Here is an intelligent proposal about guns

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised
As I've said before, God didn't grant you anything.



I guess Ronald McDonald granted you the right to carry and conceal?


Are we or are we not allowed to protect ourselves? Just curious. It isn't a question of God, but that of preservation. Should we seek approval from Government to ensure our own safety?




Give me a break.


Exactly.....so stop with your red-herrings and straw-men arguments. If you want to have an intelligent discussion than do so, otherwise, continue your nonsense and be seen for what you are so far being perceived as.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The arguments, for and against, have been pretty well spelled out. I'm opposed to the proposal, but for different reasons.

First, the mental health argument.

"The argument from a lot of people, including law-abiding gun purchasers, is the issue is mental health," Court said. "So let's ask them to be part of the solution."
Assume that the issue is mental health. Mental health care is something directly or indirectly affecting everyone, it concerns "the general welfare." Given that, if the state needs more money for mental health care, surely the answer is general taxation. By going after gun owners it appears to be a political ploy, a "sin tax" if you will. That conclusion is buttressed by other quotes from the article:

Gun are expected to be a hot topic when the legislative session opens Wednesday, marking the first time since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 that the issue is expected to take a center stage.

Some lawmakers wanted tougher gun laws after a shooting at an Aurora theater in July that left 12 dead and 58 injured.

The debate only intensified after a massacre last month at a Connecticut elementary school.
Certainly, mental health funding was a problem last year as well. Bringing it up now is emotion driven and not a thought out program.

Besides all of that, the article claims that the fees raised would have been $1.6 million. In 2007, Colorado spent approximately $440 million on mental health care. This new fee won't even be noticed by the state.

Second, there is also the claim that it is needed to pay for permit processing.

The number of Coloradans purchasing firearms in recent weeks has increased so dramatically that the time to process an application has jumped from an average of 23 minutes to seven days. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has a backlog of 11,000 applications.

The Colorado Department of Public Safety, the umbrella agency over the CBI, plans to ask lawmakers for a $500,000 supplemental appropriation for more staff and technology to handle the checks.
Well, there goes a third of the money intended for mental health care. This appears to be a one time jump in applications, notice the "in recent weeks?" Could this be related to Obama's reelection?
The demand for applications will die down shortly, why propose a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

This is a "feel good" gesture which will win political points, but do nothing for mental health. It will, however, stir up unnecessary controversy, as you can see in this thread.
edit on 4-1-2013 by charles1952 because: clarification



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
When government wants to regulate or restrict something, then the least they ought to do is to pay for the procedure themselves. I dont agree with this proposal at all, it doesnt even make sense both from practical and ethical standpoint.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
More stupid gun crap spawning from an incident that it would not have applied to, and we all know which one.
I would like to know even if they put a 500% tax on all guns, background check and lets say they denied guns to anyone who has ever had any sort of mental problem AND they required a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun...
How would that have stopped Lanza from taking his mother's guns and going on a rampage?

I think the media needs to get the guns death statistics broken up into at lest three different categories.

1. Deaths from illegal or illegally obtained guns.
2. Deaths from legal guns carried out by someone other than the owner
3. Deaths from legal guns carried out by the owner

Because only the number of deaths will go down in category three with stricter gun laws.
Its just back to "Hey maybe if we make murder illegal people wont do it! Lets put a lot of restrictions and taxes on murder-screw it. Lets BAN murder, yeah that will make the problem go away!"



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans
More stupid gun crap spawning from an incident that it would not have applied to, and we all know which one.
I would like to know even if they put a 500% tax on all guns, background check and lets say they denied guns to anyone who has ever had any sort of mental problem AND they required a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun...
How would that have stopped Lanza from taking his mother's guns and going on a rampage?

I think the media needs to get the guns death statistics broken up into at lest three different categories.

1. Deaths from illegal or illegally obtained guns.
2. Deaths from legal guns carried out by someone other than the owner
3. Deaths from legal guns carried out by the owner

Because only the number of deaths will go down in category three with stricter gun laws.
Its just back to "Hey maybe if we make murder illegal people wont do it! Lets put a lot of restrictions and taxes on murder-screw it. Lets BAN murder, yeah that will make the problem go away!"



No.

If people kept their guns in a wall safe, category 1 and 2 deaths would go down.




Also, put the death penalty on all murders, and life imprisonment without parole for first time violent offense.




Teach these laws in schools.




Crime will plummet.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans
More stupid gun crap spawning from an incident that it would not have applied to, and we all know which one.
I would like to know even if they put a 500% tax on all guns, background check and lets say they denied guns to anyone who has ever had any sort of mental problem AND they required a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun...
How would that have stopped Lanza from taking his mother's guns and going on a rampage?

I think the media needs to get the guns death statistics broken up into at lest three different categories.

1. Deaths from illegal or illegally obtained guns.
2. Deaths from legal guns carried out by someone other than the owner
3. Deaths from legal guns carried out by the owner

Because only the number of deaths will go down in category three with stricter gun laws.
Its just back to "Hey maybe if we make murder illegal people wont do it! Lets put a lot of restrictions and taxes on murder-screw it. Lets BAN murder, yeah that will make the problem go away!"

^ This is actually a really intelligent post and I don't think I've seen this exact statement on this site. Sorry I'm not contributing much but I really want to call attention to this post.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unrealised



No.

If people kept their guns in a wall safe, category 1 and 2 deaths would go down.Also, put the death penalty on all murders, and life imprisonment without parole for first time violent offense.Teach these laws in schools.Crime will plummet.


You really think illegal guns come from people who don't keep them in wall safes? You got a lot to learn buddy, sometimes its just as simple as going to Mexico and waiting for Obama's illegal gun delivery service to distribute them. There are literally hundreds of ways people obtain illegal guns and gun safes are not nearly as safe as people believe.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 


Here let me put it this way:

Our constitution grants us inalienable rights. Here is the definition for starters of inalienable:

in·al·ien·a·ble (n-ly-n-bl, -l--)
adj.
That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in·alien·a·bili·ty n.
in·alien·a·bly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
inalienable [ɪnˈeɪljənəbəl]
adj
not able to be transferred to another; not alienable the inalienable rights of the citizen
inalienability , inalienableness n
inalienably adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
inalienable, unalienable - Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."
See also related terms for interchangeable.

Source:

Now before you go ranting and raving about things you have no idea about other than maybe MSM or TV or movies what ever, do your research:

The Declaration of Independence:


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I underlined and highlighted it for you. You really need to understand this part, so you can grasp the concept why it is a RIGHT and not a priviledge. Now those rights that we are guaranteed are these right here:

Bill of Rights:


Continued...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimmley
 


Here it is cpntinued:


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


That is why it is a right. If you are going to debate and complain about it, learn the subject, and stop ranting and whining about it.

It's one thing to not know about it, and ask versus being informed and demanding something that A) has no revelance to you or your nation 2) is protected by God (aka Creator).

We have an elective representive republic, not a mob rule democracy. We the People of the United States are the Goverment. The federal reps are supposed to (not always) represent us and our wishes, thats why we have elections.

Now before you go on about what the term the founding fathers meant by militia, it is us the United States Citizens.

Grim

edit on 4/1/2013 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Why should you have to pay a fee to exercise a right? How about a fee to opt out of an illegal search? How about a fee to exercise your right to free speech or freedom of religion? Should someone getting an abortion have to pay an extra fee? Maybe people should pay a fee to vote, and the fee should be tripled if the person doesn't know the positions of the candidates they are voting for, and ten times the fee if the candidate does not live up to their campaign promises.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The check takes man hours and the tax payers pay the workers salary.

A tax on gun purchases would be used to pay for mental health treatment.

Tax payers are still going to be paying for the background checks.

Or did I misread the article?

EDIT - I am not against paying for my own background checks. What I am against is paying people a salary and then giving up more money for them to do their job. Do they not get a salary to do their job?
edit on 4-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Why should it be the obligation of those that want to purchase guns to fund mental healthcare for the general poulation? That makes no sense to me at all. The fees are already imposed during the purchase of the firearm and usually included/hidden in the price.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
lets have a fee for posting opinions on the internet. for goodness sake, the government spends billions tracking packets passed on the internet, how about that no such agency complex being built in Utah to store the data. might as well have the creators of the data pay for its storage. only fair.i say. that way your gun registration info can go into the database right along side your internet opinions, and you voluntarily paid for both...so there are no sticky consitutional questions about the gov data mining to find people to pick up for questioning.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   



Imagine how much they'd raise if they taxed hammers?

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles Read more: nation.foxnews.com...

This whole debate about guns is BS, and I'm not a gun owner. The nanny state is producing weak Americans that one day won't know how to tie their shoes.


fox news is not a reputable source, and us over in the UK can tie our shoes just fine.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The second amendment is not up for editing. Keep your guns locked in a safe, and with a trigger lock, especially if you have children, or mentally unstable people in the home. If you have mentally unstable people in the home, do not allow them to play violent games, or wtach violent movies, or read violent books. If you don't like guns, then simply don't own one. Don't try and force responsible gun owners to hand over their rights just because you either fear guns, don't like them, or whatever the reason because that isn't fair for none of us.

I wanted to add that foreigners like Piers Morgan have no say in our laws and he should be deported for crimes against the American constitution, among other things. I'll go on the record and say that he's one of many these days trying to destroy what our forefathers and the many who gave their lives for created. He's obviously a paid shill. He's also an idiot if he thinks he will ever succeed.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Fylgje because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by n1rvana
 

I believe that source to be accurate and that even more are killed with hands and fists than rifles (but they conveniently left out handguns in the statistic....I would like to see the breakdown - just curious).



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 

really can't discuss reality with those who insist on residing in fantasy land.

If people kept their guns in a wall safe, category 1 and 2 deaths would go down
since this entire opinion is based on falsehoods, let's get this one out of the way.

what makes you think, that in this economy, every gun owner has a home or any location that would accomodate a 'safe' of any kind ??

shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



It looks to me like they're just saying the people buying a gun ought to pony up the cost of Colorado running their NICS/State check. Sounds fine to me. Why should my tax dollars go to fund EVERYONE'S required check to buy a gun from a retail outlet??


VERY SIMPLE!

If the GOVERNMENT wants to run a check on people prior to buying a gun then the GOVERNMENT should pay for it. Where in the second amendment does it say you have to pass a background check to bear arms?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 

if you really consider this proposal to be an intelligent one, you haven't been paying attention.

not only would the supposed revenue be completely insufficient to serve its stated purpose, you are equally forcing consumers to pay for State demands ... why ?

let's not forget all of the firearms that are NOT registered and wouldn't be subject to such a scheme in the first place. do you really think this would ultimately generate the revenue they project ?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


It is in my opinion a way to help and give back to the community,but that is what evidently no one gets.It is a non intrusive way to support gun ownership in my state and a way to fund those in need. No massive influx of cash,no gun grab provisions,just a way to help those who are the REAL reasons we are arguing on this board.
Our guns are here to stay, I would pay a reasonable fee for the background check.
Those of you who are so immovable as to give NOTHING to help ,suggest or even give counter ideas,are behaving like the progressives you berate. I can't tell you about it financially and I don't care about statistics,I only see others who need to be in institutions talking to themselves,cringing when anyone tries to talk to them and other rather obviously mentally crippled people.They are just thrown away on the street.
I defended my country and I never stopped doing so.What evil am I doing by trying to help those who can't help themselves?





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join