Skip to main content

View Diary: The 2nd Amendment does not grant people the right to SELL arms (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would add the following: (0+ / 0-)

    1. Strict limits on magazine capacity.

    2. A 5000% tax on bullets.

    3. Every bullet has to have a unique identifier imprinted on it showing who it has been sold to, that would remain intelligible after impacting a body or an object.

    4. No part of the supply chain in gun manufacturing can occur on a for-profit basis.

    5. If a gun ends up being used in the commission of a crime by someone who is not its owner, the legal owner is automatically guilty of criminal negligence for losing it or failing to take whatever measures were necessary to prevent its theft.

    6.  Accessory to murder charges against everyone knowingly involved in illegal weapons or ammunition supply practices whose merchandise ended up being used in a killing - smugglers, burglars, fences, etc.

    7.  Murder charges against manufacturers who sell weapons to civilians specifically designed and optimized for the commission of mass murder.  Drag their fat corporate asses into a mass-trial like the Sicilian Mafia.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:27:08 AM PST

    •  You're suggesting taxing an unalienable right? (0+ / 0-)

      To prevent it's exercise, correct?

      That would be blatantly unconstitutional.  How about we do the same for free speech? Every word uttered costs you $2. or free press, every letter typed costs $1???

      While we're at it how about demanding those of a religious persuasion be charged every time they say "AMEN"!???

      Your #3 is impossible.

      "According to the law, gun sellers were required to send firearms to a CoBIS center where fired shell casings from those guns would be entered into a statewide databank. Assemblyman Giglio notes that the state has spent $32 million on CoBIS since the creation of the program in January of 2001, and not one crime has been solved with this technology"
      Your #5 would then mean the same standard for any item stolen and used in the commission of a crime.  Your car, your laptop, your money!

      #7 More violence and killing to prevent violence and killing...pure HYPOCRISY!

      How about we utilize your #4 for Health Care? Then we'd actually help millions of Americans, not make them into criminals or allow them to grow up without the proper mental health services???

      Now, since no police officer has the duty to protect me, When/if you get your way, You'll be standing guard at my side, correct?

      Or am I to become another number in someone's yearly statistical reporting?

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:44:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unlimited amounts of ammunition (0+ / 0-)

        is not an "inalienable right."  People have a right to bear arms for self-defense OR in the context of a militia regulated by civil authority - there's no right to be an army unto one's self.

        In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

        by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:27:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, you have a right to a free press but we're (0+ / 0-)

          only going to allow you to buy 5 sheets of paper and only enough ink to type on 2 of those pages at any given time.

          The Courts have decided otherwise on your second issue.  We can amend the constitution, making your position valid or try to pass laws that can be challenged until hell freezes over.  Neither option will stop the violence today, will it?

          Nope.  

          We could fully fund free mental health services, we could teach our children how NOT to act on their impulses.  We could teach AND practice peace ourselves!

          Whom decides how "an army unto oneself" is defined?  What's too much writing? What's too much free press? When are there too many petitions for redress?  Can someone not believe in more than one religion? Or a combination of all?

          And BTW, you never answered what your definition of "civilized" was, clearly we have a problem Houston!

          ;)

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:41:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you on #1 (0+ / 0-)

      But #2-#7 would never survive court challenges even if they somehow became law.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site