The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Commodore]

I'm willing to compromise on the any firearm of my choice thing by saying the government would be obligated to provide free firearms that are at least equivalent to the current standard issue rifle or sidearm used by the military. So right now that would be an AR-15 or the SIG P320 pistol that was just adopted by the US Army. People would have a choice as to whether they want a free rifle or free pistol.

 

[El_Machinae]

Or, we don't want to tax our betters at appropriate levels.

Poor government is a self-fufilling prophecy since the states that don't believe the government is the problem will tend to discourage their best and brightest from getting those jobs

 

[Bamspeedy]

I'm willing to compromise on the any firearm of my choice thing by saying the government would be obligated to provide free firearms that are at least equivalent to the current standard issue rifle or sidearm used by the military. So right now that would be an AR-15 or the SIG P320 pistol that was just adopted by the US Army. People would have a choice as to whether they want a free rifle or free pistol.

Like Switzerland. Guns for everybody only works with mandatory military service, so everyone is properly trained with said guns as well.
Along with proper government support in dealing with mental issues that the US lacks.....

 

[Commodore]

Like Switzerland. Guns for everybody only works with mandatory military service, so everyone is properly trained with said guns as well.
Along with proper government support in dealing with mental issues that the US lacks.....

I would just keep the current background check system in place that we have now. And the guns wouldn't just be given to people automatically, they would have to request it, much like applying for any other government provided benefit. That way anyone who doesn't want to have a gun won't have it forced on them by the government. When they request it, they would fill out the 4473 and have their background check done just like when they go to purchase a gun now.

 

[Bamspeedy]

The problem is with no training is you have people getting them that dont know how to use them, they just 'want them'.

Darwin if they kill themselves, but often it kills someone else (I'm talking accidental and rage cases here, not legit self defense), kids get access to them, etc.

 

[Arwon]

Nope, because those aren't essential to exercising your right to vote.

Doesn't change the fact that any argument used to claim something like poll taxes or taxing the church should also apply to all Constitutional rights.

Pens and paper was about free expression. By this same logic the tools of expressing oneself would have to be tax exempt as well.

I'm also not sure church non-taxation is actually explicitly confirmed in the USA to be unconstitutional, it just hasn't ever been done, just like in a lot of other countries because non-taxation of NFPs is a pretty common norm..

 

[Arwon]

Thinking about it, also, I'd be surprised if absolutely no religious organisations were paying any form of tax just because they're exempt from property and business taxes. They'd probably be paying or subject to some sales taxes at the very least.

 

[Commodore]

I'm also not sure church non-taxation is actually explicitly confirmed in the USA to be unconstitutional, it just hasn't ever been done, just like in a lot of other countries because non-taxation of NFPs is a pretty common norm

You're right, it's not explicitly stated. If I remember my high school civics class correctly, not taxing churches is generally considered a violation of the 1st Amendment since, if they were so inclined, the government could tax religions they found to be "undesirable" out of existence, hindering people's ability to freely worship.

I can't remember if there are any specific legal cases establishing this or if it's just a "this is how we've always done it" type thing.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So basically communism, but only where it concerns guns.

 

[Commodore]

So basically communism, but only where it concerns guns.

Well the communists did make some pretty good guns so...

 

[Berzerker]

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and our rights exist within that framework. That means guns, Bibles, crucifixes, property, 'liberty', press/publications, etc can all be taxed. I imagine the courts would be concerned only with whether or not the tax is excessive.

 

[choxorn]

I'm with El Machinae, if this interpretation of the 2nd amendment is correct, then the amendment itself needs to be changed, because it's not a remotely sensible proposal.

And if it means the government has to give you any gun you want by this free guns program, why stop at guns? Does keep and bear arms mean any kind of weapon? Does the government also have to provide you with an M1 Abrams Tank, or a Surface-to-Air Missile Launcher, or an F-16, or an ICBM if you ask for it? Those are all "arms," are they not?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Also surely a right does not necessarily imply an entitlement. You might have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say anyone's obliged to provide them for you, let alone at no cost to yourself. And what If all the manufacturers decided to move into manufacturing toasters instead because it was more profitable? Are you then going to conscript people into making guns against their will to maintain the supply?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

So basically communism, but only where it concerns guns.

You act shocked as if we haven't already implemented socialism but for big business lol

 

[cardgame]

Also surely a right does not necessarily imply an entitlement. You might have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say anyone's obliged to provide them for you, let alone at no cost to yourself. And what If all the manufacturers decided to move into manufacturing toasters instead because it was more profitable? Are you then going to conscript people into making guns against their will to maintain the supply?

What could be more American?

 

[amadeus]

Churches are tax-exempt because they are 501(c)(3) organizations, not because the Bill of Rights prohibits their taxation.

Neither taxing nor the supply of ink, newsprint, etc. violates/is mandated by it either.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also surely a right does not necessarily imply an entitlement. You might have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say anyone's obliged to provide them for you, let alone at no cost to yourself. And what If all the manufacturers decided to move into manufacturing toasters instead because it was more profitable? Are you then going to conscript people into making guns against their will to maintain the supply?

On the other hand, the state does apparently feel some obligation to provide an attorney to those who can't afford one, due to them having a right to representation. I'm certainly not in favor of this chicken in every pot and a gun in every hand nonsense, but there are precedents that could be applied to make it look good.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

On the other hand, the state does apparently feel some obligation to provide an attorney to those who can't afford one, due to them having a right to representation. I'm certainly not in favor of this chicken in every pot and a gun in every hand nonsense, but there are precedents that could be applied to make it look good.

But that's in a case where the state has the power to force you into a situation where an attorney is required (or at least it's your right to have one). If they can force you into that situation then it's fair that they also provision your access to a relevant right. If they make gun ownership or gun training mandatory then at that point they'd be obliged to provide you a firearm, but unless something like that happens I can't see why they would be obliged to provide you with a gun (or a sword, or a pike, or nunchuks).

 

[Lexicus]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/blue-live...5rqJiMGtape9Wwk3-A6FlueyxFbGcWXk2VIbDQXLM863I

Blue Lives Matter supporters arrested with slew of firearms outside Kenosha after police received tip about possible shooting, DOJ says

Two Missouri men were arrested on firearm charges after a tipster warned law enforcement the pair were traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, with assault-style weapons, according to court documents.

Michael M. Karmo, 40, and Cody E. Smith, 33, were arrested at a hotel near Kenosha on Tuesday and charged with illegal possession of firearms, the Department of Justice announced Thursday. According to the criminal complaint against them, they were found with a major cache of firearms and weapons in their vehicle and hotel room that included an AR-15, a shotgun, handguns, a dagger, a saw and magazines.

 

[EgonSpengler]

But that's in a case where the state has the power to force you into a situation where an attorney is required (or at least it's your right to have one). If they can force you into that situation then it's fair that they also provision your access to a relevant right. If they make gun ownership or gun training mandatory then at that point they'd be obliged to provide you a firearm, but unless something like that happens I can't see why they would be obliged to provide you with a gun (or a sword, or a pike, or nunchuks).

I'd have to look it up, but I always thought the right to an attorney was part of your right to a fair trial. Since the state names a licensed attorney to represent its side of the case against you, you need one to represent your side of the case.

The provision of a gun would come with being a soldier, especially a conscripted one. iirc, in days of yore - Medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, I'm not sure about the pre-industrial Asian armies - soldiers had to buy their own weapons and armor. In the US today, you couldn't send someone to fight for the country and ask them to bring their own gun.