Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: NRA seeks to recall Colorado lawmaker who passed gun safety laws (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, no, Tom. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, cocinero, unfangus

    taxpayers would in all fairness be obligated to replace them

    There's a lot wrong with that sentiment.  First of all, what self respecting libertarian, "conservative" thinks it's society's job to hold your hand and make you all "whole" for the stupid, selfish and self-serving decisions you might have made about what to buy and what to own.

    Sorry!  The taxpayers of your, or any state, have absolutely NO obligation to "replace" the lethal equipment you may have purchased just because they (collectively) decide to LEGALLY regulate a massive and proven danger to society as a whole.

    "Replace my clips!" That's so socialistic!  Hey!  Keep your gov'mint hands out of my Medicare, too!

    Sheesh!

    •  nice try (10+ / 0-)

      I'm a lot closer to socialist than most, and nowhere near "libertarian" or "conservative."
      Try reading the Constitution.

      Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

      by Tom Seaview on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:23:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I must have left it in the other pocket. Can you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        N in Seattle

        point out the clause where is says that taxpayers must reimburse private purchasers of equipment that has been legally placed under constraints? Even if that constraint occurred post-purchase?

        I just missed that part.

         As for my other critics, 30,000 dead/year from firearms, vs. 50,000 dead from autos.  While there are almost as many guns in this country as cars, I will be the first to admit that cars are used at a rate hundreds of times greater than guns.

          So, if one "institution" kills only 30,000/year and another kills 50,000, that does not necessarily imply that they are not BOTH a proven danger to society.  

        Semantics aside, I call 30,000 deaths each and every year a "massive problem".  They are definitely NOT all "paper targets".

        Some issues transcend self-centered outrage.

      •  Where does it say (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        unfangus

        you have a constitutional right to a 17-round magazine.

        Try reading the Constitution.
        From the Heller decision:
        our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on ... laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    •  Just out of curiosity, (8+ / 0-)

      how are my firearms a "massive and proven danger to society as a whole"?  The last time I looked, they haven't killed anything more than paper targets.  And I'd be willing to bet that applies to the vast majority of gun owners...

    •  Massive danger? (7+ / 0-)

      You stand a better chance of dying in a car wreck.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:40:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  case-fatality ratio (0+ / 0-)

        Which is greater?

        (gunshot deaths) / (people hit by gunshots)
        or
        (car wreck deaths) / (people in auto accidents)
        Seriously, I don't know the answer. Whichever ratio is higher is the more dangerous.

        PS. The denominator of the latter fraction includes fender benders, just as the former fraction's denominator includes shrapnel wounds and minor "winged" skin wounds.

        Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- K.Marx A.Lincoln

        by N in Seattle on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:21:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Takings clause... (5+ / 0-)

      As a simple example, if you legally build a home somewhere the government cannot zone the area for agriculture only and then tell you to knock down your house without compensation.

      The taxpayers would need to pay the gun owner for the value of his magazines and, possible, if the Glock was no longer useful because smaller magazines did not exist, for the value of the Glock.

    •  If you purchased land - (4+ / 0-)

      with the assumption that the State will eventually widen the 2 lane road, yet you like the house anyway?

      Does the State say:  "Tough shit, you knew, or should have known there was an industrial park, new High School, and 80 home development before the planning board over the past 5 years.  You lack of due diligence means we can take 50 feet of lawn without compensation.
      Oh, and you're now in violation of the property set-backs as defined in the Zoning Ordinance of 1999.  Here's your fine.
      Move the house on your dime or vacate by June 1."

      Perhaps Tom's incorrect on the State providing equal capacity (170 rounds in his example).  It should however, provide a 1-to-1 swap, and cite "overarching concerns" for not providing the additional 70 rounds of magazine capacity.

      What I suspect is the goal of making new magazines nearly impossible to purchase, available at an inflated cost, while ordering contraband existing magazines as "implements of terrorism".
      As we can't contain our Nation sufficiently to prevent tons of drugs and thousands of people transiting the borders, how will a US-ban on high capacity magazines be effectively enforced?

      Pa Kettle and his 15 inch barreled Winchester Trapper Carbine wasn't filling the streets of Chicago with blood, but it was ordered contraband by the National Firearms Act of 1934.  An Act which was successful in silencing the liquor gangster guns - not by it's text, nor by the case law of US v. Miller - but by having the blessing of timing.
      Prohibition ended in December of '33, removing the cause of gangster violence.   The NFA '34 passed nearly a half year later, long after the Tommy-guns fell silent.
      Thus hailed as a great victory for the forces of gun control.

      Only, it didn't do squat, compared to ending Prohibition.

      The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

      by 43north on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:29:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. The fact that you seem to believe..... (0+ / 0-)

      that the government can take property at whim, without compensation, and that you seem to imply approval of such an assertion, is goddamn scary shit.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Sun May 26, 2013 at 10:05:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site