Dane Allen wrote on 04/18/13 at 12:32:34:srinath wrote on 04/18/13 at 11:50:42:Because the assumption that when everyone is armed everyone is safe is fundamentally wrong.
The proof is that when everyone is unarmed, no one is safe. This is not an assumption, this is proven in the real world.
Quote:Armed people like the prison warden get killed too.
Unarmed people in malls and movie theatres get killed too.
Quote:If we have $100 bullet, the shooter will have to spend several 10's of 1000's to do a rampage (...fool speak deleted....)
Not the illegal, immoral, unworkable, illogical, irresponsible $100 per bullet tax joke again!! Did you forget this makes no sense already???
Quote:My idea is not to take away anyone's gun.
No, just to make sure they can't use it. Like you don't want to take away anyone's newspapers you just want to take away all the ink. They can still get the blank newspaper and so the 1st ammendment is upheld. You don't want to violate anyone's privacy, you just want to examine and catalog all their stuff.
Quote:Lets compare these 2 ... you got a DUI ... guess what your insurance will be ... yes several 100 more ... if not several 1000, how much would you pay in fines ? how much in court fees ?
The $100 bullet = same thing. No one is touching your second amendment. You can keep and bear arms ... who said otherwise ? You can kill someone who attacks you. Your famous "department of bullet returns" was it will give you bullet after your trial unless you shot the cable guy.
Can't compare DUI because driving is a priviledge and we have a 2nd Ammendment right to own guns. If your argument holds up then you can use another ammendment to make the comparison. Use freedom of religion or freedom of association to compare. Like a $100 tax on practicing Catholics or a $100 tax on being gay, to compare to your $100 tax on bullets.
Quote:It will just be very $$$ to random kill and that is even before you have thought about killing someone. Random mass killing even more $$$$$.
The government has $$$$$ and another $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, what stops them from saying "we will do the mass killing" like has happened in all those other places?
No Dane when no one is armed everyone is safe ... when one bad guy is armed is when the whole equation goes belly up.
Armed people getting killed is the example I am using for "being armed doesn't protect you or your family".
The $100 or other appropriate big number - maybe 20, maybe 50, maybe 200 ... will be a good hurdle to stop mass killings, you've done nothing to change that line of thinking. You are squealing like pig about it, makes me realize it will really work, but just inconvenience you like hell. Sorry I've already called several congress men and senators offices about it and suggested it.
The first amendment isn't evoked by the newspaper. Its individual level. Its irrelevant in the sense you have used it. Your rights are not infringed by taking your newspaper ... its the newspapers rights that have been infringed. OK OK you have paid for the thing. That is stealing - it would be violating the first commandment not the 1st amendment.
The right to drive is in the constitution - "You've heard or "pursuit of happiness" have you ? when the whole world has to drive, there aint no pursuit without driving. That is why judges allow people to drive to work and back with the first DUI. 2 within a year or something like that ... you lose it.
If the govt wanted to kill you ... they could do so in seconds ... they could level your state, city, block, house ... anything and that is without even thinking of the bullets they have bought recently. You will never have the kind of arms they have ... not even if you were another country. Your guns are for killing your neighbor and eating him after the govt levels your state.
Same points over and over again ... sheesh. The last 6 months have been the same dumb ideas just different posters. And almost the same lies ... atleast you're not saying that abortion is hurting women cos 1/2 the babies aborted are girls.
Cool.
Srinath.
Pages: 
