Originally Posted by JonM
it didnt really start with guns guns are just one of many freedoms liberals are trying to remove. they want to tell you how to live where you can live and every little thing you can or cant do.
think about it. they tell you where you can and cant smoke.
they force you to wear setbelts its not a choice.
they force motorcyclist to wear helmets
they force gas stations to sell only govt approved gas
in most states light bulbs are even becoming illegal
they determine for you how much water your toilet uses
they take more of your paycheck to enforce the above and much much more.
gun control is just a minor thing compaired to what they really want to do. we dont seem to care about what happens to other freedoms when the liberals come after em.
after all, laws to enforce seatbelts and toilet flushes are for your own good arent they???
The cases you bring up aren't precisely relevant to your argument.
They tell you where you can and can't smoke, because constant exposure to second-hand smoke can cause health problems to the people around you, which will cause health costs to rise as people have to be treated for exposure to second-hand smoke. Bottom line: less money being spent on health care for something that is preventable (and, in my opinion, stupid). Also, these measures are passed by popular vote (at least, the 10 different smoking bans that I am aware of were), and were put forward in legislation due to the fact that there is significant evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke is damaging to the health of others. Don't blame the federal or state governments for measures that are voted through by popular decision.
They tell you to wear a seat belt because you're more likely to die in an accident if you're not wearing one. Nevermind the fact that you're LESS DEAD, but anybody who dies and isn't paying taxes doesn't help the social security/taxes situation. Also, the expense of the road crew that needs to peel your body off the pavement is saved (Average cost of a fatal car accident for state and federal $500,000, according to the National Highway Safety Administration)
Motorcyclists and helmets? See above statement.
Force gas stations to use approved gas? Well, yeah. How would you like it if those regulations were taken away, and then all of sudden we're getting the type of gasolines that are used in India, where there is so many contaminants that the mileage of your vehicle goes down by 10 MPG just by using it, also causing damage to your vehicle? I'm sure that you won't complain about those "restrictions" when your car is constantly breaking down or your spark plugs need replaced every 200 miles due to contaminants.
I'm not sure where you're talking about light bulbs. I assume you mean that states are encouraging measures to make people use more efficient light bulbs, which is a conservation measure that also coincidentally will lower your electricity costs? (I don't understand someone being on a gun forum and not understanding the concept of land stewardship and conservation). The less electricity we use, the more land can be left alone longer/more land has time to recover before we strip mine again, the more land we have preserved for future use (be it construction, hunting, farming, etc).
Toilets, I understand. But again, your toilet shouldn't use 10 gallons of water to flush, when they can be designed to use only 2. Unless you need some fiber in your diet, this shouldn't be an issue. Why should we be wasting MASSIVE amounts of water to flush? I mean, I flush approximately 5 times a day. Assuming I'm using only a 2 gallon instead of a 10 gallon toilet, I use only 10 gallons of water vs. 50. Now, extrapolate that to the US population, and the cost it takes for cities and federal governments to clean that wastewater for use again.
Let's be brutally honest here: Handguns are used to shoot people. Yes, there are some people who buy a handgun for hunting, or for target shooting, but by and large, handguns are bought for home protection or some other purpose where you intend to use it to shoot another human being. But if you're buying a handgun in Detroit, I'm going to assume you're gonna use it for home defense, and not for hunting/militia purposes. I don't see a problem for them putting a fee on the purchase of a weapon.
Forcing people to pay to purchase/register a handgun is not a problem, to me. But then, I was raised in a state where that was the norm; however, purchasing a rifle/shotgun/etc. was never an issue and didn't cost. I mean, heck, it's essentially a tax, and according to what I can find on your state's laws, that fee is being used to pay for state-sponsored gun safety and conservation measures, so I don't see what the big deal is. The money, ironically enough, goes to the Michigan DNRE, paying for your state-operated shooting ranges (which, if they are anything like they are in MO, should be incredibly inexpensive ($3-5 for an hour), and quite professional).
Also, as was mentioned before, "right to bear arms" does not mean "right to bear any and all arms without any type of reasonable measure to make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people who will use them for criminal purposes instead of righteous causes such as hunting, self-defense, or preparation of a militia."
If you're the type of person who wants to claim that there should be no restrictions on owning a handgun, I want to see you on these forums arguing that convicted felons should have the right to purchase and have handguns and other weapons.
And really, $10? You're complaining about a $10 fee for a permit on a handgun?
Forgive me, but if you're able to shell out $200-500 for a handgun, I don't think a $10 fee is going to prevent anyone from buying a gun, which seems the gist of the OP's argument; that somehow this $10 fee is preventing him and others from being able to exercise their right to bear arms.
To the OP: if you think the fee is wrong, support those organizations that are against the law, such as the NRA, and write to your local NRA representative.