Honest and open debate on gun control

[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.

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.

We already have taxes on health care. As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face. But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction. Taxes, licensing, and insurance requirements are things the government does to regulate such things thing. Get over it.

 

[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?

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.

Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space. As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

We already have taxes on health care.

Show how this has any relevance to anything I just said.

As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face. But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.

And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.

Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space. As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.

And a license to own a machine gun is a requirement for ownership. That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license does not mean you will be able to own a gun in perpetuity without a license. As you have clearly pointed out... apples and oranges.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

We already have taxes on health care.

Show how this has any relevance to anything I just said.

As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face. But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.

And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument.

Defending yourself from harm via weapon ownership or via purchasing health care. You don't see the link? Government can tax 100% of your income and take 100% of your assets. I don't think you get it yet.

 

[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?

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.

Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space. As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.

And a license to own a machine gun is a requirement for ownership.

There is no license requirement to own a machinegun.

That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license....

Not just drive, but ny possess and keep a car.
That I can soundly point this out nullifies the point you were trying to make, that a licenseure requirement for a car creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms.
Ownership v use in the public space. Apples v oranges.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

We already have taxes on health care.

Show how this has any relevance to anything I just said.

As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face. But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.

And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument.

Defending yourself from harm via weapon ownership or via purchasing health care. You don't see the link?

That you believe the is a link between what I said and that the federal government can tax you if not do not buy health insurance only indicates you do not understand the argument put to you.

Left unconsidered by you:
And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.

Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space. As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.

And a license to own a machine gun is a requirement for ownership.

There is no license requirement to own a machinegun.

That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license....

Not just drive, but ny possess and keep a car.
That I can soundly point this out nullifies the point you were trying to make, that a licenseure requirement for a car creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms.
Ownership v use in the public space. Apples v oranges.

Yes there is a license:
How to Get a Fully Automatic Gun License eHow

The second amendment is keep and CARRY. You are quibbling about keeping a car as if that is somehow important that you only need a license to "USE" the car in public. Again a car is not a gun. Use of a car on private property is not the same as use of a gun on private property.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

We already have taxes on health care.

Show how this has any relevance to anything I just said.

As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face. But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.

And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument.

Defending yourself from harm via weapon ownership or via purchasing health care. You don't see the link?

That you believe the is a link between what I said and that the federal government can tax you if not do not buy health insurance only indicates you do not understand the argument put to you.

Left unconsidered by you:
And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument

My point was that there are no protections written into the constitution except for religion. Where the amendment clearly stated: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Tax is a law... thus they can't tax religion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?
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?

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.

Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space. As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.

And a license to own a machine gun is a requirement for ownership.

There is no license requirement to own a machinegun.

That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license....

Not just drive, but ny possess and keep a car.
That I can soundly point this out nullifies the point you were trying to make, that a licenseure requirement for a car creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms.
Ownership v use in the public space. Apples v oranges.

Yes there is a license:
How to Get a Fully Automatic Gun License eHow

No,.
There isn't.
Nowhere in the BATFE procedure for obtaining a NFA class III weapon are you issued a license for that weapon.
Nowhere.

You are quibbling about keeping a car as if that is somehow important that you only need a license to "USE" the car in public. Again a car is not a gun. Use of a car on private property is not the same as use of a gun on private property.

Correct. Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My point was that there are no protections written into the constitution except for religion.

You're aware of the 2nd amendment, right?
Where the right to arms is protected from infringement, without regard to source or manner of same.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

We already have taxes on health care.

Show how this has any relevance to anything I just said.

As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face. But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.

And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument.

Defending yourself from harm via weapon ownership or via purchasing health care. You don't see the link?

That you believe the is a link between what I said and that the federal government can tax you if not do not buy health insurance only indicates you do not understand the argument put to you.

Left unconsidered by you:
And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument

On the second argument... if criminals are getting machine guns ... we need to elect leaders who will do their job instead of buying machine guns for criminals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So much for your argument

On the second argument... if criminals are getting machine guns ... we need to elect leaders who will do their job instead of buying machine guns for criminals.[/QUOTE]

 

[RKMBrown]

Your argument is a false strawman. You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.

Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space. As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.

And a license to own a machine gun is a requirement for ownership.

There is no license requirement to own a machinegun.

That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license....

Not just drive, but ny possess and keep a car.
That I can soundly point this out nullifies the point you were trying to make, that a licenseure requirement for a car creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms.
Ownership v use in the public space. Apples v oranges.

Yes there is a license:
How to Get a Fully Automatic Gun License eHow

No,.
There isn't.
Nowhere in the BATFE procedure for obtaining a NFA class III weapon are you issued a license for that weapon.
Nowhere.

You are quibbling about keeping a car as if that is somehow important that you only need a license to "USE" the car in public. Again a car is not a gun. Use of a car on private property is not the same as use of a gun on private property.

Correct. Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.

My argument was sound. The point was there are hundreds of products that are licensed.

You are wrong on machine guns. Here's the procedure:

To purchase a transferable machine gun, you must meet certain requirements (generally the same as when you purchase another gun, but with additional scrutiny), fill out special paperwork (called a 'form 4'), and pay a $200, one-time, transfer tax. Every time a machine gun is transferred, the $200 tax must be paid-- usually by the purchaser. The steps to take to purchase a transferable machine gun are:

1.Find a dealer locally who can assist you in all phases of the transfer. This should go beyond helping you fill out the paperwork: they should help you locate the gun if it isn't in stock and allow you to shoot the gun while your paperwork is being processed by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). It will usually take 4-6 weeks for the dealer to get the gun from another dealer if they don't already have it in stock (due to BATF paperwork delays).

2.Get your fingerprints (either by a police dept. or by a qualified fingerprinter, two imprints are needed) and two passport sized pictures taken. These will be used to perform a comprehensive criminal background check on you.

3.Have your local dealer help you fill out an "Application for Tax Paid Transfer And Registration Of Firearm" for, known as a "form 4".

4.You must have the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement (CLEO) officer that has jurisdiction over the municipality in which you live on the form 4. This could be the City Chief or the County Sheriff, for example. This is usually not a problem-- in machine gun friendly states. The form 4, CLEO signature, 2 fingerprint cards, 2 pictures, and a $200 check (your one-time transfer tax) must all be mailed to the BATF and an approved tax stamp returned before you may take possession of the gun. This may take anywhere from 2 to 5 months.

The tax stamp is the license. Much like the tax stamp for a buck when hunting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.

My argument was sound. The point was there are hundreds of products that are licensed.

How many of them involve the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected from infringement by the constitution?
None?
Thank you.

The tax stamp is the license.

No. Its not. It means you paid the transfer tax.

 

[MikeK]

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?

I would argue that these requirements do not impede one's Second Amendment rights but simply ensure that asserting those rights does not jeopardize the safety of the community and its individual citizens by incompetent exercise.

How do they, together or separately, prevent criminals from getting guns?

They don't!

I do not believe that other than imposition of the most oppressive form of autocratic enforcement, such as was exercised at Waco, is capable of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Anyone who disagrees is simply ignoring the complete and utter failure of the War on Drugs debacle.

The reason for the current increase in criminal gun violence is the increase in restrictions which have given rise to a black market in guns, making them more available to the criminal element than ever before.

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?

One possibly successful argument is the fact that a car kept and operated on one's private property cannot harm anyone outside the boundaries of that property. But the same cannot be said for an incompetently handled .38 revolver -- or a .50 Barrett rifle.

 

[RKMBrown]

Correct. Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.

My argument was sound. The point was there are hundreds of products that are licensed.

How many of them involve the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected from infringement by the constitution?
None?
Thank you.

The tax stamp is the license.

No. Its not. It means you paid the transfer tax.

Nearly every license/tax is a regulation on your rights. Your confusion stems from the definitions of terms. You seem to think shall not be infringed means shall not be taxed or regulated or licensed. You are confused.

Wrong. It means you paid the transfer tax, filled out the form, the form was reviewed and approved providing you with the stamp, which licenses you to own the machine gun. No stamp you are in violation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

I would argue that these requirements do not impede one's Second Amendment rights....

They are both preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - thus, infringements.

but simply ensure that asserting those rights does not jeopardize the safety of the community and its individual citizens by incompetent exercise.

How does the tiny % of guns and gun owners that misuse their firearms create a compelling state interest where it must have on record the identity and whereabouts of everyone that chooses to exercise their right to arms in order to protect the rights of the people?

How does the even tinier % of guns and gun owners involved in an accidental shooting create a compelling state interest where it must require that everyone that chooses to exercise their right to arms undergo some sort of state-specified training in order to protect the rights of the people?

I do not believe that other than imposition of the most oppressive form of autocratic enforcement, such as was exercised at Waco, is capable of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Not even then.

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?

One possibly successful argument is the fact that a car kept and operated on one's private property cannot harm anyone outside the boundaries of that property. But the same cannot be said for an incompetently handled .38 revolver -- or a .50 Barrett rifle.

Simple ownership/possession of a firearm withing the home does not in any way harm anyone or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger -- the constitution does not allow the infringement of rights because of some remote possibility some undefined harm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.

My argument was sound. The point was there are hundreds of products that are licensed.

How many of them involve the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected from infringement by the constitution?
None?
Thank you.

The tax stamp is the license.

No. Its not. It means you paid the transfer tax.

Nearly every license/tax is a regulation on your rights. Your confusion stems from the definitions of terms. You seem to think shall not be infringed means shall not be taxed or regulated or licensed. You are confused.

That's exactly what it means, as both are preconditions to the the exercise of the right not inherent to same.
Requring a license and paring regulatory-based tax violates the plenary exercise of the right to arms every bit as much as it viiolates the right to free speech, religion and abortion.

Wrong. It means you paid the transfer tax, filled out the form, the form was reviewed and approved providing you with the stamp, which licenses you to own the machine gun. No stamp you are in violation.

Tax stamp:
Revenue stamp - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
License
License - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Non-synonymous.