if you've got that pesky 2A to deal with.

I could see some benefit in an increased sales tax in order to cover the cost of the damage caused by guns within US society.

That way a properly funded victims compensation plan could be produced so, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by accident or criminal act, the victim and/or victim's family would have access to compensation.

It would be a one off payment at the point of sale, and although it wouldn't curb private sales, in fact it would make them more attractive, it would slow down the number of new weapons coming in to circulation.

Sales tax could also fund the registration system and background checks.

And, apparently, it's not in contravention of the 2A

Yeah, but what level of taxation? Too little, and it doesn't have much effect. Too much, and it will be compared to abortion clinics being taxed out of existence.

 

[WildCat]

Sorry, 21st. So do some amendments create rights and others do not? The gun lot do seem to like to make this up as they go along and what applies to them and what does not.

The 21st Amendment repeals the 18th Amendment and its nationwide ban on alcohol (Section 1), and affirms the states have the power to regulate (even ban) alcohol as they see fit (Section 2).

I have no idea why you think this is even similar to the 2nd Amendment?

Annotated US Constitution

 

[Dr. Keith]

I support common sense and reasonable gun control in the USA. Any suggestion of otherwise is a lie.

You've probably laid that out in a previous thread, but could you do a short recap for those of us trying to keep up with all of this.

Thanks.

 

[WildCat]

Its the old one - two shufflle, a bit like the shell game. Its how almost every debate with Gun Goons goes

Anti Gun: Guns are dangerous!

Gun Goon: Well, so are cars!

Anti Gun: Yes, but guns are more dangerous!

Gun Goon: Prove it then, show me the numbers

Anti Gun: OK here are the numbers...

Gun Goon: You can't make comparisons between guns and cars

See what the Gun Goon did there?

Priceless!!

Since a smart cookie like you knows it depends on context (are we comparing accidential deaths or intentional homicides, for example) I can only assume you're only pretending to be so ignorant so as to score cheap points and "win" or something.

 

[Giz]

So maybe insurance isn't such a great idea, if you've got that pesky 2A to deal with.

I could see some benefit in an increased sales tax in order to cover the cost of the damage caused by guns within US society.

That way a properly funded victims compensation plan could be produced so, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by accident or criminal act, the victim and/or victim's family would have access to compensation.

It would be a one off payment at the point of sale, and although it wouldn't curb private sales, in fact it would make them more attractive, it would slow down the number of new weapons coming in to circulation.

Sales tax could also fund the registration system and background checks.

And, apparently, it's not in contravention of the 2A

Ah, a "guilt by association" sin tax? (That will hit the law-abiding but not the criminals who are the problem).

Are there any other groups of law-abiding citizens to whom you would like to apply punitive taxation (based on a superficial identifier which actually isn't a causative factor).

Seems like any extra tax should come from ex-cons, or parole boards who have released too many re-offenders, or voters who persist in re-electing mayors and police chiefs who are unable to bring crime rates under control… not innocent citizens.

 

[Sabretooth]

So maybe insurance isn't such a great idea, if you've got that pesky 2A to deal with.

I could see some benefit in an increased sales tax in order to cover the cost of the damage caused by guns within US society.

That way a properly funded victims compensation plan could be produced so, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by accident or criminal act, the victim and/or victim's family would have access to compensation.

It would be a one off payment at the point of sale, and although it wouldn't curb private sales, in fact it would make them more attractive, it would slow down the number of new weapons coming in to circulation.

Sales tax could also fund the registration system and background checks.

And, apparently, it's not in contravention of the 2A

Or, just require every sale (public and private) go through an FFL at $20 a transaction. I think that's fair.