You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
November 24, 2017, 10:13:19 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 23556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #250 on: October 16, 2015, 05:01:24 PM »
Then you are reading into my words what you would like to see there.  I've only said that laws will not stop someone who is willing to break laws.  In much the same way that a speed limit is not going to stop someone determined to speed.  I'm not saying raise the speed limit to make their law breaking go away, and I am not saying make penalties much more hefty in order to sway them to speed less.  I am only saying that laws mean nothing to the lawless.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #251 on: October 16, 2015, 05:02:48 PM »
Then you are reading into my words what you would like to see there.  I've only said that laws will not stop someone who is willing to break laws.  In much the same way that a speed limit is not going to stop someone determined to speed.  I'm not saying raise the speed limit to make their law breaking go away, and I am not saying make penalties much more hefty in order to sway them to speed less.  I am only saying that laws mean nothing to the lawless.

  So there's no correlation between European gun laws and the reduced gun murder rate? Its a coincidence?

  Also wasn't New York in part cleaned up by new laws, like draconian penalties for graffiti? Or was I misinformed?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 05:04:38 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #252 on: October 16, 2015, 05:08:51 PM »
I am only saying that laws mean nothing to the lawless.

Fair enough.

I believe that laws can have a deterrent value.  And some laws, that operate to limit the distribution of certain items, do limit the availability of said items even to miscreants.  But we can agree to disagree on this.

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #253 on: October 16, 2015, 05:16:19 PM »
Perhaps.  Perhaps not. 

I can not say for sure.  I can only say that laws will not stop people who are not stopped by laws.  I do not insist that anyone live by my ideas, I am simply expressing them.  I speak from my heart, which I see as a place of love and unity.  Those who use numbers speak from their brains, which a place of rigid facts and unbending logic.  Regrettably, logic does not always do us as much good as we think.  I believe, and this is a tangent here so forgive me, that we as a culture have turned our back on the heart, and fully embraced the brain.  The brain does not bend, it knows facts, it knows if something is right or if something is wrong, and all too often nothing in heaven or earth will move a brain once it has made its mind up.  It will cling to an answer, often times with evidence to support it, and immediately deny any answer that wavers even slightly from its point of view. 

The brain is intolerant and direct.  The heart is fickle, understanding, and prone to acceptance over strife.  We need to be more heart-centric and stop thinking that only by being right can we solve this issue.  I don't believe in right.  There are few things in the world that apply to all people, at all times, in all places.  Nothing is right, some things are only right for us, in this moment, in this time.  Can you say the same thing about the second amendment?  Was it right in the 1700s?  Is it right now?  I don't have answers to that question, but I do have feelings.  I feel that personal liberty is more important than personal security.  For me, the right to express myself is the most important thing in my life.  This only applies to my life, and others may feel that the right to own a gun is the most important thing in their life.  I can not call them wrong, and I can not call myself right.  I am but one human in a world of 6 billion.

I am insignificant and I know only my own heart.  I wouldn't feel right telling someone else they had to live their life by my rules.  This is why I offer no answers, and only express how I feel about this topic.  My truth is that there are no universal truths.  This is why say that compromise, tolerance, and understanding are so very important.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #254 on: October 16, 2015, 05:23:03 PM »
Perhaps.  Perhaps not. 

I can not say for sure.  I can only say that laws will not stop people who are not stopped by laws.

  So where are these people who will not be stopped by laws in Europe? We have criminals yes, they sometimes use guns, but less often than in America, and we don't have a problem with school shooting. Where are the school shooters who won't be stopped by laws?

  I appreciate you cannot have a definite answer to such large questions, but your insistence on the unknown sounds a lot like equivocation to avoid having to acknowledge the very real possibility that gun controls laws work, based on the the observable reality of the modern western world (and do note modern, not England 200 years ago) out side the USA.

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #255 on: October 16, 2015, 05:31:12 PM »
Ahh, it took me a moment to realize that when you say We you mean Europe.  I was very confused there for a moment.

I don't know, I am not European nor do I keep abreast of current events in Europe.  Your culture, however, is not my culture.  I think, or at least like to hope, that the United States is unique in it's divided, mostly selfish, and quite backwards culture.  I'm told you have better education, better health care, and numerous other social programs to help minimize the number of desperate people, and the severity of the desperation that they feel.  To go back to traffic law analogies, if you are merely in a hurry, you will speed.  If you just found out that your house is on fire and your child is trapped in the flames, you will speed, run red lights, endanger others, and completely ignore traffic laws to get home and get your child safe.  The ends justify the means?  These are the degrees you can find in desperation.  It too is not a simple thing, and comes in many scales.

Offline Oniya

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #256 on: October 16, 2015, 05:34:10 PM »
The thing that really stymies fixing something like this is both very simple, and very difficult.

We have to be able to have the conversation.

That requires more people to come out from their defensive positions.  On both sides.

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #257 on: October 16, 2015, 05:35:22 PM »
The thing that really stymies fixing something like this is both very simple, and very difficult.

We have to be able to have the conversation.

That requires more people to come out from their defensive positions.  On both sides.

I could not agree with this more.  And the conversation must be multifaceted, not a single person telling us what will be, and what is right.  This is not a multiple choice issue, this is an essay question.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #258 on: October 16, 2015, 05:40:28 PM »
Ahh, it took me a moment to realize that when you say We you mean Europe.  I was very confused there for a moment.

I don't know, I am not European nor do I keep abreast of current events in Europe.  Your culture, however, is not my culture.  I think, or at least like to hope, that the United States is unique in it's divided, mostly selfish, and quite backwards culture.  I'm told you have better education, better health care, and numerous other social programs to help minimize the number of desperate people, and the severity of the desperation that they feel.  To go back to traffic law analogies, if you are merely in a hurry, you will speed.  If you just found out that your house is on fire and your child is trapped in the flames, you will speed, run red lights, endanger others, and completely ignore traffic laws to get home and get your child safe.  The ends justify the means?  These are the degrees you can find in desperation.  It too is not a simple thing, and comes in many scales.

  Why are you listing every difference between European culture as a whole (my mistake since I started this, it was for simplicity's sake), except gun culture and control? Yeah, you are right, the other factors you list could contribute as well, but they almost all effect poor people, which not all . I don't think a middle class citizen of the USA has a particularly sub-par standard of life compared to a middle class Western European. Still, I'm willing to acknowledged that better social institutions may also explain the reduced gun homicide rate. Are you willing to acknowledge that gun control likely plays a part too? You are 1.27 times as likely to be stabbed in the UK than in the US, but 35.2 times more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK. Don't those numbers imply something?

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #259 on: October 16, 2015, 05:45:25 PM »
Because you are speaking of an entire continent, and I am speaking of a single nation.  Am I mistaken in thinking that you've all got different gun laws in your various nations.  I recognize that you likely also have varying degrees of health care and education, but I have heard they're all still a far sight better than those in the USA.

Also, because it serves my side of the argument more. ^ - ^  I will at least admit to that, because it does, however it is not the only reason I do so.  I feel that a balanced culture simply has less standouts.  Not none, but less.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #260 on: October 16, 2015, 05:50:51 PM »
Because you are speaking of an entire continent, and I am speaking of a single nation.  Am I mistaken in thinking that you've all got different gun laws in your various nations.  I recognize that you likely also have varying degrees of health care and education, but I have heard they're all still a far sight better than those in the USA.

Also, because it serves my side of the argument more. ^ - ^  I will at least admit to that, because it does, however it is not the only reason I do so.  I feel that a balanced culture simply has less standouts.  Not none, but less.

  Fair enough, but for my last point I focused on the UK vs. the US, being stabbed vs. being shot. The conclusion I draw from this is that whilst the UK has no shortage of people wanting to hurt you (note you are more likely to be stabbed), it is still less likely to happen because stabbing someone is much harder than shooting someone. What conclusion do you draw?

  And yes, Europe does have varying gun laws, but they are all characterized by being way more restricted than the US. The closest is Switzerland (probably, we aren't entirely sure they count), and they have to go through significantly more training and cannot keep ammunition in the house.

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #261 on: October 16, 2015, 06:01:18 PM »
I had heard that, that particular caveat to Switzerland's gun laws amuses me.  It is a novel approach.  As I understand it, the difficulty between stabbing and shooting is that NOT (edit)that vast.  Most shootings happen up close and personal.  I am also told that survival against a gun shot is often easier than against a knife would.  Sadly, I haven't spent much time looking in to that matter, so I can not say for sure.

Access to guns certainly does limit ones ability to shoot someone, however I don't think there would be much of an issue accessing guns even if they were outlawed in the United States.  I recall years ago, our government sold a large box of fully automatic assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels.  Granted, it was said they did not do so to arm the cartels so much as track the guns to where they went, but even our government here is willing to be highly irresponsible with access to guns.  We have a criminal culture here, you can see it in our media.  There are abundant examples of glorifying criminals in our music, television, and moves. 

I am a criminal.  I smoke pot.  It is illegal, and yet I have such ready access too it, that were they to start selling it on every corner store, it would only be slightly more convenient than it is now.  Those same people sell other drugs, and get their supply from people who sell yet more.  People who sell drugs are also known to have other street connections, be it for weapons, or prostitutes delivered via human traffic.  The problem is, our culture is more prone to inflammatory sentiment and rabble rousing than it is to actually closing these loop holes.  There is a great deal of money made by both private companies and government organizations alike that thrive because of this vast, deeply rooted criminal culture.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 06:02:26 PM by theLeslie »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #262 on: October 16, 2015, 06:10:45 PM »
I had heard that, that particular caveat to Switzerland's gun laws amuses me.  It is a novel approach.  As I understand it, the difficulty between stabbing and shooting is that NOT (edit)that vast.  Most shootings happen up close and personal.

  10ft is pretty up close and personal, but you won't be able to stab someone from that distance, and few people can throw a a blade with any skill.

I am also told that survival against a gun shot is often easier than against a knife would.  Sadly, I haven't spent much time looking in to that matter, so I can not say for sure.

  Statistics I found indicate the opposite, at least for wounds to the abdomen:

                 Cases      Deaths     % Deaths                 95% conf for mortality rate
All GSW      190           33           17.4                                13%-23%
All stab       262           14            5.3                                  3%-9%

(source: Annals of Surgery Vol 153 pp 639-649 “Civilian Penetrating Wounds of the Abdomen” by Wilson and Sherman)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 06:12:19 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #263 on: October 16, 2015, 06:17:11 PM »
Sorry about the deleted post, for some reason only the numbers came through the first time I read, now I understand it.and not the categories above them.  That is certainly food for tought.  For some reason I always imagined that knife wounds are so much bigger and so much more traumatic.  Likely because I've cut myself pretty badly on more than one occasion, and sometimes scraping bone can really leave a lasting impression, and yet I've never been shot.  Personal bias paints colorful, hard to ignore pictures in our minds.

Regardless, I don't think that would come into play.  I think what matters is, whether knife or gun, these are issues of violence being used against others.  Be it club, sword, or bow, I feel that we are better served trying to treat the problem, as opposed to addressing the symptoms.


Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #264 on: October 16, 2015, 06:42:09 PM »
Regardless, I don't think that would come into play.  I think what matters is, whether knife or gun, these are issues of violence being used against others.  Be it club, sword, or bow, I feel that we are better served trying to treat the problem, as opposed to addressing the symptoms.

You can treat the problem both by reducing access to the more lethal weapons (e.g., improving the background check system so it is faster and has fewer--or no--"holes") as well as trying to provide more care/resources to those in need.  The latter does not preclude the former.  We can do both.


Offline theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #265 on: October 16, 2015, 06:47:24 PM »
Agreed, we can do both, and I am fully in favor of closing the loop holes that let people by guns at shows and conventions without any type of background check.  I honestly don't understand why the law even exists, if there is such a gaping hole in it.  It invalidates the law, it's like that buying crack is illegal(except at night).  What's the point?

I am only not in favor of restricting personal liberties of those who have done no wrong.  This does not restrict their liberties any more than requiring a drivers license does.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #266 on: October 16, 2015, 06:58:36 PM »
I am only not in favor of restricting personal liberties of those who have done no wrong.  This does not restrict their liberties any more than requiring a drivers license does.

  Cars also require registration and mandatory insurance for injury of third party, which some people argue should be extended to guns too.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #267 on: October 16, 2015, 07:46:06 PM »
  So you break the law and you're proud of it? Unless I'm mistaken, the cinemas are privately owned, and so ignoring those signs isn't your right, you are breaking the law by entering a company's property whilst refusing to abide with their request.

Not quite how that works. A private company can post any sign they want. They could post a 100 point font that says 'no one with tattoos is allowed in' or 'no one wearing clothing made of a blend of two fabrics can enter'. Entering anyway does not mean you are breaking the law. Private organizations do not get to make laws. All they can do is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, then involve the cops and possibly trespass you which then would make it a crime if you came back again.

Long story short, it is my right. It's their right to ask me to leave. Which if they did, I would, and they would lose my business. Considering that I carry concealed, however, it's rather difficult for them to determine that I am carrying a weapon if I'm doing so responsibly.

Even if it was technically against the law? See my signature quote for my opinion on that.

  Cars also require registration and mandatory insurance for injury of third party, which some people argue should be extended to guns too.

Cars also aren't a constitutional right, however. Personally I wouldn't have a major issue with making ownership licensed just like my concealed carry permit. This does two things

1) It puts the burden of effort on the individual. Initially getting the permit required a class that took about 4 hours, getting finger printed, and submitting the application with fee.

2) It attaches a monetary cost, upfront cost without immediate payoff. The fee for my application was a little over a hundred bucks, throw in another forty for the class and cost for fingerprinting (Local sheriff's dept charged like 10 bucks) and you've now got a nearly $200 initial investment.

But to play devil's advocate to my own idea what happens when (assuming we implement such a plan) someone comes out and claims that by putting this cost to ownership into place you have effectively disarmed poor people? It's not an invalid argument. Someone working two part time fast food jobs isn't going to be able to shell out 200 bucks for a permit and the cost of the gun most likely.

To answer Mithlomwen's question from earlier:

100% belief that the media, this monster that we have created, is by far the 2nd most damaging thing to this country. It's not drugs, guns, or crime, it's not politicians even. The 1st most damaging thing? The people that live here that have become complacent and lazy to the point they allow this media empire to lead them around by the nose.

Crime as a whole is down, period. We have the numbers to back that up. But crime being down does nothing to feed a 24 hour news industry that generates trillions of dollars annually, that simply by mentioning candidates can validate their attempts to run for office. Perfect example, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with Sanders on alot of things, but as politicians go his ideas make a great deal more sense than most and he has the record to back it up.

But Hillary Clinton (whose campaign has received thousands of dollars from Turner Broadcasting), though, gets vastly more press than Sanders on CNN. How do we see this as anything less than blatant manipulation by the media to anoint favored candidates?

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #268 on: October 16, 2015, 08:02:16 PM »
Even if it was technically against the law? See my signature quote for my opinion on that.

  Is this attitude limited to private businesses, or would you also violate the Gun-Free School Zones Act and carry a concealed weapon into such a school? And if you would respect the latter, why would you not respect the former?

Cars also aren't a constitutional right, however.

  Yes, but then technically your constitutional right regarding guns is to be a well regulated militia, so how important the wording of the constitution is subject to change.

But to play devil's advocate to my own idea what happens when (assuming we implement such a plan) someone comes out and claims that by putting this cost to ownership into place you have effectively disarmed poor people? It's not an invalid argument. Someone working two part time fast food jobs isn't going to be able to shell out 200 bucks for a permit and the cost of the gun most likely.

  Are guns that affordable to someone on minimum wage currently
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 08:03:40 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #269 on: October 17, 2015, 01:18:51 AM »
  Is this attitude limited to private businesses, or would you also violate the Gun-Free School Zones Act and carry a concealed weapon into such a school? And if you would respect the latter, why would you not respect the former?

The only reason I'd respect the latter would be due to the consequences of breaking said law (since it's actually a law, and not some company policy). Most of these so called 'gun free' zones are perfect examples of why the entire concept is nonsense though. If I'm carrying concealed then neither the students or faculty are aware that I'm armed in the first place. Someone wanting to do harm has the exact same advantage. There is no magical aura that repulses guns.

As fir this attitude it is not limited to anything. Laws exist because at some point a bunch of people sat around a table and decided 'this is something that we don't want people to do'. You break laws every day. Every time you cross the street not at a crosswalk, change lanes without signaling, or light up a joint at the end of a long day. Or even have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend in many states in the union considering a large amount of them still have laws making sex out of wedlock a crime.

Laws are not morality. Laws are rules set down by a higher authority to make society work in a manner they deem fit. The only way to determine whether something is moral is to decide it for yourself.

Quote
  Yes, but then technically your constitutional right regarding guns is to be a well regulated militia, so how important the wording of the constitution is subject to change.

Not going to get into this debate. It's been explained ad nauseam what the amendment is referring to (even in this very thread and by the actual highest court in the United States dozens of times) and it has nothing to do with some 'national guard' militia idea.

Quote
  Are guns that affordable to someone on minimum wage currently

Depends on the gun. Small caliber handguns from inexpensive manufacturers aren't obscenely expensive (in that $200 to $250 range) and can sometimes be gotten cheaper at gun shows or on consignment at gunshops if the seller just wants to get rid of it.

The point wouldn't really be the actual affordability, though. It would be the fact that you are, in essence, establishing a pay gate to something outlined in the Bill of Rights. You could apply the same argument to the first amendment, for example, if the government required everyone to have a $50.00 permit to publish something in a national newspaper or the like. The overall amount of money is less relevant than the fact that you're charging it.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #270 on: October 17, 2015, 03:57:01 AM »
I've only said that laws will not stop someone who is willing to break laws.
I'd say it depends on what type of crime we are talking about. When it comes to premeditated crimes you have a point. I'd still say making it more difficult for people who plan a crime to get the tools they might need for their crime is a worthwhile goal, but, that aside, there is also another category of crime.

Some crimes are not planned much, if any. It's not exactly a scientific term, but I'd call them 'crimes of passion'  for ease of description. Domestic disputes are a prime example. Easy access to a gun can lead to deadly outcomes when tempers run high and people "see red". There is a reason the FBI will not approve a gun sale when the NICS database turns up:
Quote
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
Restricting access to guns by requiring background checks for private gun sales can bring down the number of homicides of women by current or former partners. Granted, there may be other factors at work, but the same picture also emerges when it comes to suicides, i.e. restricting access to gun more tightly than it is done in some places now will save lives.

The debate shouldn't just be about more than guns vs. crime rates - it should be about guns vs. lives lost.

Speaking of suicides: eBadger raised the point earlier and I think we should examine that too, because he was absolutely right to mention it.

Facts: Even among people give to suicidal thoughts, actually acting on those thoughts is often a pretty spontaneous thing. In many cases only minutes pass between making the decision to commit suicide and acting on it. Once the initial impulse passes, people are far less likely to act on it. Reducing access to guns makes it harder to act with deadly consequence on this fleeting decision to end one's life. Fact is also that if you restrict access to guns you will not end up with a corresponding number of people who just use other tools to end their lives.

And yes, all those are facts. When Australia enacted stricter gun control and initiated a buyback program to incentivice people to hand in their (now illegal) guns, not only did the number of firearms in circulation drop, but the number of gun suicides also dropped significantly - without a corresponding increase in suicides by other means. (Source) After the Israeli Defense Force forbid its soldiers to take their firearms home with them over the weekend, the suicide rate among soldiers dropped by 40% - without any noticeable increase of suicides during weekdays when soldiers could access their weapons while on duty. (Source) Among people who made near-lethal attempts, 24 percent took less than five minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt. Seventy percent took less than an hour. (Source) States with more universal background checks have a lower rate of gun suicides - without a corresponding increase in suicides by other means. (Source)

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #271 on: October 17, 2015, 07:25:29 AM »
As fir this attitude it is not limited to anything. Laws exist because at some point a bunch of people sat around a table and decided 'this is something that we don't want people to do'. You break laws every day. Every time you cross the street not at a crosswalk, change lanes without signaling, or light up a joint at the end of a long day. Or even have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend in many states in the union considering a large amount of them still have laws making sex out of wedlock a crime.

  Yes, but you said you would ignore not taking guns into a movie even if it was the law. Why would you ignore that law but obey the Gun Free zone law, despite disagreeing with both?

  Also, which states exactly have laws making sex out of wed lock a crime?

Not going to get into this debate. It's been explained ad nauseam what the amendment is referring to (even in this very thread and by the actual highest court in the United States dozens of times) and it has nothing to do with some 'national guard' militia idea.

  This thread is 11 pages long. Can you show me where?

The point wouldn't really be the actual affordability, though. It would be the fact that you are, in essence, establishing a pay gate to something outlined in the Bill of Rights. You could apply the same argument to the first amendment, for example, if the government required everyone to have a $50.00 permit to publish something in a national newspaper or the like. The overall amount of money is less relevant than the fact that you're charging it.

  But guns already cost money, and since I'm guessing they are taxed, the government is already charging something for them. Are guns in fact tax exempt?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #272 on: October 17, 2015, 07:30:06 AM »

  But guns already cost money, and since I'm guessing they are taxed, the government is already charging something for them. Are guns in fact tax exempt?

That would depend on the state. A gun would fall under a sales tax, which some states have and some do not. There is no federal sales tax.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #273 on: October 17, 2015, 07:33:43 AM »
That would depend on the state. A gun would fall under a sales tax, which some states have and some do not. There is no federal sales tax.

  Oh yeah, some some states have no sale tax. That is weird. In any case, guns already cost money, and in some states that government is responsible for a part of that cost.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #274 on: October 17, 2015, 07:40:21 AM »
This thread is 11 pages long. Can you show me where?
While I have the same problem figuring out what exactly Tairis means and broadly agree with your points on the Second Amendment, Lisztes, I do not think we will get anywhere in this thread arguing the Second Amendment. If this is something to debate here, perhaps it is time to start a new thread for it, because we are arguing so many different aspects of gun-related topics here, the broader the discussion gets, the more likely we might miss points were people can actually agree on.

We have had moments here when I thought both sides of the debate could actually agree on some sort of consensus, agree at least on some basis from where a more detailed debate could be taken. Maybe we should focus on that and leave the Constitution for another time?