Honest and open debate on gun control

[Brain357]

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one them violates their right to choose.
Infringement, Unarguably. Fail.
And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

 

[2aguy]

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns, assigning that process for more guns will be constitutional for the same reason it's been constitutional for machine guns and silencers.

Not as many... they would be more expensive by an order of magnitude or two... there would be less guns, less guns to get, less first crimes with guns, less criminals with guns all simple math.

Criminals would just move on to cheaper weapons, like sticks & knives.

One thing about the machine gun laws is that new machine guns can't be bought. Only pre 86' guns are in circulation legally. That has more to do with them being rare in crime than increased price.

Sorry...if criminals decided they need fully automatic rifles they would get them....but law abiding citizens would still not have them.....and even most civilians don't see a need.

You don't need a full auto to rob somebody. People have been robbed with a finger in a pocket.

Imagine the number of people killed by strays if criminals and defenders had full autos. That would be silly. As you said most of the time the criminal runs away with no shots fired.

And of course all deaths by rifles....not even "assault rifles" are not even half of those murdered with knives or hands and feet...so it is not likely that the 1 million AR-15s already in private hands are ever going to be a problem.....

Again...over 1 million AR-15s are in private hands...and criminals don't use them often.......if at all for their crimes.......

 

[2aguy]

M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

 

[Brain357]

I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting. Any that do would make the news.

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

 

[2aguy]

I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

 

[Brain357]

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

Gun defenses are interesting, thats why they make national news. In this day of the Internet there would be lots of defense stories if shots were fired 46% of the time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

Brain will only lie to you.

 

[Brain357]

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

Brain will only lie to you.

Prove any lie I have used. Seems you only lie. And are very childish.

 

[RKMBrown]

I came up with it on my own. I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime. How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?

Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....

Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry. As for they get them when they want... how do they get them? From homeland defense?

They steal them or import them illegally.

So are people who import them illegally criminals before they import them or after they import them? Why are they criminals for importing them if the constitution says they can?

Criminals will steal them locally from the police, military or gun stores, or gun owners or if they find a supplier overseas, the Russians or the Chinese they will import them....remember during the Clinton Administration...one of their big campaign donors. Wang Jun, was a chines business man caught trying to sell thousands of AK-47s to California street gangs....

That they stick to pistols is again a culture thing here in the states.....European terrorists prefer fully automatic rifles....even though they are less accurate.....


What the constitution says and what we have allowed to be made into laws are two different things.....having to get permits for guns is one of them.

If we'll allow machine guns and silencers to go through the extreme process of tax stamps, what makes you think we won't give in on any number of other things as well. For example, why do you need more than one bullet at a time? Why do you need a scary looking .357 magnum? Why not just rifles of .22 caliber or less for slugs and .410 bore shot guns for hunting and sporting?

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.
You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.

Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail. Government is allowed to tax you to hell and back for any damn reason they want to. Well except to vote that is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment
Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail.

The tax on machine guns is not there to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms

 

[RKMBrown]

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail.

The tax on machine guns is not there to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms

The tax stamp process is what I'm talking about. The reason machine guns are too expensive is that the tax stamp process came with a ban on sales to the public and imports for machine guns. The ban cause the prices to sky rocket. My tax stamp expansion will also carry with it a ban on sales of new guns to the public and imports for the expanded types of guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.
Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail.

The tax on machine guns is not there to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms

The tax stamp process is what I'm talking about. The reason machine guns are too expensive is that the tax stamp process came with a ban on sales to the public and imports for machine guns. The ban cause the prices to sky rocket. My tax stamp expansion will also carry with it a ban on sales of new guns to the public and imports for the expanded types of guns.

All of which are intended to make the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms too expensive to exercise.
This infringes upon the right to keeps and bear arms as it would if enacted over the exercise of any right.
So does any ban on the sales of new guns.
Fail.

Criminals will also, as you admit, still get guns. Fail.

 

[2aguy]

Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

Gun defenses are interesting, thats why they make national news. In this day of the Internet there would be lots of defense stories if shots were fired 46% of the time.

1) not if there wasn't a death
2) only if they have video

 

[2aguy]

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.
Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail.

The tax on machine guns is not there to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms

The tax stamp process is what I'm talking about. The reason machine guns are too expensive is that the tax stamp process came with a ban on sales to the public and imports for machine guns. The ban cause the prices to sky rocket. My tax stamp expansion will also carry with it a ban on sales of new guns to the public and imports for the expanded types of guns.

There are 1 million AR-15s in private hands, yet they account for a handful of crimes each year....why...because our criminals prefer small concealable guns....but if they want AR-15s or anything else for that matter you tax stamp isn't going to stop them........

 

[2aguy]

You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment
Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But... in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so

Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong. It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.

Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.

Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns. It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands. By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.

Criminals will still get guns, yes?

Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns...

Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement. Unarguably. Fail.

Not as many...

And so, criminals will still get guns. Fail.

Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail. Government is allowed to tax you to hell and back for any damn reason they want to. Well except to vote that is.

And so with the vote so with having a gun....it is a right, just like voting, thanks for proving our point for us....

 

[Brain357]

So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses? Link?

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

Gun defenses are interesting, thats why they make national news. In this day of the Internet there would be lots of defense stories if shots were fired 46% of the time.

1) not if there wasn't a death
2) only if they have video

Many have neither and make the news. Guns are big news. Look how many accidental shootings make the news even with no deaths.

 

[2aguy]

I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy: brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...

No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news. And very few make the news.

And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...

Gun defenses are interesting, thats why they make national news. In this day of the Internet there would be lots of defense stories if shots were fired 46% of the time.

1) not if there wasn't a death
2) only if they have video

Many have neither and make the news. Guns are big news. Look how many accidental shootings make the news even with no deaths.

there were a total of 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013....care to show me links to all of those stories?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we merely need more Judicial activism regarding the betterment of our aqueducts and our roads.

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk