Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gun Responsibility Act of 2013 (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so guns should be free? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mwm341, wewantthetruth

    If we can charge money for them, and require sales taxes on them, we've already established that you need a certain level of income to have one.

    To answer your question more directly, are TV stations free? And do you think perhaps they pay insurance to cover the possibility of a libel suit?

    What does a lawyer cost if you're falsely accused of a crime?  Do you get reimbursed if you're found not guilty?

    There are incidental costs associated with all rights.  It sometimes sucks, but that's life.

    More generally, no right is absolute and above all others.

    Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.

    And your right to own a gun ends at my pocketbook.

    •  the right to bear arms (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      is not a positive right. nobody is saying that guns or tv stations should be handed out for free.

      but an unduly expensive gun or blog license would be unconstitutional.

      •  paying the true cost is reasonable then (0+ / 0-)

        And the liability associated with guns is part of their true cost.

        To date, we've externalized this cost so that others besides the gun owners pay the bill for their actions, but that needs to change.

        I'm just saying we should stop subsidizing gun ownership.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (76)
  • Elections (45)
  • Environment (44)
  • Bernie Sanders (43)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Spam (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Culture (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Media (32)
  • Labor (28)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Congress (26)
  • Education (25)
  • Law (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site