It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Easy, Constitutional Answer for Gun Control ?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The best thing to do is to become a gunsmith so you can learn how to make your own firearms. That way way, you can make firearms for pennies on the dollar.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Wow, another non-US Citizen with all the answers to our problems.


How about this, Ace. Criminals don't follow the laws. As soon as the gun control weenies understand that, maybe they'll settle down a bit.

But I kinda freakin' doubt that will happen.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
The best thing to do is to become a gunsmith so you can learn how to make your own firearms. That way way, you can make firearms for pennies on the dollar.


Don't have to be a gunsmith to make a zip gun.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


We don't need more gun control.

We don't need to give the government any more "control".

That's the idea behind having guns in the first place. It's a final leg of the "checks and balances" system for the people, to prevent the government from having too much control and descending into tyranny. Tax the guns more and you take away the power of militia; you give the government more of a reason to become tyranny. GUNS DO NOT CREATE EVIL, PEOPLE CREATE EVIL.

Why don't gun control advocates get this???



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapablanka
 



Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin


Simplied answer the government thinks it can do whatever it wants they claim to be the master of the population so they write guns laws that have done nothing but created more victims than the "ldeal" to save anyone.

The gun is the supreme checkmate to despotism and tyranny.


As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. -- Jeff Snyder


They are suppose to be the servants of the people, but they only do what they will to keep them in power.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Again, still baffled at the number of people who buy firearms from dealers rather than private party sales.
It is a recipe for disaster, folks. Buy them on the down low, hit some flea markets to find reloading equipment, and learn how to reload your own ammunition. There's really no reason to purchase anything aside from rimfire carts from a store.

Oh, and that precious Obamacare crapping of the bed abomination the SCOTUS pulled off opens the door for what the OP is suggesting. Ol' twitchy John Roberts essentially said "There are no restrictions on the government's right to create and enforce taxes on the people."



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Makes guns so expensive the average person cant afford them? Hmmm... I swear I've heard this one before.

Oh, yeah:

Therefore, any gun control measure which takes cheaper guns off the market and prevents the poor from obtaining a handgun for self-defense is arguably doubly unfair. In Delahanty v. Hinckley, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. found that Saturday Night Special laws selectively disarm minorities.[216] The court stated that:

The fact is, of course, that while blighted areas may be some of the breeding places of crime, not all residents of [sic] are so engaged, and indeed, most persons who live there are lawabiding but have no other choice of location. But they, like their counterparts in other areas of the city, may seek to protect themselves, their families and their property against crime, and indeed, may feel an even greater need to do so since the crime rate in their community may be higher than in other areas of the city. Since one of the reasons they are likely to be living in the "ghetto" may be due to low income or employment, it is highly unlikely that they would have the resources or worth to buy an expensive handgun for self defense.[217]
link

The Klan would love your idea. Damn those poor people. Damn them to hell. Only the rich should have the means to protect themselves.

Let NYC run around defenseless while Bloomberg gets an armed contingent of bodyguards with sub-machine guns and rides around in an armored Suburban.

Filthy poor people.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight21
 


They can't get it because they're too emotionally invested in their self righteousness.

Plus, they want to get rid of firearms so that they can impose their will onto the populace without fear of people fighting back.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Do we really need another thread on Gun Control? The taxation issue (transfer, sale on guns, ammo) has already been discussed in other threads. My take briefly: they will go the Title 2 (Class 3) Transfer Tax route for all firearms (currently reserved for fully automatic weapons, suppressors and "destructive devices"). Currently that tax is $200 and there is no exemption given for an intermediate transfer from a seller to a registered dealer before it is retransferred to the ultimate buyer (such transactions would be sales tax exempt tho under standard commerce). Also they will probably classify ammunition as "hazardous materials" and have a separate, excise tax on that. They even require a tax stamp on marijuana even tho its possession is already illegal. Hopefully, I have not given the regulators "ammunition" for new legislation (or worse, fiat rules) but I doubt it (this has been planned for some time). Call or write your Congressmen and Senators when new legislation is introduced.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


So it would seem. The irony of it is that a lot of the people who seem to think this would be a good idea are non-US citizens with limited knowledge of the checks and balances system. I believe the UK tried a similar gun ban... don't they have a bit of a knife problem now?


Peace.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Charge whatever you want, tax however you like. I'll just print my own.

3D-Printed Semi-Automatic Rifle Actually Works

The world’s first 3D-printed gun


An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, user HaveBlue from the AR-15 forum, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear.

HaveBlue’s custom creation is a .22-caliber pistol, formed from a 3D-printed AR-15 (M16) lower receiver, and a normal, commercial upper. In other words, the main body of the gun is plastic, while the chamber — where the bullets are actually struck — is solid metal.

edit on 7/30/2012 by Finalized because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Call me an idealist, or a utopian thinker, or some other ism that describe this perspective but.

Isn't allowing the manufacture and control of an ''illegalized'' item completely bogus in truth? Why are guns allowed to be created in the first place, ever? Guns are a physical tool with one purpose, to inflict violence with ease, so how can we associate words (''law'') to a tool that is usable by anybody.'' Same with alcohol, once you produce it, tax it and sell it to the population, is it not a universal reality that any outcome must be accepted in reality?

To me its like condemning the bloke at the counter that sold you the bottle of liquor you drank before crashing your car and killing a family. In perspective that bloke is a ''drug dealer,'' and a greedy one at at that, he's willing to profit from the sale of an addictive drug to feed his family - yet its socially ''acceptable'' and his motivation to work and feed his family is supported by society, similar to a doctor that pushes pharms. Meanwhile the dealer of ''illegal'' drugs is condemned by the society for having the same motivations to profit and feed his family, all the while each and every chemical comes from the same earth.

Not sure where I was going with this but this society is so 2+2=5 it makes any connectivity and continuity thought progression almost impossible.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapablanka
 

A lot more people die from second hand smoke each year than die in mass shootings. Why not create some uproar there? BAN NOT TAX CIGARETTES.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

Let's get Mayor Bloomberg involved...I mean afterall he is willing to cut the transfats out of restaurant food and limit the size of soft drinks in ny city.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapablanka
 




Call me an idealist, or a utopian thinker, or some other ism that describe this perspective but.


Ok idealist



Isn't allowing the manufacture and control of an ''illegalized'' item completely bogus in truth?


That is not for anyone to decide, and no it is not bogus.

A gun can be used for hunting, and for protection, and it is a tool just like anything else is they create jobs and wealth, and has been a part of American life since long before there ever was a constitution, and this country.

It is been used for many reasons some good,some bad depends on the user.

During the old west a famous gun manufactures said God,created man Colt made them equal and that is the ultimate truth.

Gun is a guarantee of equality. and has been used for protection of this nations people, and it's goverment the problem is the goverment has been saying for decades who gets to own one. to what it looks like.

Not what the second amendment intended.

Glad you brought up alcohol because we have been down this road before with prohibition people want something they will get it.

Blaming a thing for the actions of a person which has already have a penalty by different names called murder.

Murder is illegal the act of the only thing gun laws are is trying to make something illegal more illegal.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
In response to Cosmic Citizen, question, ban what? the tobacco leaf or the cancer causing agents they add to cigs? Its a tricky subject because second hand smoke is a side effect, I suppose accidental deaths by gun could be in the same vein. I'm also willing to hear the angle that the chemicals they add give it its enjoyable flavor, despite causing cancer, a la native cigarettes (disgusting). Tough one.


Ireply to post by neo96
 


You've shed interesting light on the topic. Government manipulation and power seems to be the name of the game here. Also, we all know what happened due to prohibition - lucky luciano, al capone and other notorious gangsters made there first fortunes bootlegging liquor; establishing the groundwork and foundation of the American Mafia as we know it, and something tells me they might have a unique angle on the gun control matter, lol. In addition, contributing to why prohibition ended, the manufacture, control and profit of alcohol was stripped from the gangsters and the racket was returned to the government.

In consideration of the second amendment, in my opinion, gun handling should be taught in school as a 'going concern' of every citizen. I feel bad for the kids on first 48 that make a bad decision and pull that trigger, ending their own life as well as anothers. The X factor is the American gun culture combined with sensational media influence and pride/bravado. Can't remember the last time I saw jean claude van-damme teach the viewer how to clean a barrel and load a clip after dumping a few rounds on a foreign bad guy, wait, isn't he foreign, nvm.

edit on 30-7-2012 by Kapablanka because: Wanted to add a last paragraph to complete the thought, so as to keep the discussion fluid and complete.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Black Market guns would be even more expensive than they are in retail, Black marketeers still need to get their guns from somewhere.


yeah they get them from other countries for dirt cheap and ship them into the USA like they do drugs.

So no, black market guns would be 75% cheaper if a handgun was priced at $5000, and they would still make a killing. At that profit margin, they would make more money running guns than drugs.

You liberals do not think.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
So only the rich or criminals should be allowed to carry guns? That makes no sense at all.

Theres no logical middle ground.

Either nobody carries (Option 1), or everybody should (Option 2)

If you are going to have firearms carried by the public then gun safety should be taught in school and everybody be encouraged to openly be armed.

Its the middle ground where only a subset of the population owns and is competent that allows lone crazies to run amok and kill large numbers.

Option 1 is impossible for the USA, it would be as successful as Alcohol Prohibition or the ever popular 'war on drugs'. Firearms are fundamental to the national identity and the repressed demand would create a criminal enterprise bonanza. Gun banning is a third world gangsters wet dream.

That leaves option 2 or the status quo.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


The answer to your question is very simple. The Constitution says: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As was pointed out in the post about the DC court decision, taxing firearms and/or ammunition would amount to defacto infringement on the 2nd amendment. It will never happen.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Its highly unlikely that a tax of that nature would be upheld as constitutional if it ever went to court. As I'm sure others have said, it would, in effect, represent a defacto ban on firearms, considering that the obvious intent is to keep firearms out of the hands of the common citizenry.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join