Honest and open debate on gun control

[M14 Shooter]

Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership.

Correct. All of your examples are of license and insurance required for use in the public arena.
Basic ownership/possession of a firearm is not use in the public arena - thus, apples v oranges.

Licensing and insuring your weapons is not infringing.

They are a precondition laid upon the basic exercise of a right not inherent to same. Thus, infringement.

As for the point about criminals not getting a license or insurance... yes, that is correct...

OP Point (1): Describe how your idea will prevent criminal from getting guns.
You admit that they will not. Fail.[/quote]

 

[RKMBrown]

Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership.

Correct. All of your examples are of license and insurance required for use in the public arena.
Basic ownership/possession of a firearm is not use in the public arena - thus, apples v oranges.

Licensing and insuring your weapons is not infringing.

They are a precondition laid upon the basic exercise of a right not inherent to same. Thus, infringement.

As for the point about criminals not getting a license or insurance... yes, that is correct...

OP Point (1): Describe how your idea will prevent criminal from getting guns.
You admit that they will not. Fail.

You don't own the lives of the people you kill with your weapon on your private property. The use of weapons is already licensed and for good reason. While your private property is partially yours. You don't own the policeman that enters it. You don't own the air over it and in most cases you don't own the ground under it. You should not be allowed to own anyone but yourself and after the 16th even that is no longer true.

I did not admit they will not. You fail in your ability to read. I'm making it harder to own weapons through expensive licensing and expensive insurance. That will reduce "first" crimes. Pay attn. please.

You are confused about the constitution. Freedom from regulation of guns is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear shall not be infringed... does not mean congress shall make no laws regarding... see the first amendment for that language regarding religion. Thus the framers were leaving wiggle room for regulation so long as you could somehow still keep and bear. The right of this government to make said ownership extremely hard has been upheld many times see restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did not admit they will not.

OK then...
How, specifically, does licensure of gun owners and liability insurance for owning a gun prevent criminals from getting guns?

You are confused about the constitution. Freedom from regulation of guns is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

They are a precondition laid upon the basic exercise of a right not inherent to same - thus, an infringement.
How does the requirement for a license and insurance pass strict scrutiny?

 

[RKMBrown]

I did not admit they will not.

OK then...
How, specifically, does licensure of gun owners and liability insurance for owning a gun prevent criminals from getting guns?

You are confused about the constitution. Freedom from regulation of guns is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

They are a precondition laid upon the basic exercise of a right not inherent to same - thus, an infringement.
How does the requirement for a license and insurance pass strict scrutiny?

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny. The same way all regulations pass strict scrutiny. This government is allowed to tax the hell out of us for health care... (that is taxing you for the right to live) ROFL what makes you think they won't and can't tax the hell out of you for your right to keep and bear arms?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

 

[RKMBrown]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

You buy guns with money. Government taxes your money. Thus by your argument the mere act of having a tax is a barrier on gun ownership. That is incorrect. Government taxes on things like guns is commonplace and already legal. Has been that way pretty much since the start.

Taxing a thing makes it more expensive to own. Thus reducing ownership. Reducing ownership reduced first crimes. Not to mention the licensing will carry with it education that will reduce crime and reduce accidental deaths. Licensing taxing, making you carry liability insurance. These are all common place things that do not stop you from keeping and carrying. They merely make you have to work a bit for it. The people who are too lazy to work for their rights... well then they can't exercise them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.
You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

If you believe you have soundly demonstrated how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it. Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.

 

[RKMBrown]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.
You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

If you believe you have soundly demonstrated how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it. Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.

Hint: Editing my posts by removing the arguments is not the same as rebutting them. If you want to argue my points go ahead. But going against forum rules by editing what I say is not gonna work for a debating tactic. That only works in the main street media.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.
You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

If you believe you have soundly demonstrated how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it. Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.

Hint: Editing my posts by removing the arguments is not the same as rebutting them.

If you believe you have soundly demonstrated how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it. Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.

 

[RKMBrown]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.
You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

If you believe you have soundly demonstrated how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it. Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.

Hint: Editing my posts by removing the arguments is not the same as rebutting them.

If you believe you have soundly demonstrated how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it. Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.

That's your job. I made my posts you edited out the arguments.. Feel free to quote my posts in their entirety and argue what I said vs. the part that you felt was easy to argue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's your job.

On the contrary.
I asked for an example of gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
You responded with the plenary licensing of gun owners and a plenary requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements - preconditions on the exercise of the right not inherent to same -- do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Its your position; its up to you to support it.

 

[2aguy]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

You buy guns with money. Government taxes your money. Thus by your argument the mere act of having a tax is a barrier on gun ownership. That is incorrect. Government taxes on things like guns is commonplace and already legal. Has been that way pretty much since the start.

Taxing a thing makes it more expensive to own. Thus reducing ownership. Reducing ownership reduced first crimes. Not to mention the licensing will carry with it education that will reduce crime and reduce accidental deaths. Licensing taxing, making you carry liability insurance. These are all common place things that do not stop you from keeping and carrying. They merely make you have to work a bit for it. The people who are too lazy to work for their rights... well then they can't exercise them.

Yes...just like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements to vote...they don't keep you from voting but just make you work a bit for your right to vote.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's your job.

On the contrary.
I asked for an example of gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
You responded with the plenary licensing of gun owners and a plenary requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements - preconditions on the exercise of the right not inherent to same -- do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Its your position; its up to you to support it.

Here is the first argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED: Every tax is a precondition to ownership. Taxation is allowed. Taxation is a regulation on sales. Thus your argument is moot. The constitution did not say free from regulation. That was left to religion. See first amendment.

Here is the second argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED: Every criminal has a first crime. Taxation, licensing, costs of insurance are all barriers to purchasing weapons. When less people have guns less people will have their first crime using guns. Pure math. If the odds of a first crime with a weapon are 1 in a thousand reducing the number of people with weapons via taxation will reduce the number of people that have a weapon. For example, if the cost of ownership of a gun goes from 200 bucks to 2k dollars a year, the number of non criminals that have guns will be reduced by a significant percentage. Let's say 1/10th the number of people would then have them. Thus making the odds 1 in ten thousand for first crimes with a gun vs 1 in one thousand. Same thing happens with health care or any market for that matter. If it's expensive to have a thing the people having the thing is reduced.

Again completely ignoring arguments is not the same as rebutting them.

 

[RKMBrown]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

You buy guns with money. Government taxes your money. Thus by your argument the mere act of having a tax is a barrier on gun ownership. That is incorrect. Government taxes on things like guns is commonplace and already legal. Has been that way pretty much since the start.

Taxing a thing makes it more expensive to own. Thus reducing ownership. Reducing ownership reduced first crimes. Not to mention the licensing will carry with it education that will reduce crime and reduce accidental deaths. Licensing taxing, making you carry liability insurance. These are all common place things that do not stop you from keeping and carrying. They merely make you have to work a bit for it. The people who are too lazy to work for their rights... well then they can't exercise them.

Yes...just like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements to vote...they don't keep you from voting but just make you work a bit for your right to vote.

Correct. Thus the reason people have to come around and banned things like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements. We don't have a ban on licensing requirements or insurance requirements on things like weapons, not to my knowledge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

You buy guns with money. Government taxes your money. Thus by your argument the mere act of having a tax is a barrier on gun ownership. That is incorrect. Government taxes on things like guns is commonplace and already legal. Has been that way pretty much since the start.

Taxing a thing makes it more expensive to own. Thus reducing ownership. Reducing ownership reduced first crimes. Not to mention the licensing will carry with it education that will reduce crime and reduce accidental deaths. Licensing taxing, making you carry liability insurance. These are all common place things that do not stop you from keeping and carrying. They merely make you have to work a bit for it. The people who are too lazy to work for their rights... well then they can't exercise them.

Yes...just like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements to vote...they don't keep you from voting but just make you work a bit for your right to vote.

Typical and customary state/local sales taxes on goods and services are, of course, constitutionally acceptable.

Levying a tax on the exercise of a right with the purpose of creating a burden on that exercise so as to limit the number of people who will exercise it is, obviously, not - else, a $5000 tax on abortions, so as to reduce their number, seems fitting.

Never mind that said tax will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

 

[2aguy]

That's your job.

On the contrary.
I asked for an example of gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
You responded with the plenary licensing of gun owners and a plenary requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements - preconditions on the exercise of the right not inherent to same -- do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Its your position; its up to you to support it.

Here is the first argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED: Every tax is a precondition to ownership. Taxation is allowed. Taxation is a regulation on sales. Thus your argument is moot. The constitution did not say free from regulation. That was left to religion. See first amendment.

Here is the second argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED: Every criminal has a first crime. Taxation, licensing, costs of insurance are all barriers to purchasing weapons. When less people have guns less people will have their first crime using guns. Pure math. If the odds of a first crime with a weapon are 1 in a thousand reducing the number of people with weapons via taxation will reduce the number of people that have a weapon. For example, if the cost of ownership of a gun goes from 200 bucks to 2k dollars a year, the number of non criminals that have guns will be reduced by a significant percentage. Let's say 1/10th the number of people would then have them. Thus making the odds 1 in ten thousand for first crimes with a gun vs 1 in one thousand. Same thing happens with health care or any market for that matter. If it's expensive to have a thing the people having the thing is reduced.

Again completely ignoring arguments is not the same as rebutting them.

Agreed....we should therefore limit access to computers...fewer people with access to computers will limit identity theft. We should limit the number of writers as well.....the fewer authors the fewer cases of "first" libel.......I see where you are going with this......we should limit the number of people who own cars....if fewer people own cars there will be fewer car accidents....but let's stick to Constitutionally protected rights.....With fewer journalists we again have fewer cases of libel and slander......

I like where this is going......everyone is a criminal...so we should limit their "first" potential to commit crime.........dittos for searches.....if we limit privacy rights we catch more "first" criminals before they commit crime....good idea......

 

[2aguy]

The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny. The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.

In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect. Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.

Bullshit. Don't coward up.

You buy guns with money. Government taxes your money. Thus by your argument the mere act of having a tax is a barrier on gun ownership. That is incorrect. Government taxes on things like guns is commonplace and already legal. Has been that way pretty much since the start.

Taxing a thing makes it more expensive to own. Thus reducing ownership. Reducing ownership reduced first crimes. Not to mention the licensing will carry with it education that will reduce crime and reduce accidental deaths. Licensing taxing, making you carry liability insurance. These are all common place things that do not stop you from keeping and carrying. They merely make you have to work a bit for it. The people who are too lazy to work for their rights... well then they can't exercise them.

Yes...just like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements to vote...they don't keep you from voting but just make you work a bit for your right to vote.

Correct. Thus the reason people have to come around and banned things like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements. We don't have a ban on licensing requirements or insurance requirements on things like weapons, not to my knowledge.

And that is why we need to end taxes on firearms. Also we need to end fees for permits and training.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's your job.

On the contrary.
I asked for an example of gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
You responded with the plenary licensing of gun owners and a plenary requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements - preconditions on the exercise of the right not inherent to same -- do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Its your position; its up to you to support it.

Here is the first argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED: Every tax is a precondition to ownership. Taxation is allowed. Taxation is a regulation on sales.

To quote myself:

Typical and customary state/local sales taxes on goods and services are, of course, constitutionally acceptable.
Levying a tax on the exercise of a right with the purpose of creating a burden on that exercise so as to limit the number of people who will exercise it is, obviously, not - else, a $5000 tax on abortions, so as to reduce their number, seems fitting.

Never mind that said tax will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Never mind that this has nothing to do with your idea of a plenary requirement for licenseure and liability insurance.

Here is the second argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED: Every criminal has a first crime. Taxation, licensing, costs of insurance are all barriers to purchasing weapons.

Only for the law abiding, at the cost of infringing their rights -- none of these thingd will prevent criminals from getting guns because criminals do not need to try to purchase their guns legally.

And so, you continue to fail to soundly illustrate how plenary licenseure and insurance requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.

 

[MikeK]

Careful what you ask for. I just may take you up on it for the fun.

As with other products that when used carry large risk... guns owners should also be required to undergo testing and carry liability insurance for cases where the weapon is used in an un-responsible manner. The testing should be rigorous and weed out insane people, as well as risks to society. Since a death may be involved the amount of liability insurance should be significantly large.

Firearm ownership should be contingent on licensing. And obtaining a license for every individual firearm owned should be contingent on demonstrating adequate knowledge of the function and necessary safeguards pertaining to the use, handling and storage of that weapon. This requirement will substantially reduce the number of accidental shootings.

This licensing requirement should be administered by firearm dealers who must ascertain and certify that every purchaser is adequately knowledgeable and competent in the use and handling and safeguard of each specific firearm sold.

This requirement is neither more imposing nor less necessary than that of obtaining a license to drive a car. And obtaining the license would not take more than 15 - 30 minutes and would take place at the dealership prior to purchase of the weapon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Firearm ownership should be contingent on licensing. And obtaining a license for every individual firearm owned should be contingent on demonstrating adequate knowledge of the function and necessary safeguards pertaining to the use, handling and storage of that weapon. This requirement will substantially reduce the number of accidental shootings.

How does a plenary requirement for licensure not infringe on the rights of the law abiding??
How does a plenary training requirement not infringe on the rights of the law abiding?
How do they, together or separately, prevent criminals from getting guns?

This requirement is neither more imposing nor less necessary than that of obtaining a license to drive a car

You do not need a DL to buy, own or possess a car, keep it on your property, or use it on your property - how is your statement, above, relevant?