Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Page 2 of 13  
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.
Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies who have to clean up the mess after a shooting.
And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type pieces.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying firearms that they have never shot?

And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?

Which presumably you've never shot if you don't have any problem with a box of shells costing 250 bucks.
By the way, how much tax would you charge on a can of powder or a box of primers? And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel weights?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

I guess you assume they will never be shot.
As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your definition of "benefits".
A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.

I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.

Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but impossible.
The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat ballast was a total PITA.
Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.
Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at 10 bucks a shot?

Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few less innocent people being shot"?

So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you believe that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?

Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?

Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel behind the tire store.

Uh huh.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Not relevant.

It might.

Read and try to understand what was written.

They get processed by authorized hazmat organizations.

These days it is a hazmat operation.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

It is to the question of whether they have shot the gun they are carrying. You asked me why they would not have shot it and I gave a reason.

By what mechanism? "It might" is not or should not be sufficient justification for legislation.

You're the one who said that it was better than the _nothing_ that we have now.

Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of brand new wheel weights?

In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire store in the US.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Simple.
As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of participants.
At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost of a usable weapon.

The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.
Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim them for another purpose.

Totally unnecessary.
The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.
Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves to hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to eliminate by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses but tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your church to get in.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

eliminate
but
I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something *is* enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years, population and society have changed significantly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.
Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today who would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to do so.
You may say that you see a moral difference between the right to free speech and the right to bear arms -- there are those who see the right to free speech as something that is outmoded and should be subject to strict "guidelines" that prevent giving offense to various protected groups.
The fact is, that there are those now who say that the freedom enshrined in the Constitution is no longer relevant and that the Constitution is an impediment to the government exercising more control over our lives (for our good of course -- it's always for our good). *That* is exactly why the Constitution was established as it was -- to protect us from those who would enslave us "for our own good". Just because the excuses given for that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of tyrannical behavior has not changed.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't argue with that, except to say that maybe the means of self defense should be changed if that is at all possible.

who
do
No argument.

I agree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

One day, one might rely on the other.

And you know what, there is a mechanism to change anything that is outdated. If someone wants to remove the 2nd amendment, they can go through the defined process. But they're not going to backdoor it with the moronic idea of taxing ammo.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Upscale" wrote

But, reading any literature from the past thousand years for ample proof, human nature has not changed one iota. :)
Currently reading de Balzac's prolific series "Human Comedy", volumes upon volumes depicting life/characters in France in the early 1800's, like "Cousin Pons", "Eugenie Gaudet" and/or "Cousin Betty" for starters, ... English translations abound:
http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#balzacho
All characters are someone you immediately know, or recognize, today ... in the latter above, you would swear you were reading about Ms. Ciccone ... :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lord of the Flies. Guess it comes down to we're basically animals at heart and doomed to always be so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. Started reading Gibbon again shortly after the election and it is actually giving me some hope that we have actually made some progress.
tom
Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Take Nigeria, for example ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

So how many firearms costing less than 60 dollars are sold in a given year? And how many people are shot with them?
Prove that the problem your solution will address is the problem that exists.

So you're saying that new wheelweights cost $100 an ounce?

Then you need to get out more.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

You tell me.

Be my guest.

Don't think so.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Why? You're the one proposing a new law--it's up to you to demonstrate that it will do what you claim it will. If you don't have the numbers to back your assertion then you're talking out your ass.

Why should I prove that your solution addresses the problem that you claim exists?

Then how is it that buying wheel weights at a store for purposes of casting bullets for reloading purposes is not cost effective when you are charging your ten dollar a bullet tax?
You really don't seem to have even tried to think this idea of yours through and when challenged to do so you fall back on glib responses and attempts to shift the burden of proof. I am curious as to why you are so resistant to examining your own views.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.