The marriage fee for Minnesota is $115. The fee to apply for a FFL is $200. Please whine about the taxes some more.
You’re main complaint for pricing is the free market. Is this an instance where you’re against the working of supply and demand? Should the federal government intervene and find a solution for the incredible price of fully automatic firearms?
In fairness, it does call it into question and raises a reasonable point for debate. If you say “I love this TV show because of the great acting” and the main character leaves the show, it would be reasonable to inquire if you still like the show, given that you pointed out that your primary reason for liking the show was the acting.
But as I have pointed out, in this debate it is irrelevant. The militia clause implies a militia. If me and my law abiding friends cannot own guns and drill and train, then there is no militia. Citizens keeping and bearing arms is a necessary prerequisite to having a militia.
Saying that an organized branch of the government is a militia does not make it so anymore than calling a tree a dog makes the tree a dog. You cannot say we have free speech because we have appointed a Free Speech Commissioner that you can write a letter to.
Any right requires that the necessary preconditions be allowed to exercise the right. You cannot say that we allow a free press, but outlaw paper and ink. Even if the Second Amendment is only for militia purposes (which I do not believe) you cannot deprive the people of a necessary instrument to create or maintain a militia.
As to your first paragraph, I have no idea what you are complaining about. $115 seems too high for me for a marriage license, and I agree with the argument that because marriage is a fundamental right, the government cannot tax it. Imagine a $115 abortion tax, or a $115 book publication tax. Those would be struck down immediately. I would love to represent someone who argued that a fee for a marriage was an infringement on a fundamental right.
Second paragraph: The free market? You think that’s what we have with machine guns? Supply and demand? You think you have me in some sort of conservative trap there where I want the feds to intervene?
Hint: A free market would exist if the feds did not already artificially restrict the supply.
I admit to not phrasing that as well as I meant to but I’m referring to the faulty logic that because a reason is given for the inclusion of a right that it necessarily represents the only reason for its inclusion and thus serves as a limitation on the scope of that right. I mean if we’re discussing solely why the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment was added, and put aside for a moment the question of whether it also functions also as a limitation on that Right, then wouldn’t a Right with the rationale included make a stronger case for its importance than a Right included with no rationale given? Doesn’t some evidence almost always carry more weight than no evidence? And in considering the scope of a Right wouldn’t its importance to our system of gov’t and political philosophy be a factor?
Consider this: Do you believe anyone thinks that the 3rd Amendment is as important, let alone more important, to our democracy than the 1st? Since no reason is given in the Constitution for the inclusion of either Right then any reason(s) must logically exist outside the words of the document, because the Framers must have had some reason to include them in the BOR in the first place. Similarly, if we determine that one Right in the Constitution is more important to the concept of “ordered liberty” than another then we must also be using words and ideas outside the Constitution to reach that conclusion, because the document itself is silent on the matter.
Consequently, if we can justify the inclusion of Rights in the Constitution through reasons found outside the words of the document then it logically follows that any reason given within the text of the Constitution need not be the sole reason for its inclusion. It could be, but it doesn’t logically follow that it must be.
And if those other reasons can or do exist outside the text then the sole reason given within the text does not necessarily logically function as a limitation as well because those other reasons would almost certainly, if anything, be evidence justifying broadening the scope of the right rather than limiting it to the reason given within the Constitution itself.
Therefore, since we know from other sources that the Framers contemplated other reasons for the people to possess a right to bear arms, such as self-defense, hunting, or what have you, then those reasons would indeed serve as evidence for a broader reading of the scope of the 2nd Amendment beyond a right to bear arms connected to milita service.
I get your example and the difference is a subtle one, but they’re two different arguments.
By Canadian standards it’s a bloodbath but if you’re happy with it, good for you.
to
Sure, it provides a reason to inquire or otherwise seek more information. What it doesn’t do, however, is provide enough information on its own from which to draw a logical conclusion beyond I like the show because of the acting. I could like the acting of the rest of the cast to a degree that I still enjoy the show. Or I could have never have cared for the lead, since I was never more specific in my statement about whose acting I enjoyed, and liked the show based on the rest of the cast. Or I could’ve even hated the lead and actually enjoy the show even more now based on the remaining cast.
And none of this precludes or even implies that the acting was the sole reason I like the show. If I ask you why you like your favorite show, movie or book should I assume that the reason or reasons you give is an exhaustive list? Or that you’re giving me the reasons in order of importance? No, those logical inferences are beyond the scope of the question because they are based on a specificity or level of detail not found in the question.
And I strongly disagree that the argument is pointless. In fact, I believe an argument based on the intent of the Framers when writing the 2nd is much stronger than relying on the theoretical existence of a militia which hasn’t been mustered in quite a long while. Not to mention the existence an actual standing military which undermines the argument for the necessity of said militia. The argument of Framers’ intent doesn’t suffer from those weaknesses and we have plenty of contemporaneous evidence of their intent that is anything but theoretical. And besides, any position can have multiple arguments in it’s favor, and only be stronger for it. As an attorney I’m sure you know putting all your chips on a single argument or relying on conditions not to change and possibly weaken your position is a dicey strategy
Canada has a tenth the population of the USA, and of course 10000 would be huge. Currently, they run under a thousand, which is a better rate than the USA, but not by a whole lot. But Canada is lucky in that it’s population and income disparity is more homogenous than the CSA.
Now this is an actual answer. It’s OK to ban certain weapons because doing so prevents the mass slaughter of thousands of people. It’s sensible and logical, and is also the exact reason why I’m a gun grabber.
Despite the fact that gun grabbers like myself are portrayed as wanting to take away your rights, we ALL generally agree that taking rights away is perfectly acceptable, when the good that is done outweighs the negatives.
We’re not trying to decide whether or not it’s OK to ban guns, we’re haggling over where the line is drawn.
That “lack of homogeneity” thing comes up a lot, I notice. It seems a handy thing to blame your problems on as well as your inability to address your problems.
Maybe you could manage your guns more responsibly if you weren’t so systemically racist.
And the Canadian per-capita rate of gun-related murders actually is “a whole lot” better than the U.S. A mass shooting in Canada (we get them occasionally) actually does affect the stats, while similar or worse shootings in the U.S. get lost in statistical noise.
Hold on. You are saying that banning heavy weapons prevents the mass slaughter of thousands? I thought you said gun bans do nothing?
It’s always used as code for “Black people are in our country causing the problems”
The vast majority of gun owners in the US never have killed anyone.
You don’t seem to realize that one person is not responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own a gun
Have you ever considered that Americans don’t want to be like every other country?
I personally do not care what the laws are in any other country because quite frankly I don’t want to live in any other country.
Americans have always been wary of their own government I know I am.
And no I don’t think there will be some SHTF type of conflict between citizens and the government but I do believe that I have a right to own a firearm and that as long as I do not commit crimes have the right to own any firearm I want. (nuclear bombs are not firearms so let’s not go there)
What people who don’t live in the US fail to realize is that over 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides and personally I believe a person has the right to decide to live or die.
As far as murders are concerned 70% of all murders occur in very small, very well defined areas in just 2% of all the counties in the country and are for the most part young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities which is why the people here do nothing about it. Thinking that telling law abiding people they can’t own a gun will stop this urban violence is naive
Excellent point.
Of course, you damn well are responsible if you fight to ensure that criminals have an ample supply of deadly weapons to kill people with.
The gun violence in the US is almost entirely an urban, inner city phenomenon.
The violence is the worst in urban areas that are historically poor, minority, subjected to segregation, unemployment, under employment and poor schools where gangs and illegal drugs are prevalent.
You are right that it is a result of the history of racism in this country.
But it is not guns that cause this problem
Gun violence is a symptom of the real problem and holding law abiding gun owners who will never commit a crime with or without a gun responsible for this is ridiculous.
I’m all for having a bourbon or 4 but that in no way means I am responsible for the guy who drives drunk and mows down a dozen old ladies.
The fact is the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime. Criminals will not obey gun laws so I really don’t see how you stop criminals from getting guns by prohibiting law abiding people from owning guns.
If you’re going to deny the correlation between a heterogeneous population as a cause of increased criminality or conflict in general then you’re going to have a problem with quite a few criminologists and sociologists. Also, political scientists, anthropologists and historians. Because it’s an accepted fact in all of those fields and social science in general. And if you view that position as ipso facto racist, well…
People tend to get along better with people that are more like themselves and come into more conflict with people who are different. Whether the difference is based on “race”, culture/subculture, ethnicity, religion, social class or geography or other factors. And often those characteristics are inextricably linked. With regards to “race” it often bears some relationship with other factors so that they’re not easily distinguishable. Race and culture/subculture, race and ethnicity, race and geography, social class, religion etc.
In the US one only need look at the history of ethnocentric neighborhoods (for lack of a better or more accurate term) and ethnically based criminal organizations (the Mafia, Tongs, Yardies, Yakuza, Latino gangs, skinheads, etc) and their history of conflict with each other. Really pretty obvious stuff if you think about. And the US, which is far more diverse than most countries in the world, bears that cost of people being people to a disproportionate degree. It’s the downside of our diversity.
Back in the day, about 50% of UK suicides were accomplished via gas asphyxiation. This is because they used Coal Gas instead of Natural Gas, CG has a high proportion of carbon monoxide, making it a very convenient way to off oneself.
The UK transitioned to NG, which is no damn good for killing yourself. What do you think happened to the suicide rate in the UK? Surprising exactly nobody who put any thought into it, the suicide rate dropped significantly during the transition to natural gas, then stabilized at the lower level.
Turns out, when you take away an easy and convenient way to kill oneself, fewer people kill themselves. That desire to kill yourself, that span of time when you’re actually willing to do the deed tends to be temporary. If a person survives that time in their life, they tend to not kill themselves quite as often.
If bourbon was designed to kill old ladies, I might be in favor of banning it.
Before you explain how guns aren’t designed to kill people, rest assured that whatever you claim they are actually designed to do, there’s a way to accomplish exactly that, with the device being far less dangerous to people than guns are.
All of this needs repeated because like you, I keep hearing the same arguments. So the UK and Australia have banned guns? That’s up to them. If they want to give up a basic freedom in pursuit of a left wing dream of a violence free society, then that is, again, up to them.
But I’m not agreeing to that here. I have owned guns my entire life and have never killed one single person. Taking away my guns will do nothing to help anyone. I’m sure not going to agree to it because Nancy Pelosi says I should.
And I agree that the left wants to inflate gun deaths by including suicides in the count. That’s ridiculous. It is certainly tragic when a person makes a decision that his life is irredeemable and that his problems will not get any better such that he decides to end it all. But the the gun did not do that. The gun did not load itself, jump into his hand and point itself at his head.
The crime in the inner cities is something that nobody wants to talk about because as soon as you do, then you risk being called a racist, so that can always gets kicked down the road.
It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people think that banning guns will stop gun crime. If that is so, why do we still have illegal drugs in this country? Drugs are consumable whereas guns are not. If I use drugs this week, I need more next week. A gun can be used by my great grandchildren. I have a shotgun that was owned by my great grandfather’s brother. It still functions just like it did when new.
How will we be able to successfully ban guns when we cannot stop drugs?
Because the guns will be much, much harder for them to get. Does that seriously not make sense to you?
Currently, a “criminal” who wants a gun can either buy it in the store (assuming he has no record), steal it from another private gun owner, or purchase a gun illegally from his fellow criminals. If guns are taken out of circulation, that means he can neither buy nor steal the gun because there are no guns to steal. This means the guns must be imported by other criminals, and the criminal who wants to buy a gun must cultivate contacts with black marketers.
This (A) allows more opportunity to intercept the criminals at any stage of the importation process and (B) it allows us to readily distinguish the so-called ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’ because anyone with a gun can be presumed to be a ‘bad guy.’ But most importantly, (C) it just makes the guns fucking harder to get. This means impulsive criminals with no money and no black market contacts have no means to acquire an illegal gun. Most criminals are utter morons who do not plot their crimes well in advance and do not want to put effort into setting the conditions. By taking away guns from the so-called ‘law abiding’ we immediately eliminate every impulsive domestic violence shooting, most suicide, and practically all shootings committed by children. Other criminals will be dissuaded by the prohibitive costs and the risks required just to get started in their enterprise. ** When you make it harder to commit a crime, fewer criminals put forth the effort.**
What part of this is confusing to you?