From your OP:
It’s pretty damn close. Your premise is wrong. If the price of the gun bothers you, you should be pitting the people proposing the ban. The shooting alone would not have affected the price at all.
And every car driver is 100% safe right up until they plow into someone. Which is a helluva lot more likely.
Maybe we should regulate and tax guns like we do automobiles. We could require insurance on them, and a yearly register process/fee. Plus periodic examinations of the users and the machinery. You may be on to something there. No one will argue that those requirements didn’t decrease traffic fatalities.
I would argue that they had nothing to do with a reduction in traffic fatalities, because they didn’t. What did have an effect was federal safety regulations starting in 1966. Which, incidentally, is the current situation with guns. There are already a truly extraordinary number of laws covering firearms in this country. You guys like to pretend that it’s the fictional conception of the Wild West. It’s not.
As for your proposals, they are punitive to the poor and as such abridge their Constitutional rights. I’ve had to hear for weeks now about how I don’t care about the children, so now I’m going to claim, with equal validity, that you don’t care about the poor.
I am pretty sure that he had a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. I can’t find a cite besides wikipedia at this point, but I am not trying that hard. He shoot around 100 rounds in 3 minutes, possible with handguns, but difficult.
No he doesn’t
Your ignorance is showing. The news reports said he had a Glock handgun. A Glock model 17 has a magazine capacity of 17 rounds plus a round can be carried in the chamber. Even a novice can change a pistol mag in about 3 seconds. Firing 100 rounds out of a Glock can easily be done in under 1 minute, not to mention 3.
There was no mention of the magazine capacity of those pistols, but 33 round mags are available at Gander Mountain and other stores for the Glock. This makes shooting 100 rounds even easier.
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think Connecticut has a limit on magazine caps. Even if they do, so what? Swapping out a 10 round mag only adds a few seconds to an assault. Plus high caps from other states are easily available by mail.
Shooting 100 rounds with a pistol in under 3 minutes is nothing.
You’ve got me confused. You’re saying I don’t care about the plight of the poor because I’d like to see expensive restrictions imposed on gun owners? Restrictions that poor folk couldn’t pay? Frankly, I don’t think the 2nd Amendment requires cheap guns be made available to the poor. Nor do I believe it prohibits regulating that ownership with respect to fees and taxes. I might be wrong, I dunno.
There is nothing cheap about guns. I suggest you check it out for yourself. I am one of the “poor”, as it were, and I have to save for a month or two just to afford to go to the range. Making it even more expensive simply to price people out, noting that it won’t accomplish anything but that, is a nonstarter.
Additionally, it is a Constitutional right, so you cannot prohibit ownership by taxing it into oblivion. I suppose you could try, but it wouldn’t withstand the first five minutes of the first court challenge.
So yes, you’re wrong.
But how do you prove intention? You may be entirely right, that the effort is intended solely to tax a disagreeable thing away, but how do you prove that? We have recently witnessed an effort to curb the voting rights of some citizens for political profit, but they offered the court the laughable premise that they were simply trying to curb voter fraud. And prevailed.
What is to stop dastardly gun-grabbers from using the same sort of tactic?
Getting an ID is not a tax. It costs nothing. As to whether or not it prevailed, that remains to be seen. It hasn’t prevailed yet. In truth, it probably won’t, not in its current form.
But, the main difference is that he is explicitly declaring that taxing it into oblivion is the reason for doing it. Proof? It’s right there in black and white.
At least he did us the courtesy of telling us the truth.
The proposed ban is much more restrictive than the 1994 ban. If it goes through, you likely will not be able to get a “post ban” style AR, not the type you’re thinking of anyway.
It’s going to ban anything with more than one assault weapon feature. It also is not going to allow the bullet-button style California mag releases, or any of the current loop holes. In other words, what you will end up buying after the ban will be an AR with no pistol grip (and not a thumb-hole stock either, because that is considered a loop hole and will be banned), or a permanently fixed magazine that must be loaded from stripper clips through the top of the lower receiver, and of course, no bayonet lug or collapsable stock, etc.
Oh, there’s always a way. Someone sets the rules, someone figures a way around them. Like California, for instance. Check this out. It’s not a pistol grip, it’s a stock.
That, of course, is the point. But that’s neither here nor there, not in this thread. This is for venting spleens, not anything sensible.
Coolest thing since the bullet-button.
And of course, there’s always the lever action option.
I can certainly see how someone could vent a spleen with that. Ten times in as many seconds, I suppose.
Meh. You are right, but whatever. I have fired a glock, an AR15, an SKS, and various other guns (very many actually, I have a rich friend with an arsenal) but I still know shit about them. I still believe the shooter at Sandy Hook did most of his killing with the Bushmaster and this was all I was trying to say.
If you look at the “talk” section of the wikipedia article, you can see the back-and-forth between the people posting in the article as to whether it was a “long rifle” or something else that was the primary weapon used. Looks like it was the medical examiner who claims the wounds were inflicted by a long rifle, and not that there has been any direct evidence that the rifles were used.
Not sure if that answers the questions, but just wanted to point out that sometimes going into the “talk” section of those articles can be informative as to source of the info. I didn’t click on any of the cited references, but it might be in there, too.
Really? They tax all other property and seem to get get away with it. The tax wouldn’t prohibit ownership, merely shift the financial burden from the public to the owners of the guns. Suppose these funds were used to make schools safer, would you still object to a tax as unreasonable?
I explained clearly why a tax is a non-starter. Here, let me do it again:
First of all, he was talking about a prohibitive tax. A tax designed to limit the number of guns. Secondly, that “all other property” isn’t explicitly protected by the constitution, and thirdly let’s explore this tax idea a bit further. Voters should have to pay an ID tax to shift the burden of financing elections from the public to the people who vote. Perfectly reasonable, no?