No ma'am, I won't register my guns

OnTheEdge

unsung wrote:

Bentleyspop wrote:

Once again it has to be asked....WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF??

Not a damn thing.

I'll never understand these progressive liberals that think "the government will take care of us scenario". I wouldn't trust any fucking one of them with my check book, my car, my guns, my kid, or my home etc...

Same bat-shit crazy fucking liberals in here as always. Now i'm going to check back out again to save my sanity. :wave:

JimmyV

OnTheEdge wrote:

unsung wrote:

Bentleyspop wrote:

Once again it has to be asked....WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF??

Not a damn thing.

I'll never understand these progressive liberals that think "the government will take care of us scenario". I wouldn't trust any fucking one of them with my check book, my car, my guns, my kid, or my home etc...

Same bat-shit crazy fucking liberals in here as always. Now i'm going to check back out again to save my sanity. :wave:

And I'll never understand the crazy belief that we need to stockpile weapons because the big, bad, evil government is coming for us.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

Carrying insurance and these $25 per gun fees are racist.

Nicely done, that did make me laugh.

People of all races, religions and sexual orientations should of course have the same right to be irresponsible with their stockpiled firearms.

unsung

The inner city poor of Chicago where the $25 fee is incurred can barely afford food. Now they have their RIGHT to defend themselves TAXED. Not all can afford it. The politicians effectively disarm the poor through taxation and fees and overly burdensome requirements so they can't enjoy their rights.

Do you think they should all be forced to shop for groceries at gas stations too? Because without the means of transportation that's what they are left with. Lets see, the need for quality food or the need to defend ones life.

Eh, problems for the poor, right?

I'm sorry you think that's funny.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

The inner city poor of Chicago where the $25 fee is incurred can barely afford food. Now they have their RIGHT to defend themselves TAXED. Not all can afford it. The politicians effectively disarm the poor through taxation and fees and overly burdensome requirements so they can't enjoy their rights.

Do you think they should all be forced to shop for groceries at gas stations too? Because without the means of transportation that's what they are left with. Lets see, the need for quality food or the need to defend ones life.

Eh, problems for the poor, right?

I'm sorry you think that's funny.

My apologies, I did honestly think you were making a joke.

JimmyV

Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV wrote:

Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?

of course not.

there are more white people on welfare than any other group.

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?

of course not.

there are more white people on welfare than any other group.

I'll give to the discriminatory, sure. But in Chicago the majority of the poor are black and Hispanic.

This has nothing to do with welfare. My point was based on Cook County where Chicago is.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Of course it is worth pointing out that "poor" does not equal "African American" or "Latino" etc. So maybe "racist" was not the best word choice. Discriminatory maybe?

of course not.

there are more white people on welfare than any other group.

I'll give to the discriminatory, sure. But in Chicago the majority of the poor are black and Hispanic.

This has nothing to do with welfare. My point was based on Cook County where Chicago is.

But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.

unsung

Taxing a right to where it's not affordable doesnt exactly make it a right. Or are we reserving certain rights for those that can afford them?

JimmyV

We aren't supposed to infringe upon the second amendment at all, I get that argument even though I don't agree with the extreme lengths the argument is taken too. But nowhere is anyone guaranteed cheap access to anything.

Gun owners have the right to bear arms. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe gun owners should be carrying insurance so that if their guns infringe upon my life or pursuit of happiness there is a safety net.

JimmyV

Gun violence worse in red states?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tates.html

"Pooh-poh this if you like, since it comes from the Center for American Progress, but the group just released a big study showing that--across 10 measures like the number of firearms homicides, number of total firearm deaths (including accidents etc.), law enforcement agents killed by firearms, and so on--the deadliest states are those with the most lax gun laws.

The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.

Now I know conservatives are thinking: No way these places are deadlier than New York and other states with big cities that have very violent neighborhoods. But according to CAP, New York and New Jersey, for example, rank 46th and 47th in gun violence. The full "bottom" 10: Nebraska, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii. That's basically a combination of sparsely populated states and states with strong gun laws."

Jason P

JimmyV wrote:

But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.

Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.

When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.

JimmyV

Jason P wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.

Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.

When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.

That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

Jason P wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But would it really be even discriminatory? Everything has a price. Some can afford guns and some cannot. You have the right bear arms, not a guarantee that you can afford arms.

Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.

When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.

That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...

so...you hate minorities and the poor obviously

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Depends on what side of the looking glass you are peering into. When the GOP wants ID's to vote (that cost $4), the Dems claim it's an attack on the poor and minorities.

When the Dems want a $25 fee and insurance (that would cost hundreds per year), it's for the good of everyone.

That I think is the best argument against this. But I don't think the ID's are a bad idea either, so...

so...you hate minorities and the poor obviously

Obviously.

(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

Obviously.

(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)

oh no, that was a joke

I don't quite understand why wanting either of those things would mean you are waging a war on the poor. Gun insurance would be an absolute boon to the insurance companies because the premiums would be through the fucking roof considering the amount of gun accidents and the amount of money people would be suing for...
still think the best solution is to allow Gun Shop owners to be held civilly and possible even criminally liable for the sale of guns used in the commission of a crime. Not sure if it would work, but certainly doesn't limit the 2nd amendment in anyway.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

Taxing a right to where it's not affordable doesnt exactly make it a right. Or are we reserving certain rights for those that can afford them?

$25 is a lot less than the street tax many in those neighborhoods pay for black market(read gun show bought then resold) weapons.

unsung

I'm opting out if this one. I can't find it remotely acceptable to tax or require insurance for a RIGHT.

I'm not talking about guns being cheap so people can afford them, I'm talking about politicians increasing fees and taxing and making excessive requirements so that people can't afford to use their right.

mickeyrat

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Obviously.

(I misfired thinking Unsung was making a joke earlier. Hope I am not repeating that mistake.)

oh no, that was a joke

I don't quite understand why wanting either of those things would mean you are waging a war on the poor. Gun insurance would be an absolute boon to the insurance companies because the premiums would be through the fucking roof considering the amount of gun accidents and the amount of money people would be suing for...
still think the best solution is to allow Gun Shop owners to be held civilly and possible even criminally liable for the sale of guns used in the commission of a crime. Not sure if it would work, but certainly doesn't limit the 2nd amendment in anyway.

I think the owner/purchaser should be held civally and criminally liable should a weapon they own be used in the commision of a crime, UNLESS they have taken reasonable steps to ensure safe storage.

Universal backround checks are a good place to start. Make this concession and see what the results are in 5 , 10, 15 years.