Gun Violence

57Brave said:
oh yeah, wanted to pass this on

EBJgBC5XkAAYayz
Click to expand...

Humorous but definitions are legally vital. You can't make criminal statutes ambiguous. The law must be clear as to what is being criminalized.

One of the downfalls of an assault weapons ban is defining what an assault weapon is. Once you settle on a definition, gun companies will start building new weapons which don't fall under that definition. This is a large part of the reason they're so ineffective.
 
thus the logic in taxing not only the weapon but the ammunition to the gills.
ala tobacco

Addressing the protection of the arms industry from civil liability would be another avenue

We have been effectively using regulation as a tool to redirect cultural behavior since Teddy Roosevelt

and correct me if I'm wrong but the phrase is "well regulated militia..."
 
Last edited:
striker42 said:
One of the downfalls of an assault weapons ban is defining what an assault weapon is. Once you settle on a definition, gun companies will start building new weapons which don't fall under that definition. This is a large part of the reason they're so ineffective.
Click to expand...

Taking the NRA's and the weapons industry's finger out of the pie via campaign finance reform would help "settle on a definition"
 
and if ammunition and arms industry is taxed to the gills and I don't participate, how does that effect me personally ?
Does the uber tax rates on tobacco negatively effect you ?
( I assume you are not a smoker)
 
57Brave said:
and if ammunition and arms industry is taxed to the gills and I don't participate, how does that effect me personally ?
Does the uber tax rates on tobacco negatively effect you ?
( I assume you are not a smoker)
Click to expand...

If you're wanting to kill a dozen strangers, an extra hundred bucks isn't going to matter.
 
striker42 said:
If you're wanting to kill a dozen strangers, an extra hundred bucks isn't going to matter.
Click to expand...

A lot of these right wing nut cases come from a segment of society where a couple hundred bucks does matter, but that's not the point. Guns do great harm to society and the industry owes a huge debt. Lawmakers have a responsibility to attack the gun industry in whatever way that it can. The gun industry refuses to police itself and has shown that it cares about nothing but profit. Then by all means hit them there.

Regulate and tax them to death!
 
I met a woman a few years ago who's son was attending Sandy Hook during the shooting.
For hours she knew there was a shooting, the rumor mill was on fire --- but did not know the status of her son
 
AerchAngel said:
Instead of assigning blame...........


https://www.yahoo.com/news/dayton-shooting-shows-evil-lives-071503108.html
Click to expand...

I always hate to weigh in on gun control because when it comes down to it, I really don't care. People get worked up on both sides of the issues with the poles of the argument basically boiling down to Second Amendment purists who believe they have a right to park an M1 Abrams tank in their driveway to those who believe all guns should be melted down. You can give everyone a gun or confiscate all guns and it won't matter until we solve the issue that is plaguing us now and that is the refusal of people to accept that the world is changing by the second and that some of that change is going to make them uncomfortable. As it is right now, someone doesn't like something, they go to the internet and find like-minded souls who believe the change they are experiencing puts the entirety of Western Civilization at risk and cook up a tasty Hate Stew. Everyone--and I mean everyone--needs to take a chill pill and start treating people they disagree with like actual human beings instead of something you'd scrape off your shoe with a stick.
 
50PoundHead said:
I always hate to weigh in on gun control because when it comes down to it, I really don't care. People get worked up on both sides of the issues with the poles of the argument basically boiling down to Second Amendment purists who believe they have a right to park an M1 Abrams tank in their driveway to those who believe all guns should be melted down. You can give everyone a gun or confiscate all guns and it won't matter until we solve the issue that is plaguing us now and that is the refusal of people to accept that the world is changing by the second and that some of that change is going to make them uncomfortable. As it is right now, someone doesn't like something, they go to the internet and find like-minded souls who believe the change they are experiencing puts the entirety of Western Civilization at risk and cook up a tasty Hate Stew. Everyone--and I mean everyone--needs to take a chill pill and start treating people they disagree with like actual human beings instead of something you'd scrape off your shoe with a stick.
Click to expand...

Good advice. I try to take.
 
nsacpi said:
I'll put this out as a proposition that I'd like to think people interested in taking a constructive approach to gun deaths might latch on to:

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and reduce gun deaths that are compliant with the second amendment.

We can move away from what has become a sterile and unproductive debate by focusing on that.
Click to expand...

Compliant with the Second Amendment? What restrictions do you have in mind that meet the "shall not be infringed" qualifier.

I think you meant restrictions that are compliant with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that judicial activists have arrived at, and that certainly isn't the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top