Do you support the second amendment?

[Vonsalza]

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

I think I’ve successfully challenged the assumption that “their gun rights” includes unrestricted access to semiautomatic assault style weapons with detachable magazines.

When the assault weapons ban was in place, I understand that most of the challenges to it failed in the courts, right? The “ban” only ended due to the sunset provision.

It seems the people who actually interpret the law authoritatively didn’t have much of a problem with it…

 

[Vonsalza]

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

There’s still a fee, Jon. And fees eliminate folks who would otherwise have the permit.

Your argument doesn’t hold water, here.

 

[JonNC]

Incorrect again.

The intent is to reduce the availability.

Reduce availability to a targeted group. That was your plan.
Further, I see no cause to reduce access of a right to law abiding citizens.

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

Prices in a capitalist society are controlled by supply and demand, not by arbitrary taxes intended to interfere with the rights of a particular group.

I’m game for anything that makes them more difficult to obtain.

And there’s the difference between us. I’m game for stopping criminals, not restricting the rights of free Americans

 

[Vonsalza]

Reduce availability to a targeted group. That was your plan.
Further, I see no cause to reduce access of a right to law abiding citizens.

Incorrect, yet again.

As everyone would have to pay for the permit, just like everyone in Kentucky has to pay for their C&C permit. This just affects poor folks more, which also happen to be the demographic that commits the overwhelming majority of gun crime.

You’d be right if folks over a certain income were exempted, but I’m not advocating that, so you’re just flatly wrong here.

And again, the successful legal defenses of the assault weapons ban proves rather well that folks don’t have an unassailable right to these things.

Prices in a capitalist society are controlled by supply and demand…

My undergrad was in finance, I know the topic well.
One of the ways to affect policy is through taxes and fees, which increases the effective price of a good, which reduces demand - achieving the desired end.

And there’s the difference between us. I’m game for stopping criminals, not restricting the rights of free Americans

We both want to get just the “bad guys”, Jon.
The fundamental difference is that I’m interested in real, actual solutions that do that rather than just sitting on my hands and watching people get shot.

It’s not enough to say “we should just restrict them away from people who would do bad things with them” because there’s presently no way to know exactly who that is. The “pre-crime magic 8-ball” you’re hinting at doesn’t yet exist.

 

[JonNC]

I think I’ve successfully challenged the assumption that “their gun rights” includes unrestricted access to semiautomatic assault style weapons with detachable magazines.

You can imagine that all you want, but as long as they are legal, I and any other free citizen who has not committed crimes that cost me that right, should have access to it unfreddered by barriers erected to undermine that right

When the assault weapons ban was in place, I understand that most of the challenges to it failed in the courts, right? The “ban” only ended due to the sunset provision.

Last I heard, it is no longer law, and for good reason. It didn’t affect crime because it only impacted the law abiding.
**Between 1994 and 2004, Americans were flatly barred from purchasing or transferring 660 arbitrarily selected semi-automatic firearms and from obtaining any magazine that could hold more than ten rounds. This prohibition had no discernible impact whatsoever. Charged in 1997 with evaluating the short-term impact of the measure, the National Institute of Justice reported bluntly that “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” A second study – commissioned to coincide with the ban’s expiration in 2004 — calmly echoed this conclusion, while noting for the record that there hadn’t been much of a problem in the first instance. No subsequent inquiry has contradicted these assessments. **
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/corner/425265

 

[Vonsalza]

You can imagine that all you want, but as long as they are legal, I and any other free citizen who has not committed crimes that cost me that right, should have access to it unfreddered by barriers erected to undermine that right

Thankfully, the courts seem to disagree.

Last I heard, it is no longer law, and for good reason.

For good reason? It just expired… The bill had what’s called a “sunset provision”.

It didn’t affect crime because it only impacted the law abiding.

oh?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JonNC]

We both want to get just the “bad guys”, Jon.

The fundamental difference is that I’m interested in real, actual solutions that do that rather than just sitting on my hands and watching people get shot.

Maybe, but your plan targets only the good guys who don’t shoot people. And you stated your target was poor people.

As everyone would have to pay for the permit, just like everyone in Kentucky has to pay for their C&C permit. This just affects poor folks more, which also happen to be the demographic that commits the overwhelming majority of gun crime.

You’d be right if folks over a certain income were exempted, but I’m not advocating that, so you’re just flatly wrong here.

you said yourself that since poor people commit lots of the crime, you want to discourage them from having the right. You said only people who hVe “something to lose” by misusing them should have access. Your stated intention was against poor people, even the law abiding. Your statements prove what you advocated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

Not doing the first will not hinder the second.

 

[Vonsalza]

Maybe, but your plan targets only the good guys who don’t shoot people. And you stated your target was poor people.

A permit targets everyone, but affects the poor more. And as the poor commit more crime, it’s rather congruent.

you said yourself that since poor people commit lots of the crime, you want to discourage them from having the right. You said only people who hVe “something to lose” by misusing them should have access. Your stated intention was against poor people, even the law abiding. Your statements prove what you advocated.

It’s an unhappy fact that you know is true, Jon.

Folks with less to lose as a result of their behavior have a higher propensity for behaving extremely.

 

[JonNC]

More people were killed with mass murder using airplanes in one day than all the recent mass shootings. More people are murdered in Chicago each year with handguns than by mass shootings.
The poor blacks in Chicago that you want to keep from getting firearms to protect themselves from thugs who have guns because of inept progressive government are far more often the target than the far too often but still rare mass shooting.
Target crime, not classes of people

 

[Vonsalza]

More people were killed with mass murder using airplanes…

We already covered this…

“But he could just use his (insert other object), Vons!”

A (insert other object) at least has other uses presumably important to the function of wider, everyday modern society. Killing a bunch of people was probably not (insert other object)'s designed purpose, unlike assault-style weapons.

Target crime, not classes of people

That’s what we’re doing, Jon. To lower gun crime, you must reduce the supply of guns.

…or invent a magical device that lets us know someone is going to kill a bunch of folks before they do it.

 

[JonNC]

A permit targets everyone, but affects the poor more. And as the poor commit more crime, it’s rather congruent.

And now you’ve stated it again. Your target is poor people. It is overt discrimination based on class.
More blacks in Chicago commit gun crimes than whites. Far more males do than females. Regardless of the group or class you target, it amounts to punishing the law abiding in that group because of the actions of a tiny fraction of the group.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

A permit targets everyone, but affects the poor more. And as the poor commit more crime, it’s rather congruent.

And now you’ve stated it again. Your target is poor people.

No, the target is the availability of guns. It must be reduced.

 

[JonNC]

That’s what we’re doing, Jon. To lower gun crime, you must reduce the supply of guns.

I have never seen a gun commit a crime. The supply or number of guns is irrelevant. People commit crimes reduce the number of criminals

 

[Vonsalza]

I have never seen a gun commit a crime. The supply or number of guns is irrelevant.

Absurd. The more prolific something is, the more likely it will be used. Why else do we sign treaties limiting chemical, biological and nuclear weapon stocks while heavily pressuring other nations to not join “the nuclear club”?

This argument is so absurd that I’m surprised you used it…

People commit crimes reduce the number of criminals

Again, that’s exactly what we’re trying to do in the absence of a magical device that tells us who the would-be criminals are…

 

[JonNC]

or invent a magical device that lets us know someone is going to kill a bunch of folks before they do it.

It is called law enforcement. Enforce the laws on the books. Target the efforts at preventing criminals from getting guns.
Again, handguns are used to murder far more people than semi-automatic rifles (which are not assault rifles because they are not selectable or fully automatic). But the biggest class of gun violence is by government. Start there.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

or invent a magical device that lets us know someone is going to kill a bunch of folks before they do it.

It is called law enforcement.

There is no way for law enforcement to stop a man with no felonies from purchasing a cheap $500 assault-style weapon and shooting up whatever he pleases in a moment of rage or zealotry.

Your answer here is non-real. It’s a head-in-sand solution.

 

[JonNC]

Absurd. The more prolific something is, the more likely it will be used. Why else do we sign treaties limiting chemical, biological and nuclear weapon stocks while heavily pressuring other nations to not join “the nuclear club”?

Nonsense. The more criminals there are, the more crime there will be, the number of guns notwithstanding.
Curiously, you are willing to talk about government when it comes to WMDs, but not firearms. Start with the one entity that kills more civilians exponentially than other civilians do.

 

[starshiptrooper]

More people are killed by clubs and bludgeons in an average year than with long guns of all types.

 

[JonNC]

There is no way for law enforcement to stop a man with no felonies from purchasing a cheap $500 assault-style weapon and shooting up whatever he pleases in a moment of rage or zealotry.

First, you can’t buy a selectable or fully automatic rifle for $500, at least not legally.
Second, there are lots of things we cannot stop, but we don’t believe (well, at least constitutional conservatives don’t believe) that confiscating inherent rights is the answer.