• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

You might be right. I don't pretend to be able to predict how SCOTUS would come down on such an issue. At the very least I don't think it's unconstitutional on its face. My thought is that we have the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to do so at the lowest possible cost. If states can charge sales tax on guns and ammo, and the government can require background checks (which impose some form of cost that is passed on to the gun owner), why can't the government require the payment of insurance? I think it should be constitutional to require gun owners to internalize some of the external costs the exercise of their right imposes on society. Falls into the same realm of reasonable restrictions on rights like restrictions on libelous or provocative speech - the enumerated right can be restricted so that its exercise does not infringe on the rights of others. But I'm just brainstorming, I don't claim to be an expert on second amendment law.

Sales tax is one thing, as is the Pittman-Robertson Act excise tax that helps keep the wild places wild. But I think a $500 fee to just apply for an ownership permit (not concealed carry) for a handgun in NYC is dubious (do not get me going on NY's Sullivan Act). If you feel like having a good read, look up "Emily Gets Her Gun" from the Washington Times, where she documents the trials, tribulations and costs of dealing with purchasing a handgun in post-Heller DC.
 
Number 4 would be a problem. Heller and McDonald struck down storage that would render a firearm useless, and requiring insurance on a right that is enumerated might be a bit of a stretch.....

Why? Writers, papers and others take out libel insurance. Free speech is an enumerated right.
 
Looks like most of them are in the North/Northeast and California. And Chicago, of course. Not surprising.
 
Only crazy people fear a gun registry.

Sane people understand if the government wanted to take you out they could. A registry is of no consequence.
 
Looks like most of them are in the North/Northeast and California. And Chicago, of course. Not surprising.

Just to be clear everyone, this is what SMUDeac is dismissing as "Chicago, of course"

2iizfgm.png
 
Looks like most of them are in the North/Northeast and California. And Chicago, of course. Not surprising, because that's where most of the population is. Weird that the South has a lot more than you'd expect given their population numbers compared to the rest of the country

fixed.
 
Looks like most of them are in the North/Northeast and California. And Chicago, of course. Not surprising.

you may be a smart person overall, but on this topic you are one stupid bastard
 
"The documents released today say that investigators found more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition – not 1,400 – in the home of Nancy Lanza and her son, Adam."

"Authorities found in Lanza's home a holiday card with a check made out to him "for the purchase of a C183 (firearm), authored by (his mother) Nancy Lanza," documents released today show."

"Investigators found a gun safe in shooter Adam Lanza's room"


And that kid in A Christmas Story is sweating a Red Rider BB gun. Sissy.
 
"The documents released today say that investigators found more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition – not 1,400 – in the home of Nancy Lanza and her son, Adam."

"Authorities found in Lanza's home a holiday card with a check made out to him "for the purchase of a C183 (firearm), authored by (his mother) Nancy Lanza," documents released today show."

"Investigators found a gun safe in shooter Adam Lanza's room"


And that kid in A Christmas Story is sweating a Red Rider BB gun. Sissy.

Irresponsible and offensive journalism. This is like revealing how much land he owned.

Plus, he needed all that to defend himself.
 
Back
Top