[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by ripdisc

the current government seems to be spending money as fast as they can. more spending = more tax = more poverty= more people who need social aid= more votes for the party giving it out = job securty!

We don't spend that much. We are below the OECD 21 and OECD 30 average. We are with the likes of Mexico and Turkey for Christ's sake!

[Space Pope]

Don't respond to people who clearly just make things up.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

If the general government is making a requirement for a gun owner to exercise their civil right, then government should not impose the equivalent of a poll tax on gun owners. Government should be giving the training for free.

This would not be the equivalnet of a "poll tax" because it only would apply to the purchase of a firearm, not the exercise of your rights to keep and bear arms.

I don't feel the Fed should pay for the class because 1. we can't afford it without incurring more debt and 2. I don't feel that the minimal cost of the class would be detrimental to people tryin to own a firearm. You can afford a $450-1,200 dollar firearm, $30 dollars in ammo to go shooting for a day, but a 1 time fee of $30 to take a class is a deal breaker? Really?

And yes Stupid is as Stupid does and we'll never make everyone safer but just IF this program could result in a 5% decrease in firearm injuries just because of safety training that would be cost saving of $55,249,320 annually. (How I got this number Wiki listed that in 2009 there were 75,684 firearm injuries in teh US. 5% makes 3784.2, average cost for treating a gun shot wound according to teh NY Times $14,600. If you really need links I can post but it doesn'tmatter that much to me.)

[Volucris]

There is already a tax on purchase of a firearm. Manufacturers pay this. It's 11%. It is adjusted into the cost of the firearm purchased.

Once again, the ONLY ****ING REASON we're discussing gun control is because people want to blame guns for the actions of a mass murderer. Simple-minded, reactionary lemmings.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

This would not be the equivalnet of a "poll tax" because it only would apply to the purchase of a firearm, not the exercise of your rights to keep and bear arms. ...

(not dismissing the latter half of your argument, just not arguing against it)

Of course it would be the equivalent of a poll tax. You need to have X dollars in order to exercise X right.

If the I am required to attend this course, and pay for it, in order to keep and bare firearms BUT not attending the course (which would prevent my ability to own firearms) somehow doesn't infringe on my exercising of the right to keep and bare arms... what arms are we talking about?

[slateman]

lol, that's like levying a tax to get in to a voting booth but saying that you're still tax free from voting

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

(not dismissing the latter half of your argument, just not arguing against it)

Of course it would be the equivalent of a poll tax. You need to have X dollars in order to exercise X right.

If the I am required to attend this course, and pay for it, in order to keep and bare firearms BUT not attending the course (which would prevent my ability to own firearms) somehow doesn't infringe on my exercising of the right to keep and bare arms... what arms are we talking about?

No its not. You can own as many firearms as you like, you can shoot your guns whenever you want, however if you want to buy a firearm from a licienced firearm dealer you will need to show proof that you have taken a firearm safety class first.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

No its not. You can own as many firearms as you like, you can shoot your guns whenever you want, however if you want to buy a firearm from a licienced firearm dealer you will need to show proof that you have taken a firearm safety class first.

You can vote whenever you want, but if you want to vote, you have to show proof that you have taken a voter education class.

You can practice however many religions you want, but if you want to practice it, you have to show proof that you have taken the religion education class.


Stupid argument is stupid. You cannot require a class for a Constitutional right. No other right requires a class or a license.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by slateman

You can vote whenever you want, but if you want to vote, you have to show proof that you have taken a voter education class.

You can practice however many religions you want, but if you want to practice it, you have to show proof that you have taken the religion education class.


Stupid argument is stupid. You cannot require a class for a Constitutional right. No other right requires a class or a license.

And voting can be dangerous as well.

[Drex17]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

And I feel that your belief that our current system is great, is irresponcable and unsafe. I shoot at least once a month and EVERY TIME I go to the range I see at least 1 unsafe act because people either lack basic firearm training or they willing choose to be unsafe. We have teh means to improve we should do it.

and every time I go out of my house I see some stupid and life threatening action taken by the driver of a car, and we require licensing and even a proficiency test to get behind the wheel of a car. You can't keep stupid people from being stupid.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

We don't spend that much.

Well that's a relief because for a while I thought we had a $16.4 trillion debt.

[TheSilentAssassin]

I will be continuing to ignore blake. I hope you all do as well.

[barrel roll]

Until he says something that spins my ears.

[ripdisc]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

Don't respond to people who clearly just make things up.

"The Obama administration spent more money (18 billion) on immigration enforcement in the last fiscal year than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report on the government's …USA Today · 1 day ago"

"Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama signed into law Sunday a $9.7 billion Superstorm "

clearly making things up...thats what i could find looking back 3 days...

also Silentassassin GDP doesn't include government debt...

[slateman]

Congress was the one who voted on that Superstorm

And how did President Obama's administration spend more than law enforcement on immigration enforcement if it didn't go to law enforcement? If you approve 18 billion and then divide it up between several law enforcement agencies, I guess none of them are going to spend more than 18 billion, huh ...

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I will be continuing to ignore blake. I hope you all do as well.

Yes just ignore it and the debt will go away just like magic. Liberal logic works.

[ripdisc]

Originally Posted by slateman

Congress was the one who voted on that Superstorm

And how did President Obama's administration spend more than law enforcement on immigration enforcement if it didn't go to law enforcement? If you approve 18 billion and then divide it up between several law enforcement agencies, I guess none of them are going to spend more than 18 billion, huh ...

i was mostly commenting that i have seen a lot of spending. someone said i made it up so i pulled up those.

"Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949."
"Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP" both from USnews. so obviously it is getting spent...

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by slateman

And how did President Obama's administration spend more than law enforcement on immigration enforcement if it didn't go to law enforcement? If you approve 18 billion and then divide it up between several law enforcement agencies, I guess none of them are going to spend more than 18 billion, huh ...

What?

[Murph1329]

guns people....this thread is about guns

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by ripdisc

also Silentassassin GDP doesn't include government debt...

Lol, what? That was a graph of spending as a proportion of GDP. As you can see, we spend much less proportionally compared to most industrialized nations. If you look at our debt, it's the same story. We have much less proportional debt than most industrial countries. The GOP narrative of us as this spending, debt-creating, out-of-control machine is blatantly false. It sounds all big and scary when you put out "16.5 trillion!!!" with no context, but in reality our debt and spending is fine.

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

What?

My thoughts exactly

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Murph1329

guns people....this thread is about guns

Nothing to talk about. Ban is going to happen. If not this year than the next. Neither presidental candidate will oppose it in 2016