What is a reasonable gun law?

[Buckshost2825]

Not to hijack the thread but this is an interesting question. How do we define an 'arm'? Is it limited to something one person can carry alone? A cannon?
Can my crazy neighbor and his drinking buddies obtain a howitzer and leave it parked in his front yard aimed at city hall?
Can a rich guy buy a suitcase nuke and leave it in his basement 'just in case he needs it'?

Privateers were a thing and popular well before, during, and after the war for independence, at that time a single warship could very well decide a battle by simply sitting near a coastal port city and threatening to shell it.
There's an argument against nukes and missiles, but if a private person could own and operate a ship of war and run around sinking pirates, I want my own personal Iowa please.
Jokes aside, it is my opinion though that honestly they should have to change the constitution or put in an amendment to clarify what exactly 'arms' means because otherwise you run into so many definitional problems (which hasn't stopped them before). The problem is, nobody in their right mind would trust the government right now to 'redefine arms'.

That's my two cents anyways.

 

[INPatriot]

Fresh off fighting a war of independence, the sparks of which included an attempt to disarm people, the Founding Fathers inserted a little phrase into the Supreme Law of the United States regarding reasonable gun laws: "shall not be infringed."

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Scott58]

There are no reasonable gun laws.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Is that George Washington character on a government watch list?

Iffin he ain't, he otter be.

 

[2tonic]

What is a reasonable gun law?

Always have one.

 

[DadSmith]

No thank you.
You think the national guard knows best?
You think the national guard wants or has time for that burden?
It'd turn into the worst gov't controlled most inefficient possible way to train people. Except for the making the list part, that would be very efficient for them.
That's all just bigger gov't.

That's also no different than most police aren't really gun guys. National Guardsmen might be warriors, but that doesn't make them trainers.

Besides that, a short course like that just leads to overconfidence, no different than bubba who is a perfeshunal because his daddy had some rifles.

Private sector FTW.

I'd support a tax deduction upto $250 a year for anyone who pays for firearm training.

 

[BigRed]

I'd support a tax deduction upto $250 a year for anyone who pays for firearm training.

I do not.

I do support the abolishment of taxing income.

 

[DadSmith]

I do not.

I do support the abolishment of taxing income.

Never happen. So with that in mind. You would not support giving upto 250 tax deduction a year for firearms training?

 

[BigRed]

Never happen. So with that in mind. You would not support giving upto 250 tax deduction a year for firearms training?

No.

I do support citizens keeping 100% of their income to be used for firearms training or anything else they choose to do with it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'd support a tax deduction upto $250 a year for anyone who pays for firearm training.

That bill was introduced again in the 2024 session (by Jim Lucas.) Never saw light of day (or a hearing) in Ways and Means thanks to the Medicaid analysts sucking at their jobs.

 

[cg21]

So I have a lot of laws that I am OK with…. Here is a short list of them….. have a law making it illegal to kill someone with one…. A law making it illegal to rob someone with one…. Make it illegal to kidnap someone with one…

just being funny obviously those are all laws but point being we need to work on / worry about the actions not the tool.

and I am afraid I won’t get started on the education system………. If they spent half as much time teaching useful life skills people would be better prepared for the world.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Bassat]

No.

I do support citizens keeping 100% of their income to be used for firearms training or anything else they choose to do with it.

This 'keeping 100% of their income' is nearly meaningless. If all personal income taxes were repealed right now, you would never notice a change in your standard of living. You would make NO MORE MONEY. YOU WOULD SPEND WAY MORE on goods and services. The money Green Giant makes selling you a can of green beans is taxed. If the government (all of it, at all levels) get their cash cow cut, they will simply increase it elsewhere. No income tax from you means more tax on Green Giant for that can of green beans. The taxes that EACH AND EVERY CORPORATION has to pay is rolled into the price of their product. Taxes go up, costs go up, prices go up. You end up being no better off than you were when you were paying income tax.

Last year I paid about $24,500 in state and federal income tax. Tax Freedom Day in the US last year was April 24. That means I paid a total of $42,000 in taxes, all taxes: upcharges for corporate tax, phone tax, luxury tax, entertainment tax, property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, and every other tax you can think of. The governments WILL get YOUR money. The only reasonable way to handle taxes is to make ALL TAXES income tax. Yep, since the only money EARNED in this country (legally) is through work, the only tax the governments should collect is income tax. They count on all the other taxes to camouflage what they are really doing: TAKING YOUR MONEY. More people would be more P!$$ED-off if they saw how much money the government is actually taking from them. So far it is working. As long as they sneak a few dollars here and a few there, nobody cares. Which is how we got the fat, bloated, wasteful, governments we got. Now go munch your grass. Raise your head every once in a while and say, "Bahhhh", like a good little sheep. Your government counts on it.

 

[Leadeye]

Years ago an Indy policeman was killed by a convicted violent felon who was out on parole. He obtained his gun by paying for it with cocaine.

News was buzzing with demands for gun laws to stop these crimes, but the whole story begged the question of how more piled on top of the ones already broken were going to make a difference.

The people making the argument for more aren't interested in more. They want total prohibition and confiscation. No private ownership forever.

I would imagine though that the rules would be more like Animal Farm where you would find that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

 

[bgcatty]

Right on Leadeye!

The idiots in our government, predominately the Democrats, think that by allegedly banning guns it is a great step towards creating their socialist utopia. The problem these libturd Democraps don’t get is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in the United States and there is absolutely no way they are going to find them all or, more importantly, keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Criminals will always find a way to obtain firearms and use them even more frequently if the general public is disarmed.

Why can’t the Democraps and libturds concentrate on eradicating criminals rather than harassing the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners whose right to own firearms is protected by the Second Amendment.

Carpe Diem my friends!

 

[Scott58]

I'd be careful with all the "education" and training ideas. Personally I prefer my morons untrained. Its up to a parent to train their child. Every time we get others involved it goes wrong. Do you really want your criminals to all have firearms training?