So, in your mind, a "common sense" gun control measure would be to pass a constitutional amendment nullifying the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd amendment isn't very well written and is woefully outdated, so, yeah. It's pretty common sense to fix stuff that is broken.
It's really not, it's just that some don't like the freedom it grants. One could argue that the freedom of speech is outdated and has no place in today's society....it would be just about the same as arguing that the 2nd amendment is outdated. Even if we've forgotten the reason why a freedom was important doesn't mean it is no longer important.
So with this logic and as a doctor how do you feel about motorcycles. 37 times more likely to die on one. Broken clavicle, shoulders, spine all sorts of issues. We have a form of socialized medicine now, we all share the costs or punitive for behavior? It currently isn't even illegal to ride without a helmet. As a responsible rider who wears protective gear I think my danger tax should be less.
Insurance for a motorcycle is substantially higher than auto insurance. Would you support gun owners having to purchase insurance for their firearms similar to a car or vehicle or an employer? I say some of this tongue and cheek. A tax would eliminate some of the negative external costs, but it would also cause a host of other issues and I do not believe that the American people would agree to it.
Lay off the Constitution.... the Second Amendment is a foundation of the US culture. I do agree that it is poorly written when viewed through the modern eye.
No it isn't. It is very high for teenagers with sport bikes because when they dump it it costs thousands to fix. I pay 350 a year for bike and 1800 for my car.
Really? Have we developed semi-automatic speech weapons? Are people slaughtering each other in the streets with words?
The freedom of speech is the reason that "hate" groups can spread their hate. Every freedom has a cost, but Americans overwhelmingly value their freedom above the potential security benefits to losing those freedoms. Why were so many Americans against the Patriot Act? It took away freedoms for perceived increases in security. I know that some don't agree that guns can be used for self defense, but I'd argue that a lot of Americans feel safer if they know they aren't completely defenseless and reliant on the police....believe it or not, all Americans don't trust the police to protect them. Anyway, keep fighting the good fight for the 2nd amendment to be shredded, but I highly doubt it'll ever happen. You'd probably be better off saving your money and moving to a country that values security over that particular freedom.
There's a difference between an accident and a murder. Mass shootings happen all the time. I can't remember the last time I heard about someone killing 6 people by running over them with a motorcycle.
You may very well, depending on a variety of factors. I deal with PI cases involving motorcycles and depending on the type of insurance, the policy limits and whether it is full cover or only liability all figure in, including the type of bike you have. Insurance companies have figured out the total cost of riders versus the total amount of premiums paid to calculate the cost. The amount paid is a reflection of that. Experience of the driver also figures in the cost. There are some people paying 5-10 times what you pay.
I agree but the conversation was about the associated costs to society being offset with punitive taxes. Because I ride I thought about bikes. If we are being serious a cost to society tax should start with a fat tax.
The main cost is collision because most motorcycles accidents are single vehicle. Young riders on sportbikes where if you drop it at 5mph can be a total loss are expensive. Up to hundreds a month. This case is the minority of motorcycles. The vast majority pay much less than auto.
I don't disagree with that, it is far easier to total a bike. So it depends on the type of bike you have and the type of policy you have. A liability policy will not cost much. However if you have full coverage with a moderate deductible and have a high medical limit; it will be fairly expensive because if you are in a bad accident on a bike, it can be very costly.
I have full coverage. On average motorcycle insurance is much cheaper. The extreme outlier are sport bikes with thousands of dollars worth of plastics off the side driven by an 18 year old fresh out of MSF. Inspection is also cheaper. Tolls aren't which angers me until a moron kills himself on the Westpark tollway like a few days ago and jams the entire thing for hours.
Once again we do not need to remove or amend the 2nd Amendment to put in regulation that restrict types of firearms and ammunition, registration and even restrictions on who can own firearms. Regarding Nook's idea of a tax there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prevent taxing, licensing, or insuring on firearms.
The high tax option wouldn't work for the same reason poll taxes won't work. As to restricting the types of firearms and ammo....that does nothing at all to prevents situations like this from happening. The guy used a standard pistol and ammo was irrelevant because he shot them multiple times including head shots. As to restricting who can own firearms, it depends on the restriction as to if it would be constitutional, and I'm pretty sure this guy didn't have anything in his record that would have barred him from owning firearms. People are dangerous and can hurt people. If you want to live in a free nation, you'll have to deal with the possibility of someone using their freedom to hurt others. It's just the cost of that freedom. If that is unacceptable to you, start saving that money and find some place that better represents your values.
Sure there is. The part that says "shall not be infringed." It'd be up to the courts to interpret that and decide whether a tax or regulation would be an infringement. Maybe they'd decide no, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there's nothing there at all. Maybe removing the amendment is overkill, but it sure would be a slam dunk for allowing for real regulation of firearms.
