+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence (/showthread.php?tid=257607)
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence - N-OS X-tasy! - 07-03-2021
pdq wrote:
I think that falls under “…and the pursuit of momentary happiness”.
:wink:
FTFY.
miley-laughing001:
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence - kj - 07-04-2021
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=kj]
Just be aware that this will be seen as punishing law abiding gun owners. So when people say they are not trying to get rid of all guns, this makes it appear that those who support this, in fact do want to discourage ALL gun ownership. I semi-agree.
Then they (and you?) would be wrong.
"Nearly all states require some level of car insurance" or "...pay an uninsured motor vehicle (UMV) fee" or "...require that you can pay anyone you injure as a result of your driving".
Even if a "law abiding" driver/car owner has NEVER had any type of accident, they STILL have to meet these insurance requirements.
Car insurance has nothing to do with it. In fact, this isn't even insurance. And what if the reasoning behind that insurance is wrong-headed?
:facepalm:
Car insurance is an analogy
a·nal·o·gy - noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
Well der, but analogies don't support your point, they only help to explain what you're talking about. I understand what you're talking about, I just disagree.
Re: San Jose to tax gun owners to pay for damages caused by gun violence - Racer X - 07-04-2021
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Racer X]
There should also be a copulation fee to defray the public's cost of childcare, food stamps, education and medical costs to those who have unplanned children. Those without genitalia would be exempt, as would those who had tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies.
Having children is NOT protected by the Constitution. You can argue all you want about it, but it isn't.
Lemme see. So yer sayin’ abuse of “copulation” leads to babies, and abuse of guns leads to dead people. And they’s the same, right?
The cost to the country in dollars is probably hundreds, if not thousands of times higher for children not being properly and financially taken care of by their bio parents vs gunshot victims.
And once again, being able to reproduce is not a guaranteed right. Lots of people are actually actively denied by law the ability to reproduce.