ifmaz
Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
All I have to do is convince enough people and it becomes law. A poll tax has nothing to do with this discussion.
Taxing a right makes it a privilege and not a right. If you support taxing the right to bear arms then surely the same holds true for all other rights, thus you support a poll tax.
Do you have a right to breath?
Do you have a right to eat food? Drink Water?
One could argue they fall under the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but are you actually going to waste everyone's time by saying "right to breathe"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
A 'right' and a 'privilege' are the same thing. Its how each are defined that might make them different.
Clearly you misunderstand "rights" versus "privileges".
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
If I have a right to a firearm, that means I can do.....ANYTHING....and you can not take it away. If this was true, explain how ex-cons in many situations can not legally obtain a firearm? If its a 'right', then they should be entitled to one. If its a 'privilege', then they can not obtain one. It comes down to how we define words in legal code.
Until I become a felon, I have all of my civil rights, including the right to bear arms. You have repeatedly suggested putting restrictions and burdens on that right even though I am not a felon.
Furthermore, certain felons can regain their civil rights.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You can try attaching a tax to a poll and see how far you get. An that would be different from placing a tax on a firearm. One is abstract and one is real. Much easier to tax things that exist in reality than concepts.
Taxing one right right is no different than taxing another right. Imagine one wishes to protest against their local government yet cannot obtain a permit due to the government demanding $10,000. Would you agree this situation is unconstitutional per the First Amendment? Can you apply the ideas behind that situation to the 2nd Amendment and your suggestion of taxing firearms and/or ammunition?
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
How I view the firearm debate is much more than just a plain football match. That you have not been following my understanding on these boards is due to your ignorance. My understanding of things is much more complex involving many more actors than the two that you think exist.
Your repeated boasts of intelligence sound like someone compensating for insecurities.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
(snip)
I asked the gun nuts on here, which one would do something this fucking stupid? Not a single one supported this guy. This guy killed an old man. Someone's father. Someone's grandfather. All because 'moron with a gun' needed to prove himself a man or some other bullshit. Those people I suspect are even less in-favor of people with firearms now.
So you wish to abolish a fundamental right because you cite a single example of its misuse. By the same token, one could say the same of the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause: I'd very much like for the Westboro Baptist Church to quit speaking, thus removing (or placing a financial burden on) the right to free speech for everyone is clearly the only solution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
So, would you have confronted the individual? Or stayed put?
Are you asking for anecdotal evidence based on some random event you (emotionally) provided yet did not cite? I, like a majority of firearm owners, more than likely would have stayed put, firearm readily available, until someone entered my home because I was, seemingly, not under a lethal threat. However, as neither of us were at the uncited event as it occurred, and you have not provided any sources that may have a different report on the event, I cannot answer with certainty.
How would you handle this situation, Joe? Or this situation? Or this situation?
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Its stuff like this, that undermine good people with firearms. An people that behave in a belligerent, aggressive, 'wife-beating' attitude towards society. Its people that suffer from 'poor anger management skills' that motivate US Citizens to find more restrictive firearm laws. Do these people have a right to ask their government for more restrictive laws as they concern firearms?
Yes, they do.
Again, just to be clear: you wish to hold over 90M people responsible for the actions of a few thousand, if that, and you only indirectly cite a single example. With roughly 1,076,398 firearm NICS checks in October of 2015 alone (PDF source), a vast majority of firearms are never used for criminal purposes yet you demand more restrictive laws to punish/burden law abiding people, again in the hopes that part of the Bill of Rights you take offense to will eventually wither away.
What keeps a person from breaking a law, Joe: Is it the fear of the law or the fear of punishment from breaking the law? The context of this forum seems to be especially appropriate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
This goes deeper than that. Many gun nuts distrust the government. Yes, the founding fathers stated to always hold some distrust towards the government. Yet, gun nuts hold a paranoid schizophrenic view towards government. And other US citizens. Yet, demand, unconditional trust from the government and other US Citizens. Remember that the whole of the US Government is composed of US Citizens as well. Why should all these US Citizens give trust to a group of individuals that do not trust them?
You do not have a right that forces me to trust you.
You want me to trust you, the gun nut? Then give me reasons. Anything that is threatening, stupid or hostile, are not going to help you build trust. Even though that is what you think are the best ways to build trust. I would think on a BDSM site, that people would understand the concept of trust in a way vanillas do not. Trust is hard to earn and easy to burn through. Once it is gone, its very hard to rebuild.
That's the joy of rights, Joe: I don't have to give you reasons, nor do I need you personally to trust me with a firearm, speech, religion, etc. To suggest otherwise further illuminates your authoritarian leanings.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
More and more I am convinced you are an authoritarian in disguise.
Yes, your simpleton understanding of reality is what it is. You need to define me as 'enemy' rather than 'US Citizen'. Easier to attack a demon than a friend, eh? You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mind.
I need not demonize you or define you as an enemy to see you have demonstrated authoritarian viewpoints.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
We both want less firearms falling into the hands of law breakers, criminals, and terrorists.
However, nothing you've suggested accomplishes that goal. Instead, you would tax fundamental rights in the hopes that they disappear.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I feel your viewpoints have to many holes. Your not well informed of my thoughts, so assume a huge amount of knowledge based upon very little information.
Are you scared I might have a better outlook, if I was given time to explain it in its entirety? That I answer your questions fairly and honestly? Help you understand that the 'zero sum' view does not help this nation out in the long run?
You have any amount of time you need to explain your outlook in its entirety. If you have not done so, why not?
You believe you answer questions "fairly" and "honestly" yet your comments are riddled with name-calling, paranoid fantasies about right wing conspiracies, insults to people's intelligence, and boasting of your own intelligence.
|
RE: Vetting and guns. - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread