How can we regulate guns ... ?

So what are the costs of implementing your policies?

Thank you, I appreciate that.One statement:

quote:

---

the State's right to regulate commerce ends where my right to keep and bear armsand by implication, obtain suchbegins.

---

Then, true to form, I received this:

quote:

---

Sure.

---

And then the last exchange above this message:

quote:

---

False on both.

---

If the statement "Anything that seeks to regulate any aspect of firearms, from capability, manufacture, transport, sale, to venue of possession or use, is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment." is false then the people have some say in regulating the gun industry.Yet, if the will of the people in regulation is "keep your guns but don't make them in my back yard" is seen as an infringement then what will of the people in regulation would not be seen as an infringement?On the one hand you say the state's right to regulate ends at the 2nd Amendment yet you also say the statement "all state regulation is infringement" is false. There is a disconnect.Help me out here, Jon.

When you got nothing you accuse people of being communists. Pitiful.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Hum. We can regulate guns by carrying guns openly,and then have those carriers be victims of murder suicide.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

These days that's almost as bad as calling someone a republican.

Which brings up the old anti-communist mantra.. Better dead than red.

Or there's the Tea Party's approach - "Better dead than Fed"...

You do know about Red States, right?

What are the costs of not implementing them?When it comes to policies designed to enhance\augment\increase the "domestic Tranquility," and the "general Welfare," of the population (see Message 1 and the preamble to the constitution) the cost of not doing anything is just as important as the cost of doing something.Seeing as the proposals had fees included to cover the cost of the programs, the net cost to taxpayers would be minimal.The cost of not doing anything is the lives of people lost that could have been saved -- the reduction in gun deaths as the policies become enforced can be determined.Enjoy.

quote:

---

Care to comment on the topic of the thread, or would you rather do as your comrades have been doing and just continue spewing illogical, irrational, gun-fear nonsense?

---

Thank you for your balanced and non-inflammatory reply.In my country no civilian can carry concealed. All the hunting guns have to be kept locked (a mere cabinet will not do) and every gun permit seeker has to go through an interview with a policeman AND a physician.I cannot understand the irrational fear of living in a world without handguns. I just cannot see anything good in them - I understand people having hunting rifles and shotguns but...Why did you have to retort to calling me a commie when I said that seeing pics of people portraying their Sandy Hook-killers wanted me to puke. If those were not bad taste then what is?

Hi RAZD, If saving lives is what you are after why don't we include some other things.In 2010 there was 358 murders with rifles. That includes rifles of all kinds.In 2010 there was 540 murders with blunt instruments, (clubs, and hammers, etc.). Over 1 1/2 times as many as rifles.In 2010 there was 745 murders with personal weapons, (hands, fists, feet, etc.). Over 2 times as many as rifles.In 2010 there was 1,704 murders with knives and cutting instruments.
Over 4 3/4 times as many as rifles.Maybe we should ban hands and feet, look at the lives it would save.
Maybe we should ban knives and all cutting instruments, look at how many lives it would save.
Maybe we should ban all bats of any kind and hammers of all kinds, look at how many lives it would save.Any of these would save a lot more lives than banning semi-automatic rifles.Rifles are not the problem.People who have no one to answer to but themselves is the problem.God Bless,BTW if you want to research the facts for yourself look up the following information and you will find the first assault rifle ban did not work and will not work again. Rifles are not the problem. Depraved humans are the problem. If they choose to kill they will, and there is no law that will stop them. They are the final authority and answer to no one but themself.Banning hand guns would save a lot of lives. In 2010 there was 6,009 murders with hand guns.1994 to 1998, Table 2-10 (pdf): http://www.fbi.gov/...s/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1998/98sec2.pdf1999 to 2003, Table 2-9 (pdf): http://www.fbi.gov/...s/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2003/03sec2.pdf2004 to 2008, Table 8: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 20082006 to 2010, Table 8: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Right. So if rifles were removed from society there would have been 358 fewer deaths by guns in 2010. Let's do it then.And while we're at it, let's look at handguns and shotguns too. Oh, and also at accidents, injuries and suicides.The fact that mosquitos, falling out of bed and stepping off the kerb without looking cause deaths does not have any impact on our desire to immunise people from polio and measles.This is not about curing all problems of mankind, it's about reducing obvious risk and harm where we can.

So you are claiming that it is only atheists that are killing people!
LOL

I accused someone of being a communist?

Piss poor, RAZD.You come at us with all these policy proposals, and yet you cannot even answer the most basic questions about them.