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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
OP...This sounds Communist. First of all the constitution gives us the Right to Bear arms. In my opinion, that is any kind of amament. Even machine guns. Do you know the purpose of our right to bear arms? What is the meaning of this? Do you know?




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 





Call me crazy, but that's one of the rights I think we were given by those that created this nation.



that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,


The Founding Fathers realized that our rights came from our Creator and life in general being one of them. So the 2nd Amendment would be to secure that right and to fight a Government which attempts to deprive us of our God given right to live.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
A government that wishes to disarm you does so only because it has lost the ability to win you over through words.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
There is one really, really easy Constitutionally acceptable answer to gun control that I'm not sure that anyone has talked about in the USA.

What would anyone be able to do if the US Government was to simply tax gun purchases extremely heavily and push the cost of guns outside the price range of the average American?

Guns would still be readily available, therefore this wouldn't violate everyone's Second Amendment rights, so a Supreme Court challenge would fail, but guns would be priced so high that it would be cost prohibitive for the average person to own one.

Do the same thing with Ammunition, simply tax it excessively high. If it cost $20 a round and $5000 for a handgun, maybe the average American would think twice before spending the day at the firing range.
this, as others have said, would be a direct infringement of a right which is protected.

also, as i assert my right to Life, it naturally follows that it is my right to Defend said life.
why are you so insistent about declaring my life, irrelevant ??



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 





There is one really, really easy Constitutionally acceptable answer to gun control that I'm not sure that anyone has talked about in the USA. What would anyone be able to do if the US Government was to simply tax gun purchases extremely heavily and push the cost of guns outside the price range of the average American? Guns would still be readily available, therefore this wouldn't violate everyone's Second Amendment rights, so a Supreme Court challenge would fail, but guns would be priced so high that it would be cost prohibitive for the average person to own one. Do the same thing with Ammunition, simply tax it excessively high. If it cost $20 a round and $5000 for a handgun, maybe the average American would think twice before spending the day at the firing range.


I disagree...the tax scheme is supposedly to " provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"....not to make something too expensive for me to own.
edit on 30-7-2012 by type0civ because: fixed quote



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Or in response to your proposal we make them so cheap that everyone has one or two on them at any time the world is a much nicer place



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:38 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.


We saw how that whole prohibition thing worked out. It even got made into an amendment to the constitution before people decided to think instead of knee-jerk react to thoughtless speeches by 2 dimensional thinkers in a four dimensional world.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
There is one really, really easy Constitutionally acceptable answer to gun control that I'm not sure that anyone has talked about in the USA.

What would anyone be able to do if the US Government was to simply tax gun purchases extremely heavily and push the cost of guns outside the price range of the average American?

Guns would still be readily available, therefore this wouldn't violate everyone's Second Amendment rights, so a Supreme Court challenge would fail, but guns would be priced so high that it would be cost prohibitive for the average person to own one.

Do the same thing with Ammunition, simply tax it excessively high. If it cost $20 a round and $5000 for a handgun, maybe the average American would think twice before spending the day at the firing range.

In agreement with some of the other posters, this would be 100% unconstitutional as it would infringe. Words mean things and the exact words in the Constitution need to be deconstructed as to their meaning at the time they were put into the Constitution. We've lost our ability to THINK in accordance with the rule of law. Wildly coming up with an idea you view as a solution has already been thought through and considered PRIOR to the words being put to paper that is our Constitution.
edit on 30-7-2012 by tkwasny because: typo fix.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


That isn't Constitutional at all. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Taxing guns in order to stop the purchase of them is infringment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means that the government can not do ANYTHING that will prevent a person from keeping and bearing arms. Nice try.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I hear alot of people afraid of what Obama may do as it pertains to gun controll, I would be as concerned as to what Romney would do, if not more concerned given his record.

He quadrupled the registration fee while governor.
worldtvnews.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


That's a GREAT idea! Guns aren't expensive enough. Let's make sure it's even harder for poor people to arm themselves. It's not bad enough that no poor people can actually prepare for anything, but let's make it so they can't defend themselves either. If Red Foreman were here....



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Taxing it to a point first and foremost would be better than making them illegal!! You'd create a black market for a LEGAL product thus empowering ANYONE who had an the entrepneural spirit and wanted to become a millionaire practically over night.

Ohh, and taxing it beyond belief would also be a violation of the second ammendment. Because your effectivly taking them out of the hands of "Every citizen" Duh!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Agreed, however, I would make the argument that the congress violates the constitution and it's meaning and interpretation EVERY DAY with EVERY SINGLE LAW! So, with that being said, you're not entirely accurate



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

AGREED. Specific 'taxation' targeted to create a financial obstacle and thus a disincentive to own a firearm is an INFRINGEMENT. The "King's English" still applies even tho the Colonies won their Independence from the crown.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Ah, another ill-informed gun hater who thinks that taxing guns will somehow make them magically disappear from criminals' hands.

OP, did you know that for every one crime committed with a gun, there are 25 defensive uses of a gun? TWENTY-FIVE, for every ONE crime. And you want to do what? Remove guns from those 25 people who were able to defend themselves. BRILLIANT.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 

Good counter point. First, criminals dont buy their guns legally and thus would not pay a tax and Second, if the "greater good" is the consideration then the 25:1 ratio that you point out should argue for no change in gun laws.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Ban that, hippy:



You lose.

Edit: please, stop censoring the link

www.youtube.com...
edit on 31-7-2012 by graybox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If I hear on television one more politician call for "drum magazine" bans or stricter gun control measures and then follow up with, "Don't worry, we're not trying to take the guns away from the hunters" I'm going to throw my cookies. Do these officials know that the amendment was not for hunters? Hell hath frozen over my friends. Hell surely has frozen over.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   


What would anyone be able to do if the US Government was to simply tax gun purchases extremely heavily and push the cost of guns outside the price range of the average American?
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Uhhh, vote them out?

The four boxes of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.
edit on 6-8-2012 by Oaktree because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
There is one really, really easy Constitutionally acceptable answer to gun control that I'm not sure that anyone has talked about in the USA.

What would anyone be able to do if the US Government was to simply tax gun purchases extremely heavily and push the cost of guns outside the price range of the average American?

Guns would still be readily available, therefore this wouldn't violate everyone's Second Amendment rights, so a Supreme Court challenge would fail, but guns would be priced so high that it would be cost prohibitive for the average person to own one.

Do the same thing with Ammunition, simply tax it excessively high. If it cost $20 a round and $5000 for a handgun, maybe the average American would think twice before spending the day at the firing range.


My question for you is:

Who are you planning on enslaving or who are you planning on wiping out?

Seriously, all these gun control nuts either want to commit genocide or cause a massive roll back in rights.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join