BILLIONS OF NON-GUN OWNER TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR GUN OWNER’S HOBBY

A position that you cannot base on actual evidence.

So then you are indeed blaming the victim. Do you also blame the victim of sexual assault, believing that they engaged in a provocative behavior that forced their attacker to act in the manner that they did?

It is interesting that you draw such a comparison, as knowingly spreading such diseases is indeed a matter of assaulting others, and can be punished as such. There are court cases showing that the intentional spreading of illness with disregard for the well being of others is a criminal offense, making it no different than if they had utilized a firearm for such.

First and foremost, ownership of a firearm or firearms is not a hobby. It is a constitutionally recognized and protected right. Secondly, you have failed to demonstrate precisely what carelessness you are referring to. You are failing to make your argument, you are just screaming incoherently in a manner that is indistinguishable from the delusional ramblings of a homeless individual suffering from some undiagnosed mental illness. If you wish to be taken seriously, you must contribute significantly greater effort.

 

My ability to defend Myself is not a mere Hobby, it is something integral to My staying alive, you call it a Hobby as a literary device in order to categorize the Second Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms as a childish endeavor easily dismissed and banned, or at least, Taxed into a financial restriction.

 

I don't buy one iota of this. Your posting history demonstrates a seething hostility towards conservatives and you see gun owners and the NRA as a major force in electing politicians you don't like. If you really cared about victims you would be calling for measures that actually cut down on violent crime and laws that only change the legal ability of honest people to own or possess, buy or acquire firearms are not ones that do anything but make the lives of violent criminals easier. You want to blame all lawful gun owners for the misdeeds of a few-misdeeds that already have severe legal consequences available as a remedy.

You compare owning guns to carrying a disease-that alone demonstrates the irrational hatred you have of lawful gun owners.

 

This an opinion of a radical anti-gun activist, in an anti-gun Leftwing publication.

Guns of course have public utility, otherwise the 1 million law officers would not all have a gun, nor would the millions in our military. Guns in the hands of citizens and citizen militias were the reason why we defeated the British to gain our independence.

You and Fineman should preach your anti-gun gospel to all the hunters, and moreover to the Inuit hunters that make a living from using guns to harvest game and protect themselves from predators. Perhaps you think they should all move to the city and shop at the supermarket?

 

I have begun referring to gun control advocates as criminal activists, since they advocate the disarming of law abiding citizens and impeding the right to self defense with laws that do nothing to impede criminals, rather, would provide criminals with the advantage of being armed against defenseless potential victims.
The largely same group suggests police should be the only group charged to be armed and provide protection to the people, while also condemning those in the police community to the point where their performance is impacted. The label criminal activists is far more honest and descriptive than referring to gun ownership as a Hobby in my opinion.
Of course, providing criminals with an open season on citizens fits a narrative of creating dependency on government for protection... protection, that the SCOTUS says the police are not required to provide.

 

Hey I'll agree to pony up on some conditions: 1) all firearm convictions (felonies) are automatically life sentences w/o chance for parole. Also supermax prisons only, no tv, no weightlifting, no frills...one hour a day to be let out for fresh air.
2) Capitol offenses such as murder are automatically given death sentences.
3) Sentencing is automatic, judges cannot impose their views.

Im in if these can be met, but I know I'll hear about cruel and unusual punishment and police misconduct and such....don't care...

 

Ever since major criminals such as Dillenger and Capone, they stole firearms from Military bases, and this still happens today.

Gun ban advocates simply want to take Guns away and use lies and falsehoods to accomplish that end.

I have listened to those clacking arguments since I was just a nipper, and it made no sense then either and makes less sense now.

 

Total BS. Look at a life expectancy actuarial chart or calculator - the 4 biggest factors in determining an Americans life expectancy are weight, alcohol use, smoking use, and number miles driven annually. You pay in all kinds of ways for the "utility" of driving.

And your article makes a huge mistake in not taking into account the cost savings due to reduced crime rates due to guns used defensively. When AUS banned guns in 1996, crime went through the roof - violent crime increased 44%. All those additional rapes and beatings have a cost in medical care, disability, lost work, etc. Its so easy to your argument to ignore facts.

 

No one has ever shot someone with any of my weapons. And I have caused no suffering.

You will also find Im rather harsh on people that dont secure their weapons properly, and stores that allow shady, but legal, purchases.

I enjoy the hipocrisy of the many though. The same people that say Muslims arent the cause of terrorism, its just a small number of fanatics, are the same people that want to condemn the entire fire arms industry and anyone that enjoys shooting because a bunch of gang bangers and punks keep killing people. The same is true of the other side of the political coin in the exact same situation too.

 

Gun Violence is not a hobby. Again, the left cant distinguish between the lawful and the criminals.

 

There is a difference between felonies and VIOLENT GUN CRIME.
Do you think taxes and mandatory insurance will curb gun violence, and why should the law abiding pay for violent gang bangers?
News: Violent bangers cant legally own firearms therefore wont be paying any of your taxes or insurance.

 

You don't.
I paid for all my stuff, and have not committed an violent crimes.
Thus, you have paid exactly $0 for my "hobby".

Mother Jones, unsurprisingly, is amazingly incorrect.
2011-2015, 43932 murders were committed with firearms, for an average on 24.06 per day.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls
So, what else did Mother Jones lie about?

This violates the constitution in exactly the same way as a tax on abortions.

 

Explain, in precise terms, how I, a gun owner, have armed anyone in an inner city gang.

 

Wait...
Someone steals MY property and -I- should be punished?

It's a good thing I know you aren't serious about this nonsense.

 

False equivalence.
You only need a permit, and pay a fee for same, when exercising your right to assembly on public property.
The basic exercise of a right - going to church, owning a gun, having an abortion - cannot be taxed without violating the constitution.

 

Auto insurance is a precondition laid by the state on the privilege to drive.
No such precondition can be constitutionally laid on the exercise of a right.

 

What justifies you calling me callous? Are you assuming that merely because I am a gun owner I am callous and unconcerned about gun crime?

I promise you I have done more to fight gun crime than you have.

It is a dangerous thing to group people into the “callous” box because you are incapable of considering them individually.

In addition, you are arguing about stolen firearms, and with that argument comes the realization (to me, even if you refuse to acknowledge it) that the gun owner is the first victim in a string of criminal activity. And so the premise of your argument is the victim is at fault for the crime committed against him. You know where these arguments first appeared? In rape cases, where the defendant claims it was partially her fault for dressing the way she did, or drinking as much as she did at the party. They were inappropriate and dangerous arguments to make then, and they do not become any less irresponsible in the retelling here.

I’m not sure you fully understand your argument, for merely restating it is enough to refute it:

You feel I should be responsible for the actions of the thief who steals my gun and uses it to commit a murder. You believe I am responsible for my own victimization—that I am responsible because, unknown to me, a thief who will commit a murder later chose to target me first. You believe I am responsible for the actions of a man I have never met and whose evil intentions I am unaware of (and, since I am to be the first victim, whose evil intentions are necessarily concealed from me). And although I have never met him, and am not privy to any of his intentions, and have zero ability to advise, counsel, or control his evil actions, you believe I am further responsible for every evil act he intends to commit with property he stole from me.

Shall we tell every victim of a burglary and a larceny that it is their fault their belongings were stolen—or does this twisted illogic only apply to gun owners?

 

Well, since the courts have ruled that people are too poor to afford a free ID for voting purposes, yes, we're too poor to afford that tax.

Stop disenfranchising us.

 

Gun ranges already have insurance.

Hunters and land owners where hunting occurs typically have insurance.

We're covered.

Now we just need to get MS13, the Crips and the Bloods on-board and we're set.

 

Many on the left are criminal enablers or apologists. They see criminals as unfortunate victims of an unfair capitalist society where the weak and the slow witted are victimized by the industrious and the intelligent. To them, people become criminals not because they are scum bags but because an unkind and uncaring society has forced them to act that way. Its unfair-in their minds-for a would be victim to kill or maim a criminal because the poor criminal has already been victimized by society.

your second point also has much merit. ANYTHING that makes a citizen LESS RELIANT on government is anathema to those who support the creeping crud of collectivism and the ever spreading malignant federal government. Those of us who make our own safety a personal responsibility are far less likely to outsource our duties as FREE CITIZENS to the government. That makes us the enemies of the creeping collectivist cohorts. They want to ban guns to punish those of us who aren't willing to cede our rights for the false illusion of government provided safety