Because as we all know taxes, all taxes of any kind are inherently evil. We should have a military and roads and let private interests police themselves because they have such an awesome record of doing so. Oh and we should have fire departments and police forces for free, this is what personal responsibility is about, I want all the benefits of society, but to pay no taxes to get them because that's "personal responsibility"! Every child should be issued a gun, then they could shoot back when shot at, plus, these guns should be provided at low prices with no guv'mint interference!

Wasn't it the liberals who wanted something for nothing? Why is it they are willing to pay more in taxes to get what we get when they see a deficit problem? Of course conservatives are OK with corporate welfare on a grand scale when it comes to the military or anyone who carries guns, not to mention if they drill for black gold to run yer truck, but yet food stamps (which actually help the economy in down times, as well as help Chase Manhattan to huge profits), are a handout and need to be cut, and new revenues can't even be seriously discussed?

Yeah these ass wipe, shit for brains, tea party fucks, are traitors as far as I'm concerned, they care nothing for America, only corporate power and profit, and how much of said profit they can pocket. I suspect you applaud such actions, but it's clear, in the past few years, most of why government fails at what it fails at is direct sabotage, brought to us by the Greedy Old Prick party.

_________________

You're an idiot if you think only the evil GOP does that kind of shit, Seahawker.

...Well, I guess that settles it.

Name an example, in the last 10 years of Democrats, en masse, doing something for the sole purpose of insuring the failure of government. I'm not about to say Dems don't have their dirty tricks, but I can't recall ever seeing anything rising to the level of intentional sabotage. Yet the GOP will vote to not raise the debt ceiling, which as we know isn't about new spending, it's about paying what we already owe. It's clear to just about anyone with any sense, that "personal responsibility" is just a tag line, they no more believe in responsibility than I do in Santa Claus, and it shows in the actions of the party as a whole.

I've seen corrupt Dems on the take, but even so, not actively sabotaging government just for political capital, not on a scale that we see almost daily from the GOP.

Sure both sides are dirty, just one side is dirtier (albeit, maybe not by much) and you're in denial.

_________________

Well gee, I guess all the crap Democrats did while George "wat is inglish?" Bush was president with filibustering and such doesn't count. Look, I'm not saying one side is more or less corrupt than the other. I'm sure one side is marginally better; but when you're talking about universal corruption and downright anti-American (in the traditional sense) political tactics being the norm on both sides, they're both so damned corrupt that it really doesn't matter who is worse. It's like you're arguing which Nazi was worse, Hitler or Himmler. Both were so bad, the argument is moot; they both should have been drowned in a bathtub in infancy.

I know your ADD acts up on occasion, but try to stay on topic.

I am replying to a specific post which suggests adding a new excessive tax on guns.

I support local taxes to pay for police/fire/roads. I support federal taxes to pay for defense/interstate highways/and some social programs.

I also support limits on those taxes as it has been clear for as long as I have been paying taxes, that there are politicians (both sides) that love spending other's money on their projects in order to get re-elected and enjoy the power that comes with their positions.

It is evident to anyone with a pulse, that you cannot forever spend more than you bring in. Both sides; income & expenses need to be scrutinized.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

Well you surprise me there. In any case, a gun tax to fund a database, whatever needs to be done to attempt to do the best we can need not be excessive. I really don't think anything can be done gun control wise that will radically change things. I do believe handling it like a driver's license is worthwhile and would probably prevent a small percentage of gun accidents and violence, but the problem is cultural, and has little or nothing to do with the guns.

Access to guns will make murder and or easier and more likely due to the convenience factor, but to suggest the guns themselves are the problem is short sighted.

_________________

The US needs to adopt a Federal Initiative program. We the people then need to form an Initiative that forces both spending cuts and increased revenue. Balance the budget ourselves and bypass our shitty Congress. Social media should make this possible.

The only problem with this is that people (just like congress) love to spend other people's money on their projects.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

Sandy Hook is not an excuse for anything. It should not become a "whatever it takes" rallying cry for anyone. It is already being abused and twisted around into a false argument. And it most certainly should not become the "opportunity" for a President to start abusing his executive powers.

As tragic as school shootings are, your suggestion will not decrease them. It will increase them.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I kind of feel like Sandyhook should exactly be used for a "whatever it takes" rallying cry. If your 6 year old was at school and murdered by a lunatic with a gun your opinion may be different.

Why feel any different. I believe right now that it is the lunatic who is to be blamed for that tragedy. If it were my kid or someone I know's kid, I'd feel it more, but I'd still blame the lunatic. Blaming guns is not going to solve anything. You want background checks for anyone purchasing a gun? I have no problem with that. You want to strengthen the mental health of this nation? I have no problem with that. These things may actually do some good. You want to ban a type of gun and the size of clip? That's not going to do any good whatsoever. I mean, how hard is to to carry multiple guns with 7 bullet clips instead of one gun with a larger clip? If you want to kill people, there will always be a way to do that.

Most of the legislation passed by New York and focused on by Obama address the issues you agree with. Banning assault weapons and limiting the amount of ammunition in clips are really not the biggest parts of either legislation. Both of those ideas are silly. Especially the clip amount being limited to 7 but still allowing the clips that hold 10. Bad guys will be sure to leave three bullets out of their clips when they are on a rampage .

If that killer suddenly "snapped" that day and went out to kill, I doubt he had time to put together a bomb. If he didn't have access to a gun he more than likely wouldn't have grabbed an axe or a club or a knife and went on a killing spree. Even if he did he would have been apprehended much easier. So the lunatic is responsible for his actions but the gun is responsible for allowing such ease to massacre.

Limiting ammo in clips will just cause people to buy more powerful handguns. Why buy a .40 when the benefit of a lot more rounds in the clip isn't there when you can buy a .45 and get far more power? Hell, it might even cause gun deaths to increase. Oh, the irony.

The .40 S&W is quite a bit more powerful than the .45 ACP. The former is a cartridge developed about 20-25 years ago, to provide law enforcement with more stopping power than the traditional 9mm Luger (which is also more powerful than .45 ACP) while the latter is an ancient cartridge (by firearm standards), developed more than 100 years ago. By today's standard, the .45 ACP is underpowered relative to its size and subsequently the guns which fire it typically have a relatively low capacity (a standard 1911 handgun holds 7 rounds of .45 ACP). The stories about a .45 being more powerful than the 9mm stem from war time, where soldiers are bound by the Geneva Convention to fire full-metal jacket ammunition only. As such, .45 ACP rounds, while weaker, do not leave an exit wound (read: unspent energy) while 9mm Luger, FMJ ammo, will poke holes through someone, leaving lots of unspent energy in the bullet as it continues to travel through the air.

Sorry, not trying to be nitpicky, just pointing out that a bigger bullet and cartridge do not necessarily make a more powerful or more effective firearm.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

How long do you think it takes to build a crude explosive device? If someone is premeditating a massacre, are they really going to be dissuaded by the time it would take to build an explosive device? Get real man.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Do you think every shooter would take the time to build a bomb to commit the same crime? Get real man.

Nope...some will make a bomb. Others might use a poison of some kind. Others might carry multiple guns with smaller clips, some might carry illegal automatic weapons with illegal large clips, because honestly, they don't care about what's legal at this point.

Nope, some might find other means of committing their crime, but constructing a bomb from things as simple as water/sewer piping, roofing nails, and gasoline, is pretty damn easy to do.

Making weapons less available isn't going to do anything about the real problem, which is people with psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies committing acts of violence. It's just a matter of time before someone does something like drive a car through a crowd of people, running them over indiscriminately. Guns are just a means to an end. There are many more means than guns out there and most of them stand no chance of ever being banned.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Comparing it against the .40 isn't a good comparison on my part, I'll agree there, but "quite a bit more powerful" than the .45 ACP is just not correct. If I fired a sewing pin from a gun and it could go through 10 people because of the size and shape of the projectile, that doesn't make it more powerful. Use high-grain quality hollow point ammo on both, fired into the chest cavity of a person, and the .45 does a lot more damage. Under-powered for its size? Yes. Inefficient for its size? Yes. Weaker than or equivalent to a .40 in stopping someone cold with one shot? Hell no...I'm not bashing the .40, I'm just saying, if every gun shot wound hospitals received was a .45 for a week instead of whatever the typical mix of handgun calibers is, you'd see more deaths.

Violent crimes aren't equal nor are they interchangeable.

Obama's plan (from NYT):

Proposed Congressional Actions
•Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
•Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
•Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
•Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
•Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
•Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
•Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
•Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
•Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
•Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
•Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
•Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Executive actions
•Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
•Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
•Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
•Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
•Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
•Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
•Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
•Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
•Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
•Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
•Nominating an A.T.F. director.
•Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
•Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
•Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
•Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
•Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
•Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
•Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
•Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
•Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
•Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
•Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
•Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.





What don't we like?