View Single Post
Old 01-26-2013, 09:24 AM   #42
ScottXray
Opinionated A******
 
ScottXray's Avatar
 
We will NOT lose!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PDX (Portland OR)
Posts: 5,950

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Off. CENTER
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
I have a few issues:

1. Do you really think hunting and sport is the reason the second amendment exists? If not, you can't use that to justify what people can have.

2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

4. Why is this Fed Gov domain? Let the states face this issue.
1. No, but I believe that the peoples right to keep and bear arms comes with certain responsibilites. Having to pay a license fee and pass a background check for certain 'special weapons" such as machine guns ( already in place), "assault" type weapons, extremely large bore rifles and cannons, or bazookas for instance, is both prudent and reasonable.

2. Laws and amendments are two separate things. Changing a law requires an act of congress and or state legislature, whereas changing or eliminating an ammendment requires passage by 3/4 of the states ( generally). Making a fee a requirement to own "special" weapons is already a well established
law. What we are talking about is describing a certain type of weapon as a "special" class. A $250 fee is not unreasonable for weapons that typically cost between 1.5 to 3K. More important is the background check.
Other than a proposal to ban >10 round magazines, and to limit future sales
of assault weapons to only federally licensed dealers, how does my proposal
limit anyone that currently has such weapons? It does not require anyone to turn in magazines ( although it compensates anyone that voluntarily does so), and it does not ban such weapons.
While I agree that current owners are mostly honest and law abiding, there are those that are not. Many have illegally modified their semiautomatic weapons to make them full automatic capable. ( illegal) Limiting their ability to sell their weapons to licensed dealers only, does not affect their right to own them. Only future purchases/sales are affected, and the value will actually go up over time.

3. I agree that you can't stop people from doing things they intend to do. You can make it more difficult.

4. It is federal because of the 2nd amendment itself, which is what guarantees the "right " to keep and bear arms. This supersedes state law.
ScottXray is offline   Reply With Quote