Abortion Rights vs. Gun Rights

[LIPTON BASH]

I've never once said that much, if any, of the legislation is going to have an impact on gun violence. I'm just for common sense legislation and a registry (as hard as that is going to be).

 

So if it will have little impact why would you want more laws of little impact on the books, that would only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens? Just to feel like you did something?

[LIPTON BASH]

Then what is the point of taxing? Why do you make it harder for law abiding citizens to get a ammo and allow the government makes money from it? That isn't common sense. You said it was no big deal, but do you even ask yourself if its necessary or is it just price gouging by the government?

 

I'm baffled by this thought process of being for more laws that would have little impact. There is no logical reasoning behind that just an emotional response. Emotional responses do not solve problems. Clyde is confusing me.

[jvdfc]

I'm baffled by this thought process of being for more laws that would have little impact. There is no logical reasoning behind that just an emotional response. Emotional responses do not solve problems. Clyde is confusing me.

 

Ever heard of the bob n weave? That's what he does.

[Clyde]

Heading into a game, boys. Will respond later. Pretty easy to follow.

[LIPTON BASH]

Ever heard of the bob n weave? That's what he does.

 

When you are wrong I guess evading important questions works.

[Run To State]

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."

As someone that talks with and deals with gun store owners, you're way off the mark. People are clamoring for guns, not because of what gun store owners are telling the people, but what the president and the Dianne Feinstein's in our government are signaling to the people. The demand has been created by the government, not by the shop owners.

[Run To State]

I've never once said that much, if any, of the legislation is going to have an impact on gun violence. I'm just for common sense legislation and a registry (as hard as that is going to be).

Just enforce the current laws and start working on real solutions for the actual problem. Since guns are't the problem, why even pretend any new laws will change anything?

[Clyde]

Just enforce the current laws and start working on real solutions for the actual problem. Since guns are't the problem, why even pretend any new laws will change anything?

 

You cannot deny that there are loopholes that need to be tightened. Tighten those.

[Clyde]

If you're worried about gun violence like you said: "but we can all agree that gun violence is a problem." can you please explain how that is going to solve gun violence? You said yourself if someone wants them bad enough, they'll go ahead and pay the tax. So where exactly is the solution? Sounds like a revenue scheme to me and a way to tax middle income americans.

 

Back from the game. Let me start answering all of the questions .

 

I've never linked taxes on ammo to solving the issue. That question was never posed. I've stated that I'm fine with taxing ammo.

 

Yes, it's a revenue scheme. Like all taxes.

[Clyde]

Then what is the point of taxing? Why do you make it harder for law abiding citizens to get a ammo and allow the government makes money from it? That isn't common sense. You said it was no big deal, but do you even ask yourself if its necessary or is it just price gouging by the government?

 

IMO you are overstating how hard it is going to be to buy ammo as a result of this tax. You've stated a few times that it's going to stop people from buying guns to protect their family. That's unadulterated crap. If your true intent is to protect your family a tax is not going to change your mind. If it does your intent was never real.

[Clyde]

I'm baffled by this thought process of being for more laws that would have little impact. There is no logical reasoning behind that just an emotional response. Emotional responses do not solve problems. Clyde is confusing me.

 

You're only confused because you were reading too much into my answers.

[Clyde]

Ever heard of the bob n weave? That's what he does.

 

I've not bobbed nor weaved once. Pretty simple responses I've given.

 

Let me summarize.

 

Original questions posed in #1: Yes, I'm cool with the tax and I'm cool with the ultrasound requirement.

 

Does the tax fix the issue of gun violence? No. Consistently said that.

 

Is this a tax grab by the govt? Yes. Again, I've never said otherwise.

 

So where have I tried to be deceptive or sly? I've answered every question.

[Clyde]

When you are wrong I guess evading important questions works.

 

What was I wrong about?

[Clyde]

As someone that talks with and deals with gun store owners, you're way off the mark. People are clamoring for guns, not because of what gun store owners are telling the people, but what the president and the Dianne Feinstein's in our government are signaling to the people. The demand has been created by the government, not by the shop owners.

 

Has the govt raised costs for them yet? No. Therefore, the increased prices are market-driven. Somone along the way decided to grab some extra cash and those have been passed on.

[Clyde]

So I'll ask again where does a majority of violent crimes take place and who commits a large portion of these crimes.

 

To answer your question, I'll guess handguns in Chicago. What do I win?

 

Now, the fact that I'm right or wrong is irrelevant to this thread because it has nothing to do with taxing guns/ammo.