As of now the right to each has been affirmed by the Supreme Court so let's not even discuss that.

 

There are currently 2 pieces of legislation that have been filed in Frankfort, 1 in the House, 1 in the Senate. While both have a chance of passing their originating chamber neither is likely to even get a committee hearing in the other.

 

The House bill is a gun measure that while not limiting gun ownership will make it more onerous to purchase a gun.

 

The Senate bill is an abortion bill that would not limit the right to abortion, but it would require an ultrasound prior to the procedure.

 

I'll ask this of both sides, if limiting what has been upheld by the Supreme Court to be a constitutional right for one is acceptable how is it unacceptable to make limitations on what has been upheld as a constitutional right for the other?

 

You know what side I stand on, I'll use the left's rhetoric. If the ultrasound requirement will save even 1 baby isn't it worth enacting that restriction?

Without putting much thought into it I'm cool with both.

Without putting much thought into it I'm cool with both.

 

I agree, though I'd like additional info on what "more onerous" means.

I agree, though I'd like additional info on what "more onerous" means.

 

As I understand it universal background checks on all sales and licensing on all firearms.

As I understand it universal background checks on all sales and licensing on all firearms.

 

I'm cool with that.

I'm cool with that.

 

Are you "cool" with taxes on ammunition with the direct intent of decreasing sales of the product?

Are you "cool" with taxes on ammunition with the direct intent of decreasing sales of the product?

 

How bad do you want the gun and ammo? It's really that simple? If it's not a big deal you won't pay because of the extra tax. If you really want that gun and ammo you'll pay because it's worth it.

 

So, no big deal to me. I get to make the same decision on a lot of purchases that include a tax.

 

You should be more upset with gun stores that have jacked up prices due to demand. I'm not as I believe it's cool to do so as long as it's not in response to a disaster (ie raising cost of bread/milk due to a hurricane).

 

Gun store owners are playing a lot of people like a fiddle.

How bad do you want the gun and ammo? It's really that simple? If it's not a big deal you won't pay because of the extra tax. If you really want that gun and ammo you'll pay because it's worth it.

 

So, no big deal to me. I get to make the same decision on a lot of purchases that include a tax.

 

So to clarify you are fine with government pricing certain citizens out of a constitutional right?

As I understand it universal background checks on all sales and licensing on all firearms.

 

Thanks, AT. :thumb:

 

And I am fine with that as well.

So to clarify you are fine with government pricing certain citizens out of a constitutional right?

 

In your simple terms, yes. However, "pricing citizens out of a constitutional right" is exactly the line of thinking the gun store owners want you to have. "Get 'em now, boys, before Obamer takes ALL of your rights away."

 

We do have elected reps, right? If they vote to raise it then they're saying their constituents are cool with it. If you don't like their votes then vote them out. It's the beauty of the process. They are accountable.

In your simple terms, yes. However, "pricing citizens out of a constitutional right" is exactly the line of thinking the gun store owners want you to have. "Get 'em now, boys, before Obamer takes ALL of your rights away."

 

We do have elected reps, right? If they vote to raise it then they're saying their constituents are cool with it. If you don't like their votes then vote them out. It's the beauty of the process. They are accountable.

 

So lets take a step back here because this is "simple" in my mind. You are fine with government pricing people out of defending themsleves. If I go look at threads on this site during the election season where did you stand on people being required to show id to vote?

Let's take it a step further. If part of the reason for so called "sin taxes" (and we'll lump additional taxes on guns into that category for discussion sake) is to dissuade partaking in a particular LEGAL activity be it smoking, soda drinking or gun purchasing then would you be OK with a tax on every abortion performed purely to dissuade the activity. After all if you want one you have the choice to pay the additional tax or not.

So lets take a step back here because this is "simple" in my mind. You are fine with government pricing people out of defending themsleves. If I go look at threads on this site during the election season where did you stand on people being required to show id to vote?

 

Let me save you from having to use what can be a frustrating search feature on BGP.

 

I am against Voter ID because there is no history (actual vs reported) of voter fraud.

 

I'm not sure how that equates to this though as we do have a history of gun problems. Now it's way too simplistic to say that "it's the gun" vs the gun owner but we can all agree that gun violence is a problem. So unlike the voting issue where there is no proof of a real problem we do have proof in the case of guns.

 

You are exaggerating the taxation issue ie "pricing people out of defending themselves." Are you against govt using taxes to price people out buying gas so they can get to work to support their family so they can buy a gun to protect their family?

 

Or do you adjust to make sure you have enough money to buy gas?

Let's take it a step further. If part of the reason for so called "sin taxes" (and we'll lump additional taxes on guns into that category for discussion sake) is to dissuade partaking in a particular LEGAL activity be it smoking, soda drinking or gun purchasing then would you be OK with a tax on every abortion performed purely to dissuade the activity. After all if you want one you have the choice to pay the additional tax or not.

 

While I think govt SELLS it as a sin tax it's truly just an easy source of revenue. However, to answer your question, yes.

Let me save you from having to use what can be a frustrating search feature on BGP.

 

I am against Voter ID because there is no history (actual vs reported) of voter fraud.

 

I'm not sure how that equates to this though as we do have a history of gun problems. Now it's way too simplistic to say that "it's the gun" vs the gun owner but we can all agree that gun violence is a problem. So unlike the voting issue where there is no proof of a real problem we do have proof in the case of guns.

 

You are exaggerating the taxation issue ie "pricing people out of defending themselves." Are you against govt using taxes to price people out buying gas so they can get to work to support their family so they can buy a gun to protect their family?

 

Or do you adjust to make sure you have enough money to buy gas?

 

 

 

I am against the governments involvement of pricing any citizen out of any legal activity. Taxes are necessary in some cases but the intent of the tax needs to be examined. The government is not our parent and should not treat us as children.

But to answer your question what I was asking ties directly into this topic. One of the many talking points against requiring ID to vote was the undo burden or cost it would bring on the elderly or less wealthy citizens. Many liberals or Obama supporters on this very site stated as such just a few months ago. I'm just trying to get clarification if its ok to price people out of some constitutional rights and its not ok to price them out of others. Is their some sort of hierarchy the founding fathers put out that I was unaware of, and if so could you provide said document.

 

But to use your term from earlier in simple terms do we have a Violence problem in this country to a degree yes we do. But I would not classify it as a gun problem because I never define a constitutional right as a problem. Let me ask you this, where do a majority of gun murders take place and who is most often the criminal that commits the murder?