• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook: Beyond gun control, disease control

I am. What I am is a libertarian in the complete, European sense - friendly to non-government labor unions and workers' co-operatives, sympathetic to the rural poor, in favor of political equanimity. What I am not is an Austrian clone who reads Rand or Mises and goes off thinking I'm some rugged individual, like the millions of other rugged individuals out there.


a leftwing populist-aka a socialist. you hate individual freedom
 
Funny. The day before he committed the crime he had every right to own those firearms and a lot more besides. He apparently wasn't crazy then.

True, but that won't get more gov't and a gunpowder tax too. The idea is to use the latest "crisis" to expand gov't and/or taxation. Get with the program. :)
 
Once more, with feeling: do you want to prevent there from being a massive public backlash against gun ownership? Then you must be prepared to give a little. This principle of 'noncompromise' on the Right has done it more harm than anything else I can think of.

Better a gunpowder tax than an assault weapons ban.
an assault weapon ban is political suicide for the deems
and why should we give up rights when we give nothing in return

its like telling we will allow you to speak against the government if you pay a tax everytime you do
 
what do the gun haters like you give in return? given we have the constitution on our side TWICE

1) there is no proper power delegated to the federal government to regulate small arms-your side ignored the tenth amendment under FDR and grabbed that power

1. "My side"? I'd have voted against Roosevelt in every election save 1932, and then only residually, as a holdover Al Smith voter in 1928.

2. Congress has the authority to regulate and tax gunpowder sales as it does everything else. Note that I'm not calling for additional taxes on guns.

2) the second amendment.

Gunpowder is mentioned nowhere in it.

each year gun haters like you want to take more from us and give us nothing in return

Take your pity-party elsewhere.
 
1. "My side"? I'd have voted against Roosevelt in every election save 1932, and then only residually, as a holdover Al Smith voter in 1928.

2. Congress has the authority to regulate and tax gunpowder sales as it does everything else. Note that I'm not calling for additional taxes on guns.



Gunpowder is mentioned nowhere in it.



Take your pity-party elsewhere.

your suggestion is stupid, irrational and based on hatred.

it does nothing positive and is designed to make shooting sports too expensive for most people

arms includes bullets and gun powder.
 
the idiotic posts from the left are getting beyond pathetic.

I'm just trying to reassure all of you fretting about your guns. You have nothing to worry about. The NRA sets gun policy in this country, not the people.
 
a leftwing populist-aka a socialist. you hate individual freedom

"Populism" in the United States refers broadly to socially conservative economic redistributivism. I favor localization and worker's co-operatives operated independently of all State interference - precisely the opposite of American populism. There's little more free than voluntary association.
 
your suggestion is stupid, irrational and based on hatred.

it does nothing positive and is designed to make shooting sports too expensive for most people

arms includes bullets and gun powder.

I see you've been reduced to sputtering epithets. It's all good fun, my man.
 
True, but that won't get more gov't and a gunpowder tax too. The idea is to use the latest "crisis" to expand gov't and/or taxation. Get with the program. :)

Well, if that's true I'd suggest we just forget about guns, because the gun lobby calls the shots (oops) in this country. It doesn't matter how many dead 6 year olds get piled up.
 
I see you've been reduced to sputtering epithets. It's all good fun, my man.

so you are here to merely bait people? OK
 
Once more, with feeling: do you want to prevent there from being a massive public backlash against gun ownership? Then you must be prepared to give a little. This principle of 'noncompromise' on the Right has done it more harm than anything else I can think of.

Better a gunpowder tax than an assault weapons ban.

Lets just have a mother killing ban, a gun stealing ban and a mass murder ban as well. Banning heroine, cocaine and extascy worked so well, obviously banning "scary looking" guns will work too, since no criminal orgainization is likely to import and sell them. Since you cannot put that toothpaste back into the tube, and punish the (deceased) moron responsible, you seek to do the next best thing - add gov't and raise taxes. :roll:
 
Well, if that's true I'd suggest we just forget about guns, because the gun lobby calls the shots (oops) in this country. It doesn't matter how many dead 6 year olds get piled up.


that is because honest gun owners have no responsibility or guilt for what murderous criminals do. Intelligent and rational people understand that
 
Lets just have a mother killing ban, a gun stealing ban and a mass murder ban as well. Banning heroine, cocaine and extascy worked so well, obviously banning "scary looking" guns will work too, since no criminal orgainization is likely to import and sell them. Since you cannot put that toothpaste back into the tube, and punish the (deceased) moron responsible, you seek to do the next best thing - add gov't and raise taxes. :roll:

Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.

A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.
 
Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.

A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.

the power to tax is the power to destroy.

and there are other ways to destroy as well. try to destroy with one thing-and those being attacked might destroy with some other thing
 
the power to tax is the power to destroy.

The power to tax is deliberately not using the power to destroy, or else you'd have destroyed and not taxed.

Incidentally, your little threats are puerile and hilarious.
 
And again: the idea of a gunpowder tax originated in Britain. In the 1890s. In the Party that at the time was associated with low-taxes.

Though, of course, that said, in a modern context, the Democrats did win the last election. Quite handily, too, might I add.

Do you remember what happened when the British tried taxing tea?
 
The power to tax is deliberately not using the power to destroy, or else you'd have destroyed and not taxed.

Incidentally, your little threats are puerile and hilarious.

what threats-you appear to have gone from posting bait posts to paranoid ones!
 
Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.

A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.

There are reports that the shooter has an obsession with violent video games. How much should we tax them for empowering and/or desensitizing him?
 
Do you remember what happened when the British tried taxing tea?

its amazing how many of the anti gun far left hates honest gun owners more than whacked out criminals who murder defenseless teachers and children.


then again, its the lefties who make excuses for sick criminals and enable their actions by creating GUN FREE (victim disarmament) zones
 
Nobody's calling for a ban on anything, are they? Not, at least, in this thread. I'm certainly not. It is strange, though, that you'd associate a tax on a voluntary transaction which would have not been considered controversial at all in, say, 1890 or 1920 as tantamount to 'banning' something.

A tax is not a ban. And a ban is not a tax. And never the twain shall meet.

You said that a gunpowder tax was better than an assualt weapons ban, implying that was the choice being offered. I offer a third alternative - using general revenue, and explained that banning things in demand does not make them go away, it simply transfers their distribution to criminal gangs. You seem to want to transfer the cost (caring for, identifying or whaterver your plan is) of the mentally deficient onto only legal gun users, rather than simply using general revenue (aka borrowing).
 
You said that a tax was better than an assualt weapons ban, implying that was the choice being offered. I offer a third alternative - using general revenue, and explained that banning things in demand does not make them go away, it simply transfers their distribution to criminal gangs.

"Using general revenue" is less libertarian than a selective, voluntary tax on a voluntary transaction. By far the largest part of our general revenue comes from income taxes. And raising income taxes indiscriminately on everyone in order to fight gun violence, when not everyone owns guns, is as morally wrong or worse than what you're accusing me of doing.

Moreover, it's fiscally irresponsible. I doubt very seriously you actually desire expanding public mental health access, but those who do should take care when they decide to further burden the nation with debt, no matter the end they mean to achieve.

You seem to want to transfer the cost (caring for, identifying or whaterver your plan is) of the mentally deficient onto only legal gun users, rather than simply using general revenue (aka borrowing).

No, I want to transfer the cost of gun violence prevention onto those most likely to engage in gun violence - gun owners. And I think gun violence prevention, in conjunction with expanded mental health services, and in particular targeted treatment designed to prevent gun violence, is what's most pertinent here.
 
"Using general revenue" is less libertarian than a selective, voluntary tax on a voluntary transaction. By far the largest part of our general revenue comes from income taxes. And raising income taxes indiscriminately on everyone in order to fight gun violence, when not everyone owns guns, is as morally wrong or worse than what you're accusing me of doing.



No, I want to transfer the cost of gun violence prevention onto those most likely to engage in gun violence - gun owners. And I think gun violence prevention, in conjunction with expanded mental health services, and in particular targeted treatment designed to prevent gun violence, is what's most pertinent here.

You ignore one major factor, the lastest infamous mass murderer was not a gun owner at all, he stole those guns from a person that he killed (his own mother). Is it the fault of his mother that she was chosen as his first victim? Perhaps we should tax mothers, since all that commit crimes with guns have had mothers, but may not have ever bought guns.
 
You ignore one major factor, the lastest infamous mass murderer was not a gun owner at all, he stole those guns from a person that he killed (his own mother). Is it the fault of his mother that she was chosen as his first victim? Perhaps we should tax mothers, since all that commit crimes with guns have had mothers, but may not have ever bought guns.

Neither were the Columbine shooters. Someone bought their guns for them illegally. But in both cases it's possible - not inevitable, but inevitability isn't necessary in either case - that more expensive ammunition would have prevented both actions.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of a gunpowder tax. But if we're to pay for gun violence prevention and mental health coverage with an eye towards preventing gun violence, then the idea I've proposed is, by far, the fairest: let those who are most likely to engage in violent behavior pay for preventing that behavior.

Gun owners, their bloviating to the contrary, have gotten off very well in this nation. I'm not interested in changing that. I do think that they have a responsibility to themselves, however, to ensure that their own community no longer suffers scapegoating. They can do this by paying a little more for their ammunition, and by doing so without pretending that they're being martyred.
 
You ignore one major factor, the lastest infamous mass murderer was not a gun owner at all, he stole those guns from a person that he killed (his own mother). Is it the fault of his mother that she was chosen as his first victim? Perhaps we should tax mothers, since all that commit crimes with guns have had mothers, but may not have ever bought guns.

we should tax leftwingers since they tend to have similar mindsets with criminals. Liberal Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan noted that most felons vote democrat when they are allowed to vote
 
Back
Top Bottom