Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Showing Original Post only (View all)

alp227

(32,034 posts)
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:54 PM Feb 2013

Wow, comparing gun insurance requirements with POLL TAXES???? [View all]

How stupid can the 2nd amendment authoritarians' arguments get, first from "car accidents kill more people" to comparing gun taxes or insurance requirements to...the poll tax! See this letter to the editor in my local paper, "Legislators trampling rights of gun owners":

While the legislators in Sacramento trip over themselves trying to look tough on gun control, let me remind them that they are recklessly tampering with the Bill of Rights. This is not the Bill of Privileges whereby elected officials can dole out favors at their whim. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Requiring classes, testing, annual recertification, onerous registration and liability insurance will impose a substantial financial burden on gun owners. No one should have to pay good money to exercise any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The high cost in money and time will discourage gun ownership just like poll taxes were used to discourage an entire segment of society from voting.Fortunately, that was declared unconstitutional, as will this newly proposed gun control legislation.


(Comments edited out after reading replies. Let's focus on dissecting the letter writer's idea.)
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
how are they authoritarians? gejohnston Feb 2013 #1
Quack, quack, quack. baldguy Feb 2013 #4
I am so impressed with your gejohnston Feb 2013 #9
Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #15
Maybe just another quack? Remmah2 Feb 2013 #16
A pretty toothless federal felony in the absence of mandatory registration. Loudly Feb 2013 #8
"authoritarians" holdencaufield Feb 2013 #2
That's funny, you said the same thing to me ThatPoetGuy Feb 2013 #7
I'd feel a lot safer if ... oldhippie Feb 2013 #3
So ... just to be clear ... holdencaufield Feb 2013 #13
I believe that may be sarcasm... Marengo Feb 2013 #23
So hard to tell these days ... holdencaufield Feb 2013 #24
No kidding! DonP Feb 2013 #26
I would only ever condone drone strikes ... holdencaufield Feb 2013 #27
Leaving your turn signal on should be a drone worthy issue. N/T DonP Feb 2013 #31
As well as leaving on your mobile phone in the cinema holdencaufield Feb 2013 #32
Message auto-removed nellschmertz Mar 2013 #38
Except for the fact, they are illegal holdencaufield Mar 2013 #39
You DO realize, don't you Cirque du So-What Mar 2013 #40
You never had a chat with a robot? holdencaufield Mar 2013 #41
Naw, Spam is GREAT! Cirque du So-What Mar 2013 #42
I guess you need to add the... Bay Boy Feb 2013 #5
Much worse than any poll tax ileus Feb 2013 #6
But voting is a far more constructive way of changing government alp227 Feb 2013 #28
To the extent that a fee, tax, or requirement is intended to interfere with, petronius Feb 2013 #10
Very good points. aptal Feb 2013 #12
Wait, so car insurance mandates are because the big bad gubmint don't want people to own cars? 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #17
Owning & operating a car on the public ways is a state privilege. Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #18
That "smell" of legislative intent is the stumbling block for religionist legislation. Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #19
So does the fcc also impede on 1A rights alp227 Feb 2013 #29
yes gejohnston Feb 2013 #33
The FCC ensures you don't hear unauthorized interference on the radio or see porn on daytime TV. alp227 Feb 2013 #34
not the same thing gejohnston Feb 2013 #35
Not in a substantial or impermissible way, I'd say. It's a question of legislative intent, petronius Feb 2013 #36
reasonable restrictions exist, this is not one of them iiibbb Feb 2013 #11
liability insurance for guns jimmy the one Feb 2013 #14
Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, it's off to the SCOTUS we go!! SayWut Feb 2013 #20
Good gun insurance is possible and cheap but goes beyond liability. guninsuranceblog Feb 2013 #21
So this insurancewill cover willful and illegal acts? SQUEE Feb 2013 #22
Another hit and run OP oldhippie Feb 2013 #25
See replies 28+29. N/t alp227 Feb 2013 #30
The reason there is so much moaning and screaming about these proposals from "RKBA enthusiasts"* apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #37
not necessarily bossy22 Mar 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Wow, comparing gun insura...»Reply #0