It's definitely feasible. Make it more expensive to reflect the true cost. Demand softens. Supply decreases.
Again, all that does is create a thriving black market and in a roundabout way strips rights from those who would own lawfully. If a poll tax is an infringement, what you are suggesting is an infringement as well. You can't pick and choose which rights it is okay to infringe upon and those which it is not okay to infringe upon. Either no constitutionally guaranteed rights are okay to be infringed upon or all of them are okay to be infringed upon. That's just how it works.
It's definitely feasible. Make it more expensive to reflect the true cost. Demand softens. Supply decreases.
Just so we're clear, you are supporting re-instituting poll taxes in order to reflect the true cost of poor and stupid people being allowed to vote? You want to soften demand for voting?
It's definitely feasible. Make it more expensive to reflect the true cost. Demand softens. Supply decreases.
The United States Code conveniently defines the militia for us as every male between the ages of 17 and 45 who is a citizen of the United States or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the United States, plus every female citizen of the United States who is a member of the national guard. So male citizens of the United States between the ages of 17 and 45 have the right to keep and bear arms (according to your reading of the Constitution). I don't think there is going to be much support for gun control laws that affect only non-citizens, over the hill men, and women.
Good, so we'll update that while we're at it. And those over-the-hill men are the core constituency for gun lobby, btw.
Why do liberals think they have a right to interpret the constitution to fit their agenda? Nothing needs reinterpretation. If you want to amend the constitution, feel free to research what it takes. In other words, its not happening anytime soon. Add this to the list of idiotic ideas on how to deal with gun control.
Republicans do the same thing. Scalia played fast and loose with the Constitution for decades and then railed on the other Justices for not be Originalists. Having said that, it is not at all likely that guns are going to be banned or severely restricted for "normal" people.
If only America had politicians that threatened to take away our books. Imagine how literate we would become!
"Daddy, that man in the fancy tie said he is gonna make us read!" "Not my boy, he ain't reading a damn thing except the Bible and the Turner Diaries."
Why do they not have that right? If you want conservative to give up that right, go ahead and be my guess. I don't think justices will be doing that anytime soon.
I know that guy. He's my neighbor. He has two bumper stickers on his truck: one that says "Secede" and another that says "Support the troops" which is still very confusing to me.
90%+ want expanded universal check. NRA and gun nuts block expanded universal check. That, my friend, is not willing to do anything. Culture doesn't apply to law. As for people reaction- I doubt that laws to regulate gun ownership to non-criminals, mentally stable folks and those not suspicious of being terrorist is going to bring on much of any social unrest. I also doubt banning some guns is going to do that. Even outright banning gun for civilian use is unlikely to bring on a civil war in today USA.
As part of a well regulated militia, for the reason of security of a free State. You just agreed to those points a few posts ago.
No, it doesn't say that as part of a militia, it says that since a militia is necessary for the security of a free state that the government won't infringe on THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. The right was always the right of the people and the people are potential militia members even if there isn't currently a need to have a militia formed. If there was a need, then the people would bring their arms and form the militia. They can't do that if they are unable to keep or bear arms. The second amendment is clearly talking about an individual right, if it wasn't it wouldn't declare itself to be a "right of the people", it would say "right of the militia" or "right of the government" or "right of the National Gaurd" or "right of only those 3 people". This isn't difficult stuff man.
Culture doesn't apply to law? What do you think law is based on? Yeah.... You outright ban guns in the United States and there will be a lot of blood shed and a lot of otherwise good people will become criminals. I cannot convey how strongly a sizeable amount of Americans treasure the right to own firearms. Is it rationale? I no longer even try to debate whether it is rationale, it is just the reality.
I haven't said anything about universal background checks, I think that is something likely to happen. I am talking about banning or severely restricting gun ownership in the USA, or calls for a $5 tax per round, anything of that sort would be a disaster in the current USA.
