Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's Push "The Gun Owner's Acccountability Act" (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Until the interpretation of the 2nd amendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, FrankRose, Bailey2001

    is changed that prohibits private ownership of firearms, I am opposed to any government imposed financial barriers to a citizen's ability to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    The same way that I opposed the CU decision that stratified access according to wealth, I am as vehemently opposed to these burdens on general principles.

    This comes not from a pro-gun position, but a pro equal access to Constitutional rights that is not determined by how rich you are.

    •  important clarification (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, TheLawnRanger

      that is not to say that there should be a reasonable assurance against unauthorized access to weapons and that the owner should be held completely liable for negligence and improper storage that leads to harm, but one of a required insurance policy that would be based on market factors.

    •  I get what you mean given the "conditions" put on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the right to an abortion, some of which makes availability all but impossible and/or places an extraneous fee on the seeker of the provision because another person believes that it's "wrong". But nonetheless, they appear to be constitutional.

      So tell me, how do you see a religious right NOT to provide insurance coverage for abortion (or even birth control) that then shifts the burden to the health care consumer because of the church's alleged rights? Do you think my happiness and safety, constitutionally, should bend to or away from the 2nd if I don't like guns and they don't make me feel safe and, actually, to the contrary may not be safe?

      I see what you are trying to get at, but the problem is that in some way, one's right's may violate another's. Then what?

      What is clear with weapons, at least, is that SCOTUS did not say guns could not be regulated. THAT is what this is all about.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:15:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see where you're coming from but... (0+ / 0-)

      even though its not a necessity to own a car, many would argue that its almost a necessity unless you live in a big city with public transportation.

      Cars are  not affordable, yet many people own them, because it can be a necessity.

      Guns are not a necessity. They are extra. Not meaning that they're a luxury but these weapons can get expensive and the need for owning one may vary but can rarely be justified as a necessity unless you live on a farm and need to kill varmints or creatures attacking your chickens or livestock.

      Yes, I agree it would impose a financial barrier but for a non-necessity item. Though, I do see your point. I believe that you're saying the second amendment is a right and a right should not be based on financial stature or ability to afford. However, in this case, I respectfully disagree and only because of the importance of saving lives. Young lives and innocent lives.

      •  Bobby - under Heller the SCOTUS (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, B obby Boucher

        has given state, local, and federal lawmakers wide latitude for enacting gun control laws. However, the laws may not inhibit by word, or effect, the fundamental right of a citizen to own a gun. Many legal scholars thing that any additional cost of ownership would have to be very modest in relation to the cost of the gun to be acceptable under Heller. Some of your suggestions would likely run into legal challenges.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:58:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the info... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          you may be right.  It sounds like the poll tax of the voter suppression issue whereby the right to vote can't be impeded by additional cost or unreasonable effort.  And, though it may be contested and actually fail a Supreme Court review, it still may be worth trying to pass and then fight it out later.

          Not making an excuse but many laws get passed in the heat of the moment and some fail later under review but a small minority retain some portion of their intent while most don't.

          You're right though it would need serious legal consideration to try to avoid this potential problem.

      •  would like to respond in a cogent manner (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        B obby Boucher

        but I'm getting hit with kidney stone pain and can't think at the moment.  I don't think we're far apart in thought though.

    •  I agree, especially since any and all of these (0+ / 0-)

      rules would only apply to those who choose to follow them.

        In other words, law abiding citizens who are gun owners would have to comply but those who already own illegal guns or who buy them on the streets from individuals, would not have to comply unless caught.  I am certain most would simply take that risk.

      That is the trouble with gun laws, it is the law abiding citizens who are made to follow them and yet the ones we are trying to hinder and deter...don't.

      •  Much of the proposed penalties associated (0+ / 0-)

        with gun violence is after the fact.

        I want to stop violence before it happens and there are many pieces of the puzzle.  As awful as these types of mass killings are, they pale in comparison the streets awash in blood every day in our inner cities.

        Poverty, education, economic opportunity must be addressed.  Punishment is cold comfort to the victims.

        That's not to say that intermediate steps can be taken to prevent individual situations such as in Aurora, Clackamas and Sandy Hook, and we are going to have to come to terms with what individual freedoms are we willing to curtail in order to provide greater security and how much are we are willing to pay for that and still consider ourselves a free society.

        •  Again, who would abide by the laws that are meant (0+ / 0-)

          to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Would it be criminals or law abiding citizens?  

          Unless we are talking a complete ban, and then removal of all gun from the US.....then guns will be there and it will be the criminals who will by pass any law you have going on to get their gun.  Ban semi automatic weapons and Mr. Honest Citizen will give up his but Mr. Would Be Killer will still find a way to get his.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site