When I am asked if folks really need modern sporting rifles,AR's etc... I wonder if anyone really NEEDS an abortion unless the mother is at risk. Seems rights conquers need...

There is a price to pay for many things in a free society. This is just one example. I don't have a problem with it because I don't feel it's unjust. What I see is that a person can still excercise their constitutional right. They'll just pay a little more to do so. They can choose to do so, or they can choose not to. But in the end, it is the choice of the individual. I in no way feel that an increaed tax will prevent anyone from owning a firearm if they so choose. One determines what they feel is needd, or a priority, and save for that purchase, or have the means at hand to pay for it. The tax will not prevent that purchase.

 

"while not limiting gun ownership will make it more onerous to purchase a gun." But if it won't actually make it more difficult like you said, are the politicians lying? I'm having a hard time seeing the justification where the revenue scheme is disguised to pay for 'living in a free society'. Especially when those advocating for it haven't even considered or taken action on serious spending cuts. That line of thinking is why politicians spend so freely with our money. Why would they care when our fellow citizens don't give a crap about our money. Its just getting us more and more into debt. Its not just immoral and unjust. Its economically stupid.

Another question. Since Obamacare now directs that abortions be covered at no cost to the individual should the government also subsidize a low income person who wishes to exercise her/her rights to own a gun but can't afford it?

I don't believe anyone is losing any freedoms. They'll simply be paying an increased tax. To lose the freedom, a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal the 2nd. That's not even proposed.

 

 

The courts have held a lot of things 'infringed' the right in the 2nd Amendment. Taxes or higher taxes for arms would probably fall into that category. There is no right to bear whiskey or right to bear tobacco. So the government has relatively freely infringed up on these items.

You don't mind my hard earned money being spent on the military. I don't mind paying more taxes for that hypothetical gun and ammo I will never buy. At least I have a choice of whether I pay that tax or not. I choose to pay the extra taxes on alcohol. I don't on guns and ammo. It's not a blanket tax. It's only if you choose to buy the product.

 

Do you not benefit from your hard earned money being spent on the military?

I don't believe anyone is losing any freedoms. They'll simply be paying an increased tax. To lose the freedom, a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal the 2nd. That's not even proposed.

Taking the ability away from people to buy ammo due to an increased tax on the product is limiting the use of their firearms, and limiting the ability to protect themselves. I think you are missing the point that to be good with a weapon, just like anything else, you have to practice. Otherwise, if you ever have to use it in a violent situation, you will not be as well prepared to do so.

Are you referring to the gun show loophole or are there others as well?

 

That would seem to be one to look at.

 

A Republican pollster polled NRA members recently.

 

75% were for background checks

60% said they supported a requirement to alert police when a gun was lost or stolen

 

 

Those would be a good place to start when it comes to rational legislation.

That would seem to be one to look at.

 

A Republican pollster polled NRA members recently.

 

75% were for background checks

60% said they supported a requirement to alert police when a gun was lost or stolen

 

 

Those would be a good place to start when it comes to rational legislation.

 

I have never bought a gun at a gun show without having a background check ran on me just like I was in a gun store. I would also say that if a gun is lost or stolen and you don't report it, you are either extremely stupid or up to something shady. Either way, I don't see how either of these would make a difference. What is the goal of this legislation? What crime wave is this legislation attempting to stop?

I have never bought a gun at a gun show without having a background check ran on me just like I was in a gun store. I would also say that if a gun is lost or stolen and you don't report it, you are either extremely stupid or up to something shady. Either way, I don't see how either of these would make a difference. What is the goal of this legislation? What crime wave is this legislation attempting to stop?

 

Common sense legislation. It's not onerous on a gun owner.

Common sense legislation. It's not onerous on a gun owner.

 

My point is that the first part of the legislation already exist for dealers at gun shows in most states. I disagree that a private gun owner should have to run a criminal background check before they sell, or give away, one of their guns to someone. As far as the second part of the legislation, criminals or morons are the only ones not doing this anyway. Why add legislation that isn't going to accomplish anything?

My point is that the first part of the legislation already exist for dealers at gun shows in most states. I disagree that a private gun owner should have to run a criminal background check before they sell, or give away, one of their guns to someone. As far as the second part of the legislation, criminals or morons are the only ones not doing this anyway. Why add legislation that isn't going to accomplish anything?

 

Are you saying there is not a gun show loophole?

 

The private sale issue is a problem. Not sure how you can fully cover that issue.

 

Criminals and morons are the ones that drink and drive. Should we not have laws for that?

Are you saying there is not a gun show loophole?

 

The private sale issue is a problem. Not sure how you can fully cover that issue.

 

Criminals and morons are the ones that drink and drive. Should we not have laws for that?

 

Why is it an issue because people in the media tell us? How many of these shootings have resulted from legal transaction between legal gun owners? Apparently in the Voter ID thread you need a signifigant percentage of voter fraud for it to be an issue, but not with gun control. Hypocrisy continues.

Are you saying there is not a gun show loophole?

 

The private sale issue is a problem. Not sure how you can fully cover that issue.

 

Criminals and morons are the ones that drink and drive. Should we not have laws for that?

 

The only loophole at gun shows are private citizen sales, which shows do bring private citizens together where they can make deals with one another. Dealers must follow the same rules they do in their shop, and you have to be a dealer to have a booth at a gun show. I have never bought a gun at a show without having a background check ran on me, and I have bought a lot of guns at a lot of shows. Gun shows do however bring private citizens together that more easily allow cash deals. On the last part, once again, what would this legislation accomplish?

Common sense legislation. It's not onerous on a gun owner.

 

How does registration stop crime?

 

If I am forced register my private property with the ATF, otherwise becoming a criminal, and I go in a database along with a fingerprint, where was the just cause for search and seizure? I have now lost some of my privacy -- which is my property -- without due process. Government cannot take my property without just compensation. Where will this compensation come from?

 

When you register weapons you will have an even bigger (financially) underground market for unregistered guns. Is the possibility of that becoming bigger than the drug trade a consideration.

 

Again, how is this a common sense solution?

Why is it an issue because people in the media tell us? How many of these shootings have resulted from legal transaction between legal gun owners? Apparently in the Voter ID thread you need a signifigant percentage of voter fraud for it to be an issue, but not with gun control. Hypocrisy continues.

 

Pay attention, LB. I've already stated numerous times in this thread that my suggestions are not aimed at stopping a Columbine/Sandy Hook/Aurora. I responded to a question posted by RTS about legislation that make sense. Those that I mentioned seem to make sense to me and apparently the vast majority of NRA members surveyed. You either cannot keep up or you choose not to. Neither are appealing.

 

You don't to have like what I think is common sense legislation. Couldn't care less if you agree. However, stay on point and quit trying to change the narrative.