ForumGarden

Ahso!;1414051 wrote: Somebody needs to explain to me why the taxpayer should use precious resources to protect our children from the use of a dangerous product that has no use except to kill. The gun lobby wants these things in circulation, let them pay for the security.

And you're right, I said "in" and should have said "assigned to" or "at" Columbine. My mistake. But it wasn't statistical.


The gun lobby ARE taxpayers, last time I looked. And a whole heck of a lot of things are being paid for after

9/11 that weren't formerly. TSA, anyone?

I have used guns for many, many years, and I've never killed a thing with them.

valerie;1414054 wrote: The gun lobby ARE taxpayers, last time I looked.And this means because the gun lobby are taxpayers they get to dictate that we all support their dangerous product? valerie;1414054 wrote: And a whole heck of a lot of things are being paid for after

9/11 that weren't formerly. TSA, anyone?Yes, but air travel is meant to assist in the betterment of the culture, it isn't intended to hurt, kill or mutilate.

valerie;1414054 wrote: I have used guns for many, many years, and I've never killed a thing with them.Glad to hear that but it doesn't change what they are manufactured for.

Ahso!;1414051 wrote: Somebody needs to explain to me why the taxpayer should use precious resources to protect our children from the use of a dangerous product that has no use except to kill. Because the alternative would be to not protect them. Der.

The gun lobby wants these things in circulation, let them pay for the security.


Do it through an ammunition tax. $1 on each round for a glock, shot gun and assault weapon ammo, higher. Let the people with guns pay for it. I'm in full agreement, it would be good if some fool had to take out a loan to shoot up a school.

Accountable;1414056 wrote: Because the alternative would be to not protect them. Der.Please don't tell me you didn't get my meaning.

Scrat;1414057 wrote: Do it through an ammunition tax. $1 on each round for a glock, shot gun and assault weapon ammo, higher. Let the people with guns pay for it. I'm in full agreement, it would be good if some fool had to take out a loan to shoot up a school.That's fine but also a yearly or monthly surcharge (tax) on anyone with a gun permit.

Ahso!;1414061 wrote: Please don't tell me you didn't get my meaning.
I can't imagine any answer to your request that doesn't end in der. You already know why we must protect our children.

Scrat;1414057 wrote: Do it through an ammunition tax. $1 on each round for a glock, shot gun and assault weapon ammo, higher. Let the people with guns pay for it. I'm in full agreement, it would be good if some fool had to take out a loan to shoot up a school.


Ahso!;1414062 wrote: That's fine but also a yearly or monthly surcharge (tax) on anyone with a gun permit.


The right shall not be infringed. It is protected by the Constitution. Why is no one ... NO ONE ... calling to repeal the Second Amendment?

Accountable;1414082 wrote: The right shall not be infringed. It is protected by the Constitution. Why is no one ... NO ONE ... calling to repeal the Second Amendment?Because a repeal won't pass. The public needs more time and probably more deaths.

I'm for repeal.

Accountable;1414081 wrote: I can't imagine any answer to your request that doesn't end in der. You already know why we must protect our children.That sounds like a personal problem.

Ahso!;1414094 wrote: Because a repeal won't pass. The public needs more time and probably more deaths.

I'm for repeal.
Okay, defeatist (:yh_wink), since a repeal won't pass, why continue to insist on doing what can't constitutionally be done? If repeal is impossible, then it's a roadblock. Find another way. Guns aren't going away, so we have to protect our children from people who would misuse them (there's the answer to your rhetorical question).

Now, how are we going to protect our children from madmen with guns when having and using them is a constitutional right? I agree that asking emotion-driven academics (teachers) to play bodyguard is a stupid idea. Placing cops within the school buildings is generally a bad idea, especially in inner-city poor neighborhoods, because it gives schools more of a prison feel. Asking for volunteers to patrol campuses it really dumb, considering the loose cannons that would leap a such a chance to kill some bad guys.



What's left?



** NOTE: Since this post probably fits better in one of the other threads, feel free to move it to wherever it belongs.**

Accountable;1414096 wrote: Okay, defeatist (:yh_wink), since a repeal won't pass, why continue to insist on doing what can't constitutionally be done? If repeal is impossible, then it's a roadblock. Find another way. Guns aren't going away, so we have to protect our children from people who would misuse them (there's the answer to your rhetorical question).

Now, how are we going to protect our children from madmen with guns when having and using them is a constitutional right? I agree that asking emotion-driven academics (teachers) to play bodyguard is a stupid idea. Placing cops within the school buildings is generally a bad idea, especially in inner-city poor neighborhoods, because it gives schools more of a prison feel. Asking for volunteers to patrol campuses it really dumb, considering the loose cannons that would leap a such a chance to kill some bad guys.



What's left?



** NOTE: Since this post probably fits better in one of the other threads, feel free to move it to wherever it belongs.**More death? That's not defeatist, it's realistic, and very unfortunate.

oscar;1414005 wrote: Wouldn't you rather lose the money and keep your children safe?


But it would not keep the children safe - no amount of money would achieve that.

Accountable;1414096 wrote: Okay, defeatist (:yh_wink), since a repeal won't pass, why continue to insist on doing what can't constitutionally be done? If repeal is impossible, then it's a roadblock. Find another way. Guns aren't going away, so we have to protect our children from people who would misuse them (there's the answer to your rhetorical question).

Now, how are we going to protect our children from madmen with guns when having and using them is a constitutional right? I agree that asking emotion-driven academics (teachers) to play bodyguard is a stupid idea. Placing cops within the school buildings is generally a bad idea, especially in inner-city poor neighborhoods, because it gives schools more of a prison feel. Asking for volunteers to patrol campuses it really dumb, considering the loose cannons that would leap a such a chance to kill some bad guys.



What's left?



** NOTE: Since this post probably fits better in one of the other threads, feel free to move it to wherever it belongs.**Let the congress vote and keep voting until the amendment is repealed. I'm all for that.

Accountable;1414082 wrote: The right shall not be infringed. It is protected by the Constitution. Why is no one ... NO ONE ... calling to repeal the Second Amendment?


Are you seriously trying to argue that it is unconstitutional to tax guns or ammunition because of the second amendment?

Accountable;1414081 wrote: I can't imagine any answer to your request that doesn't end in der. You already know why we must protect our children.


And the only possible way to protect our children is to use more guns?

Accountable;1414096 wrote: Okay, defeatist (:yh_wink), since a repeal won't pass, why continue to insist on doing what can't constitutionally be done? If repeal is impossible, then it's a roadblock. Find another way. Guns aren't going away, so we have to protect our children from people who would misuse them (there's the answer to your rhetorical question).

Now, how are we going to protect our children from madmen with guns when having and using them is a constitutional right? I agree that asking emotion-driven academics (teachers) to play bodyguard is a stupid idea. Placing cops within the school buildings is generally a bad idea, especially in inner-city poor neighborhoods, because it gives schools more of a prison feel. Asking for volunteers to patrol campuses it really dumb, considering the loose cannons that would leap a such a chance to kill some bad guys.



What's left?



** NOTE: Since this post probably fits better in one of the other threads, feel free to move it to wherever it belongs.**


Now there is a really *good* question!

valerie;1414053 wrote: Show me where I said children weren't slaughtered in the good old western days. You can't, because I didn't.

And w/o finding links for God's sake I think I can safely say that a good deal of pioneer children were killed

by Native Americans, too. We weren't talking about those kinds of things. We mentioned schools in particular,

and I still think what I said was at least not far off the mark. You don't agree, I get it. I got that before I

even posted, but what the hey, it's good for business, no?

;)Well then, if we're going to play that game: I know that I know that gun nuts barged into native american schools and slaughtered children on several occasions. Indian villages didn't have newspapers so, it's not written anywhere, but my "facts" are now just as valid as yours.

See where that gets us? Pulling garbage out of the air and saying it like it's factual. Lets stick with what we can prove. Making yourself out to be my victim is a useless and weak ploy; the only person you're a victim of is you.

Bryn Mawr;1414101 wrote: Are you seriously trying to argue that it is unconstitutional to tax guns or ammunition because of the second amendment?
No. I am seriously stating plain fact.

Amendment 2 to the US Constitution: "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."

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Bryn Mawr;1414102 wrote: And the only possible way to protect our children is to use more guns?
Please show me where I stated that. Feel free to search anywhere. You might want to avoid searching this thread, though, because you'll find that I stated just the opposite.

eta: In fact, you quoted me stating just the opposite.

Ahso!;1414100 wrote: Let the congress vote and keep voting until the amendment is repealed. I'm all for that.


Me, too. It should be left to the states at this point. We're clearly too comfortable in our gilded cage to actually go against Washington's tyranny.

It is silly when the current system is working so well.:wah:

tude dog;1414177 wrote: It is silly when the current system is working so well.:wah:You're either talking to yourself or you forget to lay some foundation for your remark? Either wouldn't surprise me. However, just for laughs, WTF are you talking about?

Accountable;1414112 wrote: No. I am seriously stating plain fact.

Amendment 2 to the US Constitution: "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."

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net






I'm trying to find your interpretation of that "plain fact" because it is not plain to me how the text relates to the current day.

Bryn Mawr;1414203 wrote: I'm trying to find your interpretation of that "plain fact" because it is not plain to me how the text relates to the current day.
Yes, I know. People today don't understand the rule of law. They don't understand that a permanent law is permanent, even when it's inconvenient. They also don't understand that they can't claim to respect the rule of law and simultaneously ignore, twist, or outright break laws. They don't understand that the same mechanism that creates law can be used to change or repeal laws.

There is no interpretation of plain fact, thus the term "plain". The right shall not be infringed. If people want the right to be infringed, then they need to repeal the law prohibiting infringement.

Accountable;1414210 wrote: Yes, I know. People today don't understand the rule of law. They don't understand that a permanent law is permanent, even when it's inconvenient. They also don't understand that they can't claim to respect the rule of law and simultaneously ignore, twist, or outright break laws. They don't understand that the same mechanism that creates law can be used to change or repeal laws.

There is no interpretation of plain fact, thus the term "plain". The right shall not be infringed. If people want the right to be infringed, then they need to repeal the law prohibiting infringement.


So do you see taxation of guns and / or ammo as an infringement of you right or as an additional cost that does not prevent you exercising your right?

Bryn Mawr;1414211 wrote: So do you see taxation of guns and / or ammo as an infringement of you right or as an additional cost that does not prevent you exercising your right?
I see any use of taxation beyond paying for approved services of government as overreach. I see using taxation as a way to manipulate behavior as abuse, and any legislator or executive who signs onto such behavior should be impeached and removed from office. Yes, any tax targeted on fire arms and/or ammunition designed to make either prohibitively expensive as an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. How can it not be?

Ahso!;1414187 wrote: You're either talking to yourself or you forget to lay some foundation for your remark? Either wouldn't surprise me. However, just for laughs, WTF are you talking about?


I wished I had quoted something.

It was a general remark in regards to not allowing teachers to be armed. It would have been better if I actually read all the comments before giving my .02.

Accountable;1414214 wrote: I see any use of taxation beyond paying for approved services of government as overreach. I see using taxation as a way to manipulate behavior as abuse, and any legislator or executive who signs onto such behavior should be impeached and removed from office. Yes, any tax targeted on fire arms and/or ammunition designed to make either prohibitively expensive as an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. How can it not be?


There is a distinct difference between taxation and punitive taxation. I was asking if you saw *any* taxation on guns and / or ammo as unconstitutional?

Bryn Mawr;1414272 wrote: There is a distinct difference between taxation and punitive taxation. I was asking if you saw *any* taxation on guns and / or ammo as unconstitutional?And I answered you. :-2

tude dog;1414218 wrote:

It was a general remark in regards to not allowing teachers to be armed.Teacher only need to be armed to protect themselves and their students from other armed individuals.

Careful. That looks awfully close to acknowledgment. :sneaky:

Ahso!;1414288 wrote: Teacher only need to be armed to protect themselves and their students from other armed individuals.Theoretically speaking.

It has always amazed me how people think that just because you arm somone it also means that they are capable of pulling the trigger.

Is the NRA actually asking teachers to now be in charge of killing their own students? Because I see arming teachers as essentially telling them to do this ...and what if they can't? Will they now be to blame for the deaths of others? So teachers not only teach children but kill them also?

Just hand in your freaking guns will ya!!!!! At least get some of them off the streets. Or at least cut down on your own supplys. You want a fire arm for protection? fine but you only need one. What the heck are all the rest for?

And No, that 2nd ammendment is not clear .

fuzzywuzzy;1414297 wrote: It has always amazed me how people think that just because you arm somone it also means that they are capable of pulling the trigger. It's one of the dumber concepts I've heard.

fuzzywuzzy;1414297 wrote: Is the NRA actually asking teachers to now be in charge of killing their own students? Because I see arming teachers as essentially telling them to do this ...and what if they can't?Will they now be to blame for the deaths of others? So teachers not only teach children but kill them also?And this ranks right up there with the first one. Check that. This one's plainly stupid.



fuzzywuzzy;1414297 wrote: And No, that 2nd ammendment is not clear .
There seems to be interest in this subject, so: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gun-c ... n-law.html

fuzzywuzzy;1414297 wrote: You want a fire arm for protection? fine but you only need one. What the heck are all the rest for?I've been told they jam occasionally, and I think they come in different colors now.

That "if you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers" is frighteningly accurate. I don't know one single gun owner that would willingly surrender their gun to the government and I know quite a few gun owners that have big "collections" that would fight to the death to keep every single one... while stocking up on ammo. Confiscating weapons isn't going to work.

They might say all that and I'm sure some of them would probably follow through. However, once most gun owners begin to consider it might cost them more than their lives, meaning, perhaps the lives of loved ones, many of them would reconsider, I'd think.

Also, many gun owners are in fact giving up some of their guns in buy back programs.

I read this one this morning.

2 Rocket Launchers Turned In During LAPD Gun Buyback (PHOTOS) - Los Angeles - News - The Informer

Do gun owners actually think that owning guns might cost their loved ones their lives? I doubt it.

Accountable;1414275 wrote: And I answered you. :-2


Hmm, I think we're running into the federal vs state distinction again - a tax on goods is a tax on goods. I did not appreciate that it was a state prerogative not available to the federal government.

SnoozeAgain;1414327 wrote: Do gun owners actually think that owning guns might cost their loved ones their lives? I doubt it.If they decide to take a militant stand on the issue should the government decide to repeal the second amendment or outlaw their particular weapon they might.

Bryn Mawr;1414359 wrote: Hmm, I think we're running into the federal vs state distinction again - a tax on goods is a tax on goods. I did not appreciate that it was a state prerogative not available to the federal government.
We have 8% sales tax in my city on any goods we buy except for food. I have no objection to that. We also have federal and state excise taxes on fuel, presumably to pay for road maintenance. I have no objection to that. But if the gov't (local, state, or federal) decided that we eat too much junk food, or we drink too much alcohol, and raised the tax on those specific things for the purpose of changing our behavior, I have major objections to that. If the gov't at any level decided to raise fuel taxes to discourage commuting (by making it prohibitively expensive) and encourage using public transportation, I have major objections to that.

Along those same lines, I have no objection to standard sales taxes on weapons and ammunition. I would of course object to a tax designed to make keeping & bearing arms prohibitively expensive.

I hope that clarifies.

Ahso!;1414360 wrote: If they decide to take a militant stand on the issue should the government decide to repeal the second amendment or outlaw their particular weapon they might.
And well they should, since repealing a constitutional amendment is not within the government's power.

Accountable;1414391 wrote: We have 8% sales tax in my city on any goods we buy except for food. I have no objection to that. We also have federal and state excise taxes on fuel, presumably to pay for road maintenance. I have no objection to that. But if the gov't (local, state, or federal) decided that we eat too much junk food, or we drink too much alcohol, and raised the tax on those specific things for the purpose of changing our behavior, I have major objections to that. If the gov't at any level decided to raise fuel taxes to discourage commuting (by making it prohibitively expensive) and encourage using public transportation, I have major objections to that.

Along those same lines, I have no objection to standard sales taxes on weapons and ammunition. I would of course object to a tax designed to make keeping & bearing arms prohibitively expensive.

I hope that clarifies.


It does and thank you for it.

OK, if you see no problem with raising a tax on gas to cover the cost of road maintenance then why not a tax on alcohol to cover the cost of Medicare due to alcohol related accidents / illness and the loss to the economy due to alcohol related absenteeism at work.

Having written that I realise that the argument does not work so well in the American context as it does in the UK where the cost to the NHS and, therefore, to the country runs into the billions. So lets try the last one, raising tax on gas to cover the costs of climate change - that should cause a few raised eyebrows amongst the membership :wah:

Bryn Mawr;1414461 wrote: It does and thank you for it.

OK, if you see no problem with raising a tax on gas to cover the cost of road maintenance then why not a tax on alcohol to cover the cost of Medicare due to alcohol related accidents / illness and the loss to the economy due to alcohol related absenteeism at work.

Having written that I realise that the argument does not work so well in the American context as it does in the UK where the cost to the NHS and, therefore, to the country runs into the billions. So lets try the last one, raising tax on gas to cover the costs of climate change - that should cause a few raised eyebrows amongst the membership :wah:-actually, it does work. The American taxpayer pays hospitals a lot of money annually for unpaid emergency room care and for medicare and medicaid.

Accountable;1414392 wrote: And well they should, since repealing a constitutional amendment is not within the government's power.


They have done it before when repealing the prohibition of the sale of alcohol.

Also, if they have the right to amend an Amendment then the can effectively repeal any amendment they like.

Bryn Mawr;1414468 wrote: They have done it before when repealing the prohibition of the sale of alcohol.

Also, if they have the right to amend an Amendment then the can effectively repeal any amendment they like.Ah no! The federal government did not repeal the 18th Amendment. The Constitution is the governing document of the federal government. Changing it requires permission of The People, as represented their state legislatures. Every congressman and the President can all vote to change the Constitution, but if it doesn't meet the approval of 38 states then there is no change.

Accountable;1414475 wrote: Ah no! The federal government did not repeal the 18th Amendment. The Constitution is the governing document of the federal government. Changing it requires permission of The People, as represented their state legislatures. Every congressman and the President can all vote to change the Constitution, but if it doesn't meet the approval of 38 states then there is no change.


OK, I sit corrected

Accountable;1414048 wrote: Cops tend to treat people like criminals. Kids who are treated like criminals tend to start acting like criminals. The two create a spiral that is definitely not conducive to academic learning.

I don't think armed guards is the answer. It's a bandaid.This column today seems to agree with me:

The NRA’s faulty school-security proposal - The Washington Post

Excerpt:

But the evidence shows that the expansion of police into schools is a flawed policy that can have harmful effects on students. During many research visits, I have spoken at length with police officers stationed at schools full time. I have found almost all of these officers, usually called school resource officers, to be caring individuals. They are willing to let their professional reputations suffer — being a “kiddie cop” is often looked down upon by other officers — in an attempt to help local youths. Many of them mentor students and seek to be positive role models.

But their presence has effects that help transform the school from an environment of academia to a site of criminal law enforcement. Issues that might otherwise be seen as mental health or social problems can become policing matters once an officer is stationed in a school. Arrests for minor infractions, such as fistfights in which there are no injuries, go up. As the 2011 books “Punished” and “Police in the Hallways” have found — among other research — officers can start to see youths as thugs and criminals and begin treating them with hostility and sometimes even abusively. This comes at the expense of students’ rights and their education. Minorities are especially vulnerable to the overpolicing that can take place in schools, which increases both the racial-academic divide and racially skewed arrest rates.

Accountable;1414732 wrote: This column today seems to agree with me:

The NRA’s faulty school-security proposal - The Washington Post

Excerpt:


First of all, when it comes to the popular media, the NRA can't get an even break. With that said, I didn't like their proposal because it sounded like something that would come from the Obama White house. Federal expansion into local responsibilities.

As far as police in schools, I don't believe that Aaron Kupchik has a real grip on what he is talking about. Schools and their, for lack of a better word, culture varies from school to school.

One school can be a shining example of academic achievement and a nearby one a detention center for budding criminals. I would put my trust that the local parents know what is best for their schools than a beard scratcher, lobbyists or anything having to do with the federal government.

tude dog;1414736 wrote: First of all, when it comes to the popular media, the NRA can't get an even break.Now the NRA are the victims. I knew that was coming sooner or later. The NRA has won just about every fight against the good of the public safety they've been in and the media has been more than fair to the NRA. tude dog;1414736 wrote: With that said, I didn't like their proposal because it sounded like something that would come from the Obama White house. Federal expansion into local responsibilities. Why then didn't the Obama White House ever push for it? More unfounded accusations, that's all this is.