No, I want to make it impossible to own any thing but a single shot rifle, a shotgun, or a low capacity handgun. And I want ownership of those to reflect their real cost through internalizing their external costs via insurance.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow States to have citizens militias in contemplation of no national standing army. This was important to Southern States because they feared slave rebellions. I fully comprehend that.
I think handguns and the legitimate sporting weapons would be relatively still be relatively affordable. Drop the tax if we’re williing to use something else for increased mental health funding. Tax third or fourth gun purchases in each category. You just need to get the total number of guns, even those with a legitimate purpose down.
Originally Posted by TexTushHog
TTH here you go making assumptions. Two of which are grossly incorrect. First, your solution to trim down ownership of what you perceive as dangerous firearms mimics Swedish and Norwegian law. So explain Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 mass murders.
Secondly, I find it ironic that you are completely devoid of any appreciation of the liberties you enjoy. You simply take them for granted. Such was the beauty and brilliance of the Founding Fathers in that the guarantees they placed lack any acknowledgement or understanding as to why they were initiated. You can go on about your static life and never understand why a soldier isn't knocking down your door, confiscating your food, and diminishing your liberties. You assume it can never happen here. Well it cannot as long as the 2A is understood and not tampered with. The 2A was placed and written in such a wording that the populace could have firearms that could offer resistance to an out of control government just in case something did go wrong...so that citizens could have a last say. It's the elephant in the room placed there for this specific reason. This was extremely important to them, and still is. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Fathers knew this and placed this guarantee so that an opposite reaction could manifest itself should events dictate.
I quote an author who saw both sides of this issue in real life, that uniquely defines your positions.
"The greatest guilt of today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!"
—
Ayn Rand
