Do you support the second amendment?

[JonNC]

And again, the right is still intact. The rifle is just more expensive to obtain.

Like the “right” to conceal-and-carry in most states also requires a permit that you have to pay for.

The intent, however, is to target a particular group for no other reason than their economic status. Rights are inherent to the individual, so when you target a group, the violation is of individual rights.
As for CCL, the biggest issue is States and local governments requiring “cause”. That policy is fascistic at best. CCL should not require a fee.

 

[JonNC]

And again, the right is still intact. The rifle is just more expensive to obtain.

And the right to vote is still intact with a poll tax.
The intent of both is the same: discrimination targeted at a group

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

No one is defending those who kill others. I just don’t believe in holding a whole class of people for the actions of a small few.

I’m not holding a class of people responsible. Just a class of weapons.

Untrue. You yourself said the poor commit so much crime they should be restricted from owning firearms with punitive taxes. Your attack is clearly targeted on a class of individuals, not based on individual actions, but on guilt by association.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vonsalza:

And again, the right is still intact. The rifle is just more expensive to obtain.

And the right to vote is still intact with a poll tax.
The intent of both is the same: discrimination targeted at a group

The poll tax analogy is flawed because no single instance of a person voting results in killing someone.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Tell that to the Germans who voted for the Nazis.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Tell that to the Germans who voted for the Nazis.

I stand by my statement. It took more than one single vote to elect the Nazis.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yet they wound up killing more people than any lone nutjob with a rifle ever did.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Vonsalza:

And again, the right is still intact. The rifle is just more expensive to obtain.

And the right to vote is still intact with a poll tax.
The intent of both is the same: discrimination targeted at a group

The poll tax analogy is flawed because no single instance of a person voting results in killing someone.

No single instance of voting protected a family from an intruder.
The poll tax is an exact match because of the reasons I stated. The intent is preventing someone from accessing their rights.

 

[LilyM]

Yet they wound up killing more people than any lone nutjob with a rifle ever did.

They were a pack of tens of thousands of nutjobs with poison gas and machine guns as well as rifles.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vonsalza (emphasis mine):

I’d rather “man up” and prevent the crime that kills people first. Ya know, prioritize.

.
Then WHY NOT call for a gun ban on all Governments first if you REALLY think you want to “prioritize” Vonsalza? (Governments are the most egregious gun abusers historically by proverbial country miles).

.
Vonsalsa MAY even believe what he (she) is saying about "prioritizing" taking away firearms and firearm rights from good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens that he has in his sights. But the rhetoric doesn’t even come close to the facts.

.

(By the way. I don’t think good Governments SHOULD be stripped of their firearms because of the bad Governments.
But if Vonsalsa REALLY BELIEVES his (her) own talking points, Vonsalza OUGHT to be calling for this universal Government disarmament as a top priority (“Ya know, prioritize”).
.
Go back and re-read Vonsalza’s posts and see for yourself if Vonsalza’s recycled political talking points, match reality.)

 

[JonNC]

starshiptrooper:

Yet they wound up killing more people than any lone nutjob with a rifle ever did.

They were a pack of tens of thousands of nutjobs with poison gas and machine guns as well as rifles.

They were government with poison gas and machine guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The poll tax is an exact match because of the reasons I stated. The intent is preventing someone from accessing their rights.

The courts have obviously found the right to vote to be more fundamental than the right to bear arms, since they have allowed more restrictions on guns than on voting.

But if you really think that voting is perfectly analogous to bearing arms, notice that with voting, everyone gets the same one vote. Not two votes. Not a more powerful vote than someone else. Yet with guns, the claim is you can have as many guns or as powerful a gun as you want. If the analogy is so perfect, everyone should be given just one small pellet gun and be allowed to fire it just once in November.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yet they were still stymied for a month by a bunch of poorly armed Jews for nearly a month in 1943 in Warsaw. It should be noted that the Nazis confiscated as many firearms from the Jews as possible before rounding them up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yet they were still stymied for a month by a bunch of poorly armed Jews for nearly a month in 1943 in Warsaw. It should be noted that the Nazis confiscated as many firearms from the Jews as possible before rounding them up.

That does not mean every time firearms are confiscated, it is a prelude to a holocaust.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It is one of the warning signs though and should always be evaluated accordingly.

 

[JonNC]

What is analogous is the fact that, just like Democrats did in the south, some people wish to use taxes to limit the rights of a targeted group, in an overtly discriminatory manner.
That rights have differing restrictions tied to them is not surprising. But just like newspapers or computers or speaking or personal possessions protected from illegal search and seizure, firearms are not and should not be restricted in numbers for the law abiding.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is analogous is the fact that, just like Democrats did in the south, some people wish to use taxes to limit the rights of a targeted group, in an overtly discriminatory manner.
That rights have differing restrictions tied to them is not surprising. But just like newspapers or computers or speaking or personal possessions protected from illegal search and seizure, firearms are not and should not be restricted in numbers for the law abiding.

Analogies are tricky things. If you pick only those features to analogize (if that is a word?) that support your thesis and ignore analogies that don’t, then you can prove anything.

 

[JonNC]

Analogies are tricky things. If you pick only those features to analogize (if that is a word?) that support your thesis and ignore analogies that don’t, then you can prove anything.

Trying to restrict the rights of others based on the fact that you don’t value it is the tricky thing. Eventually, someone who doesn’t like a right you cherish might come after it.

 

[Vonsalza]

The intent, however, is to target a particular group for no other reason than their economic status.

Incorrect again.

The intent is to reduce the availability.

In a capitalistic society, we do that through price controls.

While I like a permit system because the implementation of it is actually possible, I’m not married to it. I’m game for anything that makes them more difficult to obtain.

 

[Vonsalza]

Then WHY NOT call for a gun ban on all Governments first if you REALLY think you want to “prioritize” Vonsalza?

Because I like solutions that are actually achievable.

And I’m not calling for bans. I’m calling for increased restrictions. There’s a difference, even if you and Jon don’t want to see it.