Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Kable24]

you got the $30,000+ to pay for it, kable24?

No, but if a repeal of the Hughes Amendment would come about because of that, we could buy post 1986 rifles and they wouldn't be that high priced. The cheapest class 3 I seen was $3000.00. It was a MAC10 type smg. I got to hold a $24,500 H7K MP5 at a gun show recently. They also had a few others in that price range.

I would just like to get some .22LR's full auto because it would be cheap and so much fun to shoot them.

There is a guy at work who has two class 3 rifles. One being an AR-10. His gun budget a year is more than I make in a year.

 

[Hotwire]

I would agree with all of those except the last two. While, I don't have a problem showing a license to purchase a gun, since I already show my driver's license to buy it. I don't feel it needs to be shown to buy ammo.

I also don't feel I should have to buy liability insurance. I do have insurance on my guns if they are stolen or damaged in a fire in my home. If someone for some reason is hurt while looking at my guns in my home, my renters or home owners insurance would cover it as they were hurt in my home.

Requiring the license to purchase ammo makes it harder for people with illegal guns to buy bullets.

Not necessarily true on the insurance. Insurance companies use every loophole they can find to keep from paying. Like how they wiggled out of paying for storm damage after Katrina by saying it was flood damage, which wasn't covered. Requiring gun owners insurance, either it's own policy or part of another, would close any loopholes.

As for the financial burden argument, would that also apply to the purchase of the gun itself? Isn't the fact that I can't afford a gun, infringing on my right to own it? We're dealing with a very lethal thing here, why is putting responsibility on the owner of it a problem? We have to carry car insurance in case something happens. I know driving isn't a right but, it is a necessity. Especially, where I live.

 

[Bill]

So are you saying that I could purchase a Class III with no ATF tax stamp BS? I could definitely live with that.

You know, I would have no problem with people owning Class III's if they were qualified to do so, which our hypothetical licensing system purports to do. As for myself, I would not want to have one. I would rather have a burst capable rifle as I think fully automatic fire is a waste and counter productive unless you're suppressing.

I do think, however, that the level of security for Class III should be considered. After all, if we now have to have a license to purchase such a weapon, and we have all the laws in place to prohibit straw purchases, then the only thing left, besides the black market, is having the weapon stolen.

 

[SV Fan]

Why don't the pro gun nuts fight to legalize this ammo

[YT]se7lljRDNjk[/YT]

 

[Bill]

Requiring the license to purchase ammo makes it harder for people with illegal guns to buy bullets.

Not necessarily true on the insurance. Insurance companies use every loophole they can find to keep from paying. Like how they wiggled out of paying for storm damage after Katrina by saying it was flood damage, which wasn't covered. Requiring gun owners insurance, either it's own policy or part of another, would close any loopholes.

As for the financial burden argument, would that also apply to the purchase of the gun itself? Isn't the fact that I can't afford a gun, infringing on my right to own it? We're dealing with a very lethal thing here, why is putting responsibility on the owner of it a problem? We have to carry car insurance in case something happens. I know driving isn't a right but, it is a necessity. Especially, where I live.

A good shotgun will only set you back a few hundred dollars, and a Glock a few hundred more. If you can't save a bit and afford that, you can easily blame it on that earlier term you used...what was it...Capitalism.

Most of what might happen in your home would be covered under your home insurance. If you can somehow get Criminal Insurance passed, where criminals must get insurance to take care of the victims they leave alive when they do something, then I'd be all for that. Good luck.

There is a degree of extra responsibility placed on gun owners when there is evidence that their firearms were not properly stored and/or locked and an accident or crime occurs. I am ok with that. But to arbitrarily ask gun owners to pay a premium for a right is about 100 different kinds of wrong. Again, we aren't doing one thing to prevent violence or criminal activity, but we do love to stick it to the average citizens who just want to protect themselves.

 

[Hotwire]

A good shotgun will only set you back a few hundred dollars, and a Glock a few hundred more. If you can't save a bit and afford that, you can easily blame it on that earlier term you used...what was it...Capitalism.

Most of what might happen in your home would be covered under your home insurance. If you can somehow get Criminal Insurance passed, where criminals must get insurance to take care of the victims they leave alive when they do something, then I'd be all for that. Good luck.

There is a degree of extra responsibility placed on gun owners when there is evidence that their firearms were not properly stored and/or locked and an accident or crime occurs. I am ok with that. But to arbitrarily ask gun owners to pay a premium for a right is about 100 different kinds of wrong. Again, we aren't doing one thing to prevent violence or criminal activity, but we do love to stick it to the average citizens who just want to protect themselves.

Again, even though I should be able to save up the money to buy a gun, isn't requiring me to pay for my rightful firearm just as unconstitutional as charging a poll tax to allow me to vote? Putting a cost in between me and my gun is still making me pay for my right. Isn't it?

The "criminal insurance" joke was funny! If you're not up for insurance, how about a simple law that says if your gun causes any injury or death to someone else, with exclusions made for self defense, you are now fully and irrevocably financially liable for everything. The medical bills, funeral, pain and suffering, etc..

As for preventing criminal activity, that's impossible. Just ask anyone opposing gun control. They'll tell you that laws mean nothing and there is no way to stop a criminal from doing anything. [/sarcasm]

You want to stop criminal activity, you have to take away a criminal's motivation for committing the crime. For example, why do you think most people who steal, do it? You think they're all just greedy? No. They steal because they're desperate. You know why they like to use a gun? Because you're scared of a gun! It gives them a position of power that they don't have otherwise. Do something to help but a dent in poverty, along with making it harder for them to get guns, and you'll see theft go down.

 

[Bill]

Again, even though I should be able to save up the money to buy a gun, isn't requiring me to pay for my rightful firearm just as unconstitutional as charging a poll tax to allow me to vote? Putting a cost in between me and my gun is still making me pay for my right. Isn't it?

Not really. You are free to manufacture your own firearm if you are able to do so. But if you do not know how, then you must pay another for their labor, skills and materials. You know, Capitalism. If I were to take a gun for free that someone else has made with their time, labor and skill without recompense, then I would be interfering with their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The "criminal insurance" joke was funny! If you're not up for insurance, how about a simple law that says if your gun causes any injury or death to someone else, with exclusions made for self defense, you are now fully and irrevocably financially liable for everything. The medical bills, funeral, pain and suffering, etc..

Hmm. Is that what car insurance does for the drunk driver? Last time I checked, that would be a negative. If I do every thing within the bounds of the law to keep it secure, and it still gets stolen, am I still liable? You know, and I know, that insurance companies will not pay if that is the case because they would be the ones paying those millions, not me. My premiums would merely go up. Just like car insurance.

I don't see any insurance company even wanting to approach that. There's no money in it.

As for preventing criminal activity, that's impossible. Just ask anyone opposing gun control. They'll tell you that laws mean nothing and there is no way to stop a criminal from doing anything. [/sarcasm]

I wouldn't say that. If you're going to present a law, then make sure it's going to affect your intended target. I haven't seen anything from gun grabbers that does anything to affect criminals with the exception of background checks. The laws we have, for example, laws against murder and the punishments for such are there as a guide and deterrent. But, somehow, we still have homicides. That's not to say that the law isn't there for a good reason, but the law doesn't affect anyone innocent of a crime before they've committed it. Some of the gun laws being presented make criminals of law abiding citizens over a few cosmetic features of a firearm. Or restrict their ability to load a full magazine. These laws make one a criminal when no real criminal activity has been committed. Do these laws make sense in terms of a deterrent to someone with the intent of murder? Are they a guide for a more content society? Seems like it would be the last thing on the mind of the person about to kill one or many, don't you think?

You want to stop criminal activity, you have to take away a criminal's motivation for committing the crime. For example, why do you think most people who steal, do it? You think they're all just greedy? No. They steal because they're desperate. You know why they like to use a gun? Because you're scared of a gun! It gives them a position of power that they don't have otherwise. Do something to help but a dent in poverty, along with making it harder for them to get guns, and you'll see theft go down.

That has been my point all along. You'll save far more lives removing the cause of criminal behavior than banning or restricting things. A lot more. But you won't see that kind of reform even being discussed. It's time consuming and cost prohibitive. It's cheaper just to ban something, and that IS what 80% of Americans want.

 

[SV Fan]

Just out of curiosity why don't cities legislate their own guns laws?

Say a city like Chicago just make laws you can't carry a gun within city limits unless it's in a case and unload

In the big picture this probably would cause much less gun violence then making national laws(let's be honest rural areas in Montana don't need the same laws then big urban centers)

 

[hippie_hunter]

Cities do make their own gun laws. New York City and Chicago have some of the most strict gun laws in the country. They're also the cities with the most gun violence.

 

[SV Fan]

Cities do make their own gun laws. New York City and Chicago have some of the most strict gun laws in the country. They're also the cities with the most gun violence.

That is such a BS argument(that cherry picks statistics to try make a point). Here is an Idea they are highly dense populations with millions of people living there, chances are there is going to be more gun issues then in some rural area in Wyoming

http://www.takepart.com/photos/gun-homicides

Here is the top 11 cities for Gun issues(deaths are rated per 100k people)

1. Detroit 47.5
2. Baltimore 29.5
3. New Orleans 27.7
4. Oakland 27.3
5. Memphis 19.38
6. Kansas City 19.3
7. Cleveland 18.7
8. Philadelphia 18.5
9. Chicago 16.4
10. Milwaukee 11
11. Tulsa 10

So this stupid idea that Chicago is the worst city in he US is BS or that NY is up there as well. Sure if you are going on pure raw numbers of deaths they high but that's a given. I am going to take a wild guess here but LA and Houston probably rank high in deaths as well.

it should be pointed out the 2 worse states for Gun Violence are Louisiana and Alabama. I am fairly certain those states don't have tough gun laws

http://flowingdata.com/2011/01/19/states-with-the-most-and-least-firearms-murders/

 

[Kelly]

That is such a BS argument(that cherry picks statistics to try make a point). Here is an Idea they are highly dense populations, chances are there is going to be more gun issues then in some rural area in Wyoming

http://www.takepart.com/photos/gun-homicides

Here is the top 11 cities for Gun issues(deaths are rated per 100k people)

1. Detroit 47.5
2. Baltimore 29.5
3. New Orleans 27.7
4. Oakland 27.3
5. Memphis 19.38
6. Kansas City 19.3
7. Cleveland 18.7
8. Philadelphia 18.5
9. Chicago 16.4
10. Milwaukee 11
11. Tulsa 10

So this stupid idea that Chicago is the worst city in he US is BS or that NY is up there as well. Sure if you are going on pure raw numbers of deaths they high but that's a given. I am going to take a wild guess here but LA and Houston probably rank high in deaths as well

I haven't heard New York as being in the top 10 since Giuliani was mayor...so that isn't a surprise, and Bloomberg has pretty much kept those policies in place. I would be interested to see the breakdown of those as in gang violence, isolated incidence, family crimes etc....

 

[Webfoot Hero]

That is such a BS argument(that cherry picks statistics to try make a point). Here is an Idea they are highly dense populations with millions of people living there, chances are there is going to be more gun issues then in some rural area in Wyoming

http://www.takepart.com/photos/gun-homicides

Here is the top 11 cities for Gun issues(deaths are rated per 100k people)

1. Detroit 47.5
2. Baltimore 29.5
3. New Orleans 27.7
4. Oakland 27.3
5. Memphis 19.38
6. Kansas City 19.3
7. Cleveland 18.7
8. Philadelphia 18.5
9. Chicago 16.4
10. Milwaukee 11
11. Tulsa 10

So this stupid idea that Chicago is the worst city in he US is BS or that NY is up there as well. Sure if you are going on pure raw numbers of deaths they high but that's a given. I am going to take a wild guess here but LA and Houston probably rank high in deaths as well.


it should be pointed out the 2 worse states for Gun Violence are Louisiana and Mississippi. I am fairly certain those states don't have tough gun laws

And with New Orleans being in Louisiana, you know where the main source of the gun violence is coming from.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I haven't heard New York as being in the top 10 since Giuliani was mayor...so that isn't a surprise, and Bloomberg has pretty much kept those policies in place. I would be interested to see the breakdown of those as in gang violence, isolated incidence, family crimes etc....

I'd suspect that most of those are gang and/or drug-related.

 

[Kelly]

I don't get Obama's speeches, they sound like campaign speeches....it's weird. Why can't he just get back to his office and work????maybe he would have had the budget in on time. I don't remember a President in my lifetime giving so many of these types of speeches their 2nd term. I find it very interesting...

 

[Kelly]

I'd suspect that most of those are gang and/or drug-related.

I understand that, and THEN....broken down by city....

We have these freaking hybrid gangs in Houston that are growing like wild fire, and they are hard as hell to follow. They have no leadership, they are Latino, Black, White, everything...and they are members of other gangs....they are in almost every case, also a member of another of the 5 major gangs we have in Houston....it is absolutely crazy.

 

[SV Fan]

And with New Orleans being in Louisiana, you know where the main source of the gun violence is coming from.

What are the chances highly dense urban areas(which is basically my point about demagoguing Chicago and it's strict gun laws, the whole Fox News talking point "hey look at Chicago it's the worst gun crime capital of the US, see gun laws don't work so no use doing anything about it" is just plan BS)

 

[SV Fan]

We have these freaking hybrid gangs in Houston that are growing like wild fire, and they are hard as hell to follow. They have no leadership, they are Latino, Black, White, everything...and they are members of other gangs....they are in almost every case, also a member of another of the 5 major gangs we have in Houston....it is absolutely crazy.

What you need is this

[YT]bTUrWYv2vtU[/YT]

 

[Bill]

Just out of curiosity why don't cities legislate their own guns laws?

Say a city like Chicago just make laws you can't carry a gun within city limits unless it's in a case and unload

In the big picture this probably would cause much less gun violence then making national laws(let's be honest rural areas in Montana don't need the same laws then big urban centers)

For a minute, put yourself in the mindset of a gang member or drug dealer and tell me what you would do if you saw a sign at the city limit marker that said, "No Guns Allowed, unless they're locked in a case."

Let me guess, you'd case your pistol and immediately head into town looking to do charity work as an unpaid volunteer.

 

[Hotwire]

As for preventing criminal activity, that's impossible. Just ask anyone opposing gun control. They'll tell you that laws mean nothing and there is no way to stop a criminal from doing anything. [/sarcasm]

I wouldn't say that. If you're going to present a law, then make sure it's going to affect your intended target. I haven't seen anything from gun grabbers that does anything to affect criminals with the exception of background checks. The laws we have, for example, laws against murder and the punishments for such are there as a guide and deterrent. But, somehow, we still have homicides. That's not to say that the law isn't there for a good reason, but the law doesn't affect anyone innocent of a crime before they've committed it. Some of the gun laws being presented make criminals of law abiding citizens over a few cosmetic features of a firearm. Or restrict their ability to load a full magazine. These laws make one a criminal when no real criminal activity has been committed. Do these laws make sense in terms of a deterrent to someone with the intent of murder? Are they a guide for a more content society? Seems like it would be the last thing on the mind of the person about to kill one or many, don't you think?

For a minute, put yourself in the mindset of a gang member or drug dealer and tell me what you would do if you saw a sign at the city limit marker that said, "No Guns Allowed, unless they're locked in a case."

Let me guess, you'd case your pistol and immediately head into town looking to do charity work as an unpaid volunteer.

Hmmm???

 

[warhorse78]

Requiring the license to purchase ammo makes it harder for people with illegal guns to buy bullets.

Not necessarily true on the insurance. Insurance companies use every loophole they can find to keep from paying. Like how they wiggled out of paying for storm damage after Katrina by saying it was flood damage, which wasn't covered. Requiring gun owners insurance, either it's own policy or part of another, would close any loopholes.

As for the financial burden argument, would that also apply to the purchase of the gun itself? Isn't the fact that I can't afford a gun, infringing on my right to own it? We're dealing with a very lethal thing here, why is putting responsibility on the owner of it a problem? We have to carry car insurance in case something happens. I know driving isn't a right but, it is a necessity. Especially, where I live.

Let me say, I hate insurance companies with a passion, especially real estate insurance. I learned the hard way about their "flood" bs. I had a house and barn catch on fire when there were a bunch of brush wildfires for a while about 10 years ago, and they had the nerve to say they don't cover the property because of flood damage. My property didn't succumb to flood damage. Then they go, "oh yes it did, when the firefighters sprayed their hose onto the burning buildings to put out the fires, we're sorry mam, but your house did indeed sustain flood damage in the end, and that is not covered in your policy". Granted, I'm lucky and have money to back me up and hired a good lawer that sued the crap out of them, and eventually the state attorney general finally investigated and ripped them of their license (I wasn't the only victim to their BS, others filed claim) but I wonder, how many people do become victims to this crap, and they don't have the resources to fight back? All I can say, if you have to make a claim, get a lawyer on your side, no matter what, either it be a costly surgery or other medical treatment, car crash or destroction of real estate and other valuables, your lawyer will know the tricks of the trade to keep them in check.

 

[Bill]

Hmmm???

Do you understand the point that is trying to be made? Who do you think that such a law really affects?

I certainly think I made it clear in the very paragraph you quoted.

First of all, the simple carrying of a gun doesn't actually hurt anyone. It's not like a law against murder or theft, where if you break the law you are actively interfering with the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of another, along with leaving behind evidence that proves a crime has been committed. There is nothing like that with a law against carrying, it simply adds another charge to the docket, but what does that do to actually deter or even hinder a criminal with an intent or willingness to commit a murder or theft?

Instead of trying to bother with attempting to poke fun at the point, why don't YOU tell me what you, as a criminal, would do if they saw such a sign?

Let me ask this: Do you think that the signs declaring that school and theatre that were shot up as being "Gun Free Zones" hindered the people who shot them up or the people that got shot?

I suspect that they certainly took those signs as a indication of little to no resistance against what they were planning to do, and the only people who would take those signs to heart are people like you or me who follow the law. I'm not saying that is not a reason to have those signs present, but it certainly didn't help, did it? And attempting to pass laws that prohibit carrying would do no better at actually preventing a criminal or one who has the intent to do harm as suddenly having an epiphany when they see that sign or are aware of that law. It'd be nice if that were so, but that is not the reality.

Instead of making pointless laws in the name of, "Well, at least we did something" that trample on personal freedom for the purposes of political rhetoric and little else, enforce what is already there or enact preventative programs that stop the behavior or intentions before they become a problem.

 

[Kelly]

The Libertarian Party had this up on their facebook page....I thought it was interesting...

and the conclusion was pretty comical...lol

 

[SV Fan]

and the conclusion was pretty comical...lol

I personally get annoyed seeing Chicago constantly used as some beacon of why Gun laws don't work. As I said it's nothing more then cherry picking statistics to try make a point that factors positively in your hypothesis.

Using the stats above I am guessing their is many cities with tougher Gun Laws then Houston that I could find that have lower homicide rates, and many that have tougher guns laws with higher rates.

While the conclusion is comical, I am surprised the Libertarians are posting it because it basically is saying statistics are meaningless and be read anyway somebody wants. It's not really a pro-gun message(which i would assume they heavy on the gun rights)

 

[Kelly]

What I find annoying is when people cry about using Chicago in a comparison...where at least the demographics are similar, but say absolutely nothing when the US is constantly compared to other countries with not even a 3rd of the population, and totally different demographics....to make their argument. Can the double standard and I might actually find the argument compelling...

BTW, I agree with the registration of all online and gun show sales....and I actually go a step further, I think all sales of ammunition and guns should be banned from the internet. So, actually, I wasn't making any argument, I simply found the comparison interesting, as I stated...

 

[Kelly]

I personally get annoyed seeing Chicago constantly used as some beacon of why Gun laws don't work. As I said it's nothing more then cherry picking statistics to try make a point that factors positively in your hypothesis.

Using the stats above I am guessing their is many cities with tougher Gun Laws then Houston that I could find that have lower homicide rates, and many that have tougher guns laws with higher rates.

While the conclusion is comical, I am surprised the Libertarians are posting it because it basically is saying statistics are meaningless and be read anyway somebody wants. It's not really a pro-gun message(which i would assume they heavy on the gun rights)

Actually it is a pro-gun message, and it actually is stating that as a well, duh...whatever people are thinking of "massive gun laws" they aren't working....they simply use the conclusion as an eye roll....as I said quite obvious to me.

Kind of obvious to me, but again...I don't really care, I have certain gun laws that I would like passed and I have no problem with my next door neighbor owning a registered gun with a proper background check that also includes a mental health stipulation in it. So, when that happens, I'm good to go....