LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So? You do need a license to operate it. So you would be OK if people could buy guns, but could not fire them without passing a test?
- Status
Exactly. Specifically the ownership of the rifle by certain targeted groups. Poor people and the young to start with.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No; anyone who found the gun+fee price too high. While it will affect poor people more, it affects everyone. Even the billionaire would have to pay it.Vonsalza:
Exactly. Specifically the ownership of the rifle by certain targeted groups. Poor people and the young to start with.
Semi-automatic firearms, rifles and handguns, as legal in most jurisdictions, as they should be. They are not illegal, and using taxes to target specific groups to limit their access to the right is contrary to the spirit of the right. Shall not be infringed.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
And in some they’re not.Vonsalza:
Semi-automatic firearms, rifles and handguns, as legal in most jurisdictions, as they should be.
But it is, Jon. Necessarily so. As we’ve already agreed, the right is completely infringed for anyone with a felony record.
You just don’t have a leg to stand on besides wishful thinking.
Last edited:
No, it isn’t. they relinquished not only that right, but often other rights. Property rights. Freedom of movement (prison). So, unless you plan to adjudicate every poor person or young person, there doesn’t seem to be much comparison between trying to confiscate the rights of a poor law abiding citizen and holding a criminal accountable for his crimes.
It is interesting that you bring this up. It relates to the one right Americans have that government is obliged to pay for: the right to an attorney. Why? Because this is the one time government can take someone’s rights. Conviction of a crime.
Even with criminals,the constitution places the barriers on government , not the individual
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I am putting a stop to this felony comparison right now. Read the 5th and 14th Amendments. A citizen may only be deprived of life, liberty, or property with due process of law. Therefore the rights of felons are not on the same level as the citizen who is innocent until proven guilty via due process. It is rather telling that you base your argument on a flawed comparison of everyone to felons though.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Planes are unusual because you are normally right over someone else’ area. Car’s make a better comparison.
You don’t need a license to buy a car nor drive it on your own property.
T
Theo520
Guest
@LeafByNiggle
I looked at your australia research and found it lacking.
It showed Australia saw an immediate jump in non-gun suicides. They had their highest levels for 4-5 years following the gun ban, yet the paper claimed there was no substitution. Research with an agenda is crap research
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I looked at your australia research and found it lacking.
It showed Australia saw an immediate jump in non-gun suicides. They had their highest levels for 4-5 years following the gun ban, yet the paper claimed there was no substitution. Research with an agenda is crap research
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
V
Vonsalza
Guest
43 states plus DC can charge the accused for a public defender, I’m afraid.Vonsalza:
It is interesting that you bring this up. It relates to the one right Americans have that government is obliged to pay for: the right to an attorney. Why? Because this is the one time government can take someone’s rights. Conviction of a crime.
Even with criminals,the constitution places the barriers on government , not the individual
You’re not right, just misinformed. But, honestly, I wish you were right.
Last edited:
If you’re right on that, I agree.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
In your reference to the 5th indicates that “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, then your objection to everything else is laid to waste as any ban or buy-back or whatever will be passed by the “due process of law”. So no help there.
And the 14th references more or less the same thing.
So I agree. We can limit the right to bear arms by due process of law.
Sure you can. Convict everyone of a crime. Of course, that takes juries, and I believe strongly in nullification if a law is unjust.starshiptrooper:
In your reference to the 5th indicates that “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, then your objection to everything else is laid to waste as any ban or buy-back or whatever will be passed by the “due process of law”. So no help there.
And the 14th references more or less the same thing.
So I agree. We can limit the right to bear arms by due process of law.
I wish the previous administration had been as forthcoming as you are. They tried to deny the rights of individuals in SS and the VA without due process, without adjudication.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That’s the whole point to having #2A—equalize the playing field.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafbyNiggle:
This is a phony dichotomy and I am not going to fall for it.
What I think LeafbyNiggle means here is yet another Government education program (NOT using the NRA) complete with another certification and re-certification racket (or are you supporting Eddie Eagle and the NRA, or something else altogether LeafbyNiggle?).
Law-abiding gun owners are ALREADY held to education standards in a default to manner by the courts.
If a law abiding citizen arms herself (of himself), she needs to be educated already.
And if she doesn’t know what she is doing, and someone gets killed, she can be charged with negligent manslaughter or negligent homocide (if she has not educated herself properly in firearm usage).
Good honest citizens are already taking their own responsibility seriously.
We already have implicit in the law the need for gun owners to be properly educated.
But this is education of THEIR choice (without another Government mandated certification game).
But I didn’t allude to gun owners.
I alluded to students.
Even students that may CHOOSE to never own a firearm, having that opportunity to make an EDUCATED choice for themselves.
You don’t tie Constitutional Rights to “certificates” as LeafbyNiggle seems to be suggesting here.
But I’m all for educating our students in this sphere.
.
We won’t see anything LeafbyNiggle. Because your “choice” was a false dichotomy.
.
This is a phony dichotomy and I am not going to fall for it.
What I think LeafbyNiggle means here is yet another Government education program (NOT using the NRA) complete with another certification and re-certification racket (or are you supporting Eddie Eagle and the NRA, or something else altogether LeafbyNiggle?).
Law-abiding gun owners are ALREADY held to education standards in a default to manner by the courts.
If a law abiding citizen arms herself (of himself), she needs to be educated already.
And if she doesn’t know what she is doing, and someone gets killed, she can be charged with negligent manslaughter or negligent homocide (if she has not educated herself properly in firearm usage).
Good honest citizens are already taking their own responsibility seriously.
We already have implicit in the law the need for gun owners to be properly educated.
But this is education of THEIR choice (without another Government mandated certification game).
But I didn’t allude to gun owners.
I alluded to students.
Even students that may CHOOSE to never own a firearm, having that opportunity to make an EDUCATED choice for themselves.
You don’t tie Constitutional Rights to “certificates” as LeafbyNiggle seems to be suggesting here.
But I’m all for educating our students in this sphere.
.
.
We won’t see anything LeafbyNiggle. Because your “choice” was a false dichotomy.
Last edited:
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Your understanding of the Constitution is limited. Felons may have their rights limited because they have been tried and convicted. The rest of us are under the protection of the 2nd Amendment and 9th Amendment. So your gun buyback will not fly.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Vonsalza.
If you are talking about a mandatory “buy back” program, this would be another example of dishonest language designed to fool the citizen.
If the fire arms never belonged to the Government in the first place, it’s impossible to buy them “BACK”.
Also the term “BUY” implies something was “for sale” initially.
But if (and I emphasize “if”) you are talking about a MANDATORY “buy back” then even the term “buy” seems misleading. . . at least to me.
Again assuming you are talking about some MANDATORY situation . . .
It would be more accurate (in my opinion) If you called it “the illegal gun-confiscation and we would give you some IOUs from the hard-working taxpayers, that you can go redeem for some Federal Reserve Notes” program.
Not a “buy-back” program.
If you are talking about a mandatory “buy back” program, this would be another example of dishonest language designed to fool the citizen.
If the fire arms never belonged to the Government in the first place, it’s impossible to buy them “BACK”.
Also the term “BUY” implies something was “for sale” initially.
But if (and I emphasize “if”) you are talking about a MANDATORY “buy back” then even the term “buy” seems misleading. . . at least to me.
Again assuming you are talking about some MANDATORY situation . . .
It would be more accurate (in my opinion) If you called it “the illegal gun-confiscation and we would give you some IOUs from the hard-working taxpayers, that you can go redeem for some Federal Reserve Notes” program.
Not a “buy-back” program.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
You only need a pilot’s license if you want to be legal. Otherwise it is easier than driving a car.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As someone who has done both, I disagree.
- Status