The Supreme Court ruled Thursday;
… that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
In embarrassing contrast, the Canadian Supremes opened for the human rights racket a whole new field of riches– the content of correspondence between a Member of Parliament and the constituent can now be assumed to fall under their jurisdiction.
Nine people complained that Pankiw made discriminatory comments about aboriginals in the pamphlet and the Canadian Human Rights Commission referred the matter to the tribunal.
The tribunal ruled it had the right to hear the case and the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal both dismissed Pankiw’s appeals.
The Speaker of the House of Commons sided with Pankiw’s argument that disagreements over political matters should be settled through the ballot box, not a rights tribunal.
And I can pretty much guarantee that three hundred plus of our elected members will decline comment on the grounds that their mouths are full of cud.
Close the borders Canada! Mean, Conservative, Bible toting Americans HAVE GUNS!
It’s sad but not surprising that 4 of the SC justices can’t read.
…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m glad that politicians are subjected to the same kangaroo court as average people.
It’s a good decision.
If the thought Nazis are able to go after us why are they exempt?
This gives the scum sucking cowards in our government a reason to do something beyond sitting around with their heads up their arses like they are now.
Take the HRC jackbooted thought police Nazis and FIRE.THEM.ALL.
What we are setting up in Canada is a supreme authority over our thoughts and speech. Imagine that. The right of each one of us to think and speak is not held by us, by each individual, but is within the control of an unelected small set of sophists: The Human Rights Commissioners. What utter arrogance that they assume that they and they alone, have the right to define what we may think and speak.
They assume, for and by themselves, that they have the supreme wisdom to define for us, what we may say, what we may write, what we may discuss with each other. They are the THOUGHT-POLICE.
Again, ad nauseum, speech is not a property that can be under the control of a legislature. Or, in this case, a small set of unelected appointees.
Speech is a natural right. That means it is fundamental to Being Human. Our knowledge base is expressed in language; we require that knowledge to live; we don’t have knowledge genetically built into us. We have to develop it, store it, and teach it to our children.
That also means that we must be able to debate, dissent, reject, accept – whatever, this information.
” A man, though wise, should never be ashamed of learning more, and must unbend his mind.
The ship that will not slacken sail, the sheets drawn tight, unyielding, overturns” (Sophocles, Antigone).
Hate, contempt, dislike – these are all subjective terms. Canada already has hate crime laws (Section 319, Criminal Code) that refer to actual violence against an actual individual. That focus on the physical ACT is all that can be legislated.
We cannot condemn ourselves to silence, we cannot reject our right to think, to express our thoughts, to debate, to examine our knowledge base.
FIRE. THEM. ALL.
In the case of this elected member..the voters decided and did not re elect him a third time. What exactly did he say in the pamphlets? Obviously for whatever reasons he was not reelected…isn’t that how we decide things in a democracy…
The totally undemocratic, fascistic, disgusting, bizarre, hateful, vial hrc tribunal will hear the case…but then he has no right of appeal to the real courts???is this the senerio? This will effect any communication and all communication between elected members and us, you and me as their constituents…and anything they ever ever say will be constrained by this precident? Is that it?
Yea for the U.S. and legal gun ownership…toronto is banning ownership of guns of any legal kind in the city limits…
If one of the conservative judges passes on during the Obama administration, there will be plenty of cases popping up in a big hurry. With a liberal senate, and congress, and a newly structured supreme court, Obama might end up being the most influential president in recent history. Probably not in a good way. Sort of like Trudeau being the most influential Prime Minister, and damaging Canada almost beyond repair.
Owning a gun might not make you safe, but it can make you feel safe. I used to carry a (legally permitted) handgun in grizzly bear country while doing oilfield surveys. I was fully aware that it was inadequate for facing a full grown bear, but it gave me enough confidence to do my job without that nagging fear. Bears, and criminals can sense that fear. I’d be willing to bet the number of home invasions will drop off dramatically in DC.
I’m pleased to see how far these HRC’s think they can go with their power. They’ve just embarked on a two front war. They’re going after citizens and government at the same time. They can’t win this one.
I’ve contended for a long time that as the number of actual racists continues to dwindle, Human Rights Commissions would have to redefine racism to include statements that no sane person would ever consider to be racist, in order to justify their continuing existence.
In the case of Jim Pankiw, “racist speech” may now include referring to the billions given to Indian Reserves as “handouts”, criticizing race-based exemptions from taxes, and calling for the abolition of the Indian Act.
Fire. Them. All. Now.
The Canadian HRC disaster is bad enough, but this latest ruling is jaw droppingly bad. Ya’ll are well on your way to ensuring that the people who actually rule you, and it is going to be rule and not lead, are the only arbiters of what can be said by anyone.
The proofs that this whole exercise was a horrible idea are piling up and the ones in favor of it keep doubling down.
But let’s not forget that no legal right is absolute. From the US Supreme Court’s decision:
“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not…Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
QE,
Your right to keep breathing is supject to limits.
What’s your point?
No suprises here gentel readers,
“they came for the writers, I did not object as I was not a writer,they came for the M P’s ….. you-all can see where this is headed.
FIRE THEM ALL
cheers Bubba
I’d like to point out that “cud” is simply a masticated substance that, mere moments before was green and clean and pure. What issues from MOST judges mouths’ these days is indicative more of several hours into and dozens of feet on through that initial process.
It is indeed refreshing to see the U.S. Supremes actually side with the United States CONSTITUTION (what a concept?) for a change although, clearly, 4 of them still DON’T GET IT.
As to OUR proud Canadian and Provincial Human Rights (SS) Tribunals and Commissions … well even all those field-deposited post-masticated brown lumps have a purpose. Somebody, if they know, please clue us in on any purpose of these idiots and YES – write to your MP. Chewing their cud or not if enough letters arrive they will begin to clue in that the herd is pissed and maybe think about doing something before it gets completely out of hand.
A suggestion: Posting ALL their insane decisions on International NEWS and web-blog sites will also bring scorn and ridicule – two substances that are deadlier than garlic to blood-sucking vampires – a species they obviously emulate.
“And I can pretty much guarantee that three hundred plus of our elected members will decline comment on the grounds that their mouths are full of cud.”
True.
Of course, we have now made hateful and bigoted comments about an identifiable group. I expect GT to file a HR complaint.
the United States respects and upholds liberty while Canada goes out of its way to erode personal freedom….
Canada is on a slippery slope to absolute communism
QE – what’s your point? We already have Hate Speech laws in our criminal code, Section 319, which refer to specific acts exhorting violence against a specific individual. The HRC Section 13 doesn’t refer to specific speech that is directly to specific acts of violence.
So, if I tell you to Go and Shoot Mr. So and So, at 10:00 today in front of X building, well, that’s a criminal violation.
If I, on the other hand, say that I reject the lifestyle and beliefs of a particular ideology, then – that’s my right of free speech. If the members of that ‘identifiable group’ are offended and feel insulted because I don’t like their ideology, well, tough. Their beliefs aren’t and shouldn’t be immune to critique.
Oh good, now political discussion is illegal…
Maybe someone should start a party of mimes. Just make sure you cut off their middle fingers. Might get them into trouble.
It is MOST instructive to read the dissent in this case. The 4 dissenters appear to have entirely missed the point of the American Revolution. That being, limits to the power of government.
The framers of the Constitution knew that ultimately the only thing which can limit the power of government is an armed populace.
Why do you think liberals like QE can’t get enough of gun control and always scream for more? They can’t stand the idea of somebody who can refuse to go along and make it stick.
ET: “We already have Hate Speech laws in our criminal code, Section 319, which refer to specific acts exhorting violence against a specific individual…So, if I tell you to Go and Shoot Mr. So and So, at 10:00 today in front of X building, well, that’s a criminal violation.”
You are confusing the US and Canadian interpretation of what constitutes criminal hate speech. Only in the US, but not in Canada, does a communication need to incite imminent violence in order to be considered a crime.
Your above comment is actually referring specifically to s. 319(1) of the Criminal Code, which states that “incitement [that] is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” is an indictable offence. But s. 319(2) states that the “wilful promotion of hatred” is also an indictable offence, irrespective of whether it incites specific and imminent acts of violence.
Indeed, in the landmark R. v. Keegstra case, in which the SCC affirmed the constitutionality of s. 319, the guilty party (a teacher who incorporated anti-semitic claims into his classroom teachings) did not at all “exhort violence against a specific individual,” yet was nevertheless found guilty of communicating hate propaganda.
“What exactly did he [Pankiw] say in the pamphlets? Obviously for whatever reasons he was not reelected…isn’t that how we decide things in a democracy…”
What Pankiw had to say was uncomfortable for many, obnoxious, and accurate. The Pankiw pamphlets I read contained no hate statements, only the unvarnished truth.
He was not re-elected. I agree this is the democratic way. It’s disgusting and frightening that the matter should go any further than that.
Whether we agree with him or not we need more Pankiws speaking freely without fear of prosecution.
Unfortunately for the armed populace, the balance of firepower is so far shifted that it is almost laughable to think that the populace could stand up to or overthrow a government intent on removing their freedom.
Musket vs musket in 1776… sure.
Handgun or rifle vs tanks and automatic weapons in 2008… not so much.
We should have the right to carry Stinger missiles if we should so choose 😉
If you think things are bad now, wait until this is passed. Bill C-21 an Act to amend The Canadian Human Rights Act was introduced in parliament. Specifically it seeks to amend Section 67, which
will extend these rights to natives to file complaints with the CHRC.
Buckle up! We’re in for a helluva ride!
No, QE, I am not confusing the US and Canada. In Canada, the act of violence still is a requirement for an indictable offence.
To contravene the Code, a person must:
319.1 communicate statements,
in a public place,
incite hatred against an identifiable group,
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.
KINDLY NOTE: All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty
319.2 “Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group” is essentially unprovable.
After all, if there is no immediate violence, then, the expression of an opinion, falls under section 319.3, the defense of your speech.
Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:
are established to be true
were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada”
I would say that Keegstra’s case had little to do with free speech, despite his trying to hide behind that law. He was violating the objectivity and facticity of a teacher. A classroom is not a site for dogma but for critical teaching. He was not teaching but was indoctrinating. And he couldn’t establish a defense (that his statements were true)nor could he establish that the sessions were open to debate (the students had to agree with him or lose marks).
After all, numerous imams in Canada preach hatred of Jews. Why aren’t they similarily indicted under this law?
From Justice Scalia’s opinion:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different.
In other words, the Constitution means what it says, and can be changed only by the amendment process which it provides, not by judges.
At times, I have wondered whether a written constitution was truly necessary. The actions of the two supreme courts today confirm my belief that a written constitution is necessary indeed.
Now Phantom, how could you possibly know my stance on gun control? All I did was point out that Justice Scalia himself noted that the second amendment, like the first amendment and all the rest, does not confer absolute rights upon individuals, and that nothing in the Court’s decision “should be taken to cast doubt on…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
As it happens, I absolutely concur with Scalia J’s opinion that some legislative limits on gun ownership are perfectly constitutional. If one disagrees — if, for instance, one thinks that college students have an absolute right to carry concealed handguns to class — then I guess that puts one firmly to the right of Scalia et al. Which, on the whole, is a decidedly extreme place to be.
Tax hike. Now please. Biiiiiig tax hike.
Exactly, silicon valley. And our Constitution, with the Charter acknowledging fundamental rights, which include freedom of speech, can’t be turned into ‘an ‘interest-balancing approach’, which considers that Section to be interpreted according to ‘various interests’.
Freedom of speech is a natural right; it is fundamental. We have abrogated this right only when it incites violence within Section 319.1. Section 319.2 is, as attached to Section 319.3 for its defense, effectively nullified.
The Canadian case of Keegstra was not a violation of free speech as it was of the classroom and the duty of a teacher. After all, as I said, plenty of imams in Canada preach hatred of an identifiable group and are not charged.
With regard to the case referred to in Scalia’s judgment (US v.Williams 553), that case also had nothing to do with free speech but referred to his rejection of the federal statutes prohibiting the ‘pandering’ of child pornography.
Even the CP alluded to the arrogance of the Supreme’s
“As usual, the justices gave no reasons for their decision”
ET: “In Canada, the act of violence still is a requirement for an indictable offence…KINDLY NOTE: All the above elements must be proven for a court to find an accused guilty.”
You are right that the elements you listed must all be proven for a court to find an accused guilty…if that person is charged under s. 319(1).
However, a person may also be charged under s. 319(2), in which case the incitation of imminent violence is not required as part of the burden of proof. You opine that this subsection is “essentially unprovable.” And yet, Mr. Keegstra, for one, was charged and convicted under s. 319(2). So quite clearly it’s proveable.
The Keegstra case, which you flippantly dismiss as having “little to do with free speech,” is in fact the landmark case that provides constitutional weight to s.319—including subsection 2—within the Canadian legal system. Mr. Keegstra’s lawyer thought the case was relevant to free speech in Canada. So did the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. As did the Alberta Court of Appeal. Ditto the Supreme Court of Canada. Not to mention the Attorneys General of Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick, the Canadian Jewish Congress, Interamicus, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, Canada, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
But hey, what would those people know about interpreting the law?
Well it’s not safe to joke in British Columbia. No joke.
http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the.html
And what do you, QE, know about interpreting the law? And don’t try the ‘appeal to authority’. That’s fallacious. Kindly read what I wrote.
I said that Keegstra couldn’t use Section 319.3 as his defense. But, in most cases, 319.3 is a valid defense of 319.2. All that 319.2 says, is that you can’t promote hatred against an identifiable group. But that is so ambiguous and amorphous as to be untenable in a court. Effectively, Section 319.3 serves as your defense.
What made 319.3 useless in Keegstra’s case? Because none of its statutes were viable. None.
Furthermore, he was not engaged in a situation of free expression. He was teaching a particular viewpoint; the students had to accept it as valid or they would lose marks. Period.
Now, I wonder what the situation would be like if Keegstra was not teaching these opinions in a classroom but was writing an article about them. Or a blog. Or a book.Would he have been indicted?
After all, we’ve had imams preaching hatred of identifiable groups in Canada – who haven’t been indicted.
I would suggest that this law was used simply because there isn’t a law about teaching and curriculum content in Canada.
Again, the Keegstra case was not purely a case of freedom of speech, just as the US Willims case wasn’t purely about freedom of speech but about child pornography. By the way, the US court said that citizens were still free to use ‘virtual’ child pornography, ie, those images that did not include real children.
There is an interesting discussion of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution on the Wikipedia website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It’s worth a read.
We should have the right to carry Stinger missiles if we should so choose 😉
You already have the right. What you don’t have is the legal permission.
Rights are not the same as legal permissions, and much if not most of the political garbage sensible people have to put up with comes directly from that confusion.
Quotes from some dead white men on guns:
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense.” John Adams
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ” James Madison
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson
“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Ron; “Rights are not the same as legal permissions,” could you expand on that please? Is there Legal or Constitutional reference differentiating between the two?
Fundamental Rights are granted by God. Legal permissions are granted by government.
Gunney99, This quote illustrates what I mean:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” from The Law – Frédéric Bastiat
Constitutions and such may enumerate rights, as in list them, but they don’t create them. Governments can suppress rights–and often do–but they cannot create them. In other words, the rights were here first.
DDT: re: Fundamental Rights are granted by God
With respect, I would disagree. I’m an atheist, and I contend the rights we speak of properly exist even without (or regardless of) the existence of a deity. Again, rights are not permissions.
Regarding the stinger missile, if you truly believe in the second amendment, then you’re really selling yourself short if you’re not demanding a method to defended yourself against air attacks.
Honestly…back when the constitution was written, guns were the primary mode of combat. They were the machines of war with a gatling gun and cannon or two thrown into the mix in the later years. So now that the American government has stealth aircraft, I’m not sure why American citizen’s are not also invited to share the weapons of war to keep their government in check.
Oh wait, is it because that’s not really the issue here? That the real issue is a bunch of people wanting to keep their guns, and using any justification necessary? Let me just make it clear though that I’m not a gun control supporter. I could really care less about the issue, I just wish people would call it like it is; that there’s a very vocal group of gun owners who are subverting the constitution to achieve their collective objective of keeping their guns legal.
We need to remember that no HRC action could be complete without the involvement of Richard Warman. According to media reports, he was the original investigator assigned to the Jim Pankiw complaint.
In my reading, the 2nd Amendment enumerates the right to kep and bear arms, and that properly includes “weapons of war to keep their government in check.”
The people who use the Amendment to protect their right to bear handguns are not “subverting” the Constitution (what they are arguing is fully consistent with the Amendment), but they are also not protecting their right or using it to it’s fullest extent–mostly because the idea of citizens having State permission to do *that* scares the heck out of governments.
American CITIZENS (unlike canuckistanian subjects) have the GOD given right to arms.
God bless the forfathers for there forthought.
The more the commie liberanos hold power the more I realize this country is done for.
Viva liberta Alberta
The only other answer is to join the greatest nation on earth, God bless AMERICA.
Screw all you commie scum!!!
barjebus:
Notwithstanding Godwins Law;
It was not Panzer battalions that came for the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals in the 1940s. It was the police and Gestapo, armed at most with 9mm handguns or Mauser rifles. Panzers would have been useless to carry out such a mass genocide.
On a daily basis, we need not be armed as well as the State(Stinger missiles, nuclear bombs); for if we reach that stage the rule of law is gone and civil war would exist. But to prevent that nightmare scenario, law abiding citizens must have the right to be armed to a level of lethality equivalent to the police or, in the days of the Second Amendment, the “militia”.
Get the difference?
Would the Gestapo and SS have achieved such horrors if they faced 6 million people armed with Mauser rifles? I think not…
“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson
Mystery Meat,
It’s a bitch when the rabbit gets his gun back!
The collective have been using the Courts to win what they can’t win at the ballot booth. They pass laws & regulations without regard to the rights of those most affected…
Although Symbolic to most Americans (they would arm & defend themselves… regardless) the upholding of an Individual right is the true test of freedom
We cannot leave anything of more value, to our children & grandchildren, than a healthy functioning Constitution.
PISS off UN, PISS off Al Gore, Piss off California.
ET said: After all, numerous imams in Canada preach hatred of Jews. Why aren’t they similarily indicted under this law?
Faulty logic here I think, ET.
Aren’t they not charged because of their sacred status as “the other” in our PC-drenched political-judicial culture. Aren’t they not charged because they aren’t native-born Canadians rather than because they are legally onside the technical parameters of the law? Aren’t they not charged because non-Christian religions get a pass vis-a-vis hate speech.
Phillip, re: “The collective have been using the Courts to win what they can’t win at the ballot booth“.
Although that is true, the collective equally uses votes to win what they can’t win in court. That’s why it is necessary to keep in mind that any number of human values and aspirations are never properly subject to majority approval or permission by votes or courts. I don’t bow to either when it comes to my rights.
I’ve never seen or heard a single argument for taking away peoples guns that did not use a false argument and display complete disregard for the concept of private property.
Not here today nor at any time in the past.
Lawful and law abiding gun owners are no threat to anyone who is willing to mind their own damned business and respect the law.
Period
The same sort of principle applies to free speech and expression of opinions. No threat exists to people who know how to stay within their rightful bounds.
So all of these finger wagging scolds who want to lecture on “Limits” on either matter should go back to minding their own damned business!
Capice?
Regarding the stinger missile, if you truly believe in the second amendment, then you’re really selling yourself short if you’re not demanding a method to defended yourself against air attacks.
Oh, please, with all of the lame hyperbole that the stupid lefty mind can serve up, get real. The issue and the standard for gun ownership as a defense of one’s person and property(dating back to English Common Law) is what would your basic antisocial slob violator confront you with, and, it’s a handgun, on the sidewalk or in your bedroom at 3 am, not a flamethrower/ballistic missile, you idiot.
Sure, if Mexico were strafing my house with jet fighters an anti-aircraft missile would be reasonable, but, that’s not the world I live in. Again, you moron, think your small pea brain can wrap itself around that?
One of the most basic obligations as a human to themselves and their families is to protect their life/lives. I’ve got to guess that like Robert Fisk, the little weasely Guardian lefty journalist, you’d be praising your physical attackers, hey, they have issues, because offering anything else would be just so impolite. Have I got that right?
For those who wish to read the whole enchilada, the decision is here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
QE said: “Now Phantom, how could you possibly know my stance on gun control?”
I just made a wild guess based on your comment history here, ducky. From what I’ve seen, you’re a no-sparrow-shall-fall Utopian with a love of regulation and a big ol’ woody for income redistribution.
I think the very idea of a mere prole possessing the means to resist your good intentions fills you with fear. You telling me you’ve ever seen a gun ban you didn’t think was a great idea?
Pull the other one, it has bells on.
I don’t actually see why we shouldn’t be allowed to have weapons (any weapons). The caveat to this though is that the price of using those weapons (for whatever reason) should bear the externalities of heaving them. So visits to publicly funded hospitals as a result of gun use/crimes, should be paid for by users of guns.
Tax the price of bullets heavily.
I think it’s considered sound, and conservative economic policy to demand that the users should pay for the use.
This would limit the use of bullets by gangs (and poor people in general) because there’s no point in wasting a $5000(for example) bullet for payback on a minor “beef”. The money raised on this usage tax could be used to fund hospitals and policing.
Before you hunters and gun owners squeal remember that you’ve all demanded that “Moderate Muslims” should be partially responsible in principle for the actions of Islamists.
Tax the price of bullets heavily…..This would limit the use of bullets by gangs…
Hey, Jon, WHY exactly would “the gangs” pay the “bullet tax”? Let’s think through this, your basic gang banger’s gun isn’t being purchased legally, so paying the “bullet tax” isn’t exactly where they are at. I’m guessing the “bullet tax” wouldn’t be on your basic sociopath’s radar. It may be a shock to you but your basic scummy little felon isn’t the model of tax compliance.
Penny,
Bullets would be taxed at the point of purchasing. Any smuggling of bullets should be a life-in-prison crime. Any possession of bullets that haven’t had the tax levied (ie ones you made yourself) would be like smuggling.
We already have the system in place to keep people from using exploding tip, armour piercing and incendiary bullets, and flechettes. Furthermore, I don’t see why these bullets should be illegal, just taxed.
What you perhaps haven’t thought through is that there will eventually be a market driven consensus on the price of this tax. Guns will be used less for crimes which will therefore lower the externality costs to legal owners.
Less crime, more guns. Why is it that I’m fighting a conservative on this?