01-11-2013, 03:22 AM
The car assumption should make sense because you are assuming that a criminal wont take ANY extra advantage to commit a crime. What you are saying is by adding bureaucratic red tape to gun ownership criminals won't be able to take advantage. Im saying that they will take any advantage. Well politicians are basically criminals anyway and you are advocating their side so I wouldnt expect you to see it.
01-11-2013, 10:19 AM
Wow. I'm not advocating either side, I'm advocating sensibility. I don't want to take your guns away no matter how much you think I do. Until you figure that out, you're a detriment to the conversation. Your car analogy makes even less sense after this explanation. I don't assume anything, you're making assumptions about me. You're not worth talking to about this because you don't want anything done. You're happy in a culture of death.
Originally Posted by indexed
In fact, please stop responding to my posts until you open your mind a little. It won't make you look weak. You can disagree all you want, but have a real reason. You make the assumption of tons of red tape. I guess we should stop licensing drivers. Too much red red tape.
Actually, answer me this. Is there any move relating to guns that you would be okay with?
Last edited by Wickabee; 01-11-2013 at 10:30 AM.
01-13-2013, 02:14 AM
yes, if the gov't wants to have anything to say about what guns I have then they should buy them for me.
Originally Posted by Wickabee
01-13-2013, 02:50 AM
So you think they should pay for your car because they make you get a licence then?
01-13-2013, 02:52 AM
Originally Posted by Wickabee
I don't have the right to drive a automobile through the constitution its a privilege
01-13-2013, 11:04 AM
You have a right to own a gun. It says nothing of you being licensed in the constitution or not to do so.
01-13-2013, 12:35 PM
wickabee, you are right and in ohio no is license required to own a gun. you have to be 21 to buy a handgun but you can own one at 18
01-13-2013, 12:50 PM
I just don't see how a license takes anything away.
Funny, he wants the government to pay for it, so I say put a new tax on guns. Tax becomes government funds, so they'd be paying for it, technically speaking.
Or how about this. Your constitution guarantees your right to guns. It doesn't say anywhere that you have a right to ammunition. So do nothing about guns, but put licensing restrictions on ammunition. It would be more difficult and more costly, but it would abide by the constitution.
01-13-2013, 01:11 PM
but most criminals do not buy their criminal tools legally, thus taxes will not affect them.
i would have no issue with a handgun and assault rifle license that is paid for via a tax paid when you purchase one of them. but considering most states that do require a license only charge a $5 fee, I don't think a tax is needed.
ohio, no license required, Illinois does, and both have close to the same gun death rate percentage.
so will a license help? according to the stats I found, no.
01-13-2013, 01:16 PM
Alright, Jay, since you've never answered this question before, despite being asked multiple times. Since you're such an expert on what shouldnt be done, what should?
I'm not even going to point out that the tax was in response to tpeichel saying the government should pay for it, which you quite obviously didn't understand, despite my saying it. That would suggest you didn't actually read the whle thing and it would be rude of me to point it out. So I won't.