Enlil said:

Again, completely different from what you're suggesting.  10,000 people marching are required to pay for the governmental costs caused by THOSE SAME 10,000 PEOPLE.  You're saying that because I have a pistol in my night stand, I should pay for the costs caused by some wacko in Vegas shooting out of a window.

---

Near Dylan said:

Then donate your money to having security in every public place.

And just for the laughs, can I ask you guys what this security force will be armed with?

---

Enlil said:

christopera said:

The argument is simple. There is a significant cost to society that is the result of guns. How do we pay for it?

There is a superfund for environmental disasters thats funded by environmental income tax, excise tax on petroleum and chemicals. Where this the superfund for people and families who are on the receiving end of gun violence? It could be funded perhaps by greater excise tax on guns and ammo?

When you dig or construct you present a surety bond. Perhaps gun owners should be responsible in this way.

---

You're missing the point.  There is no fundamental right to manufacture toxic chemicals. 

In the U.S., we have certain rights.  With those rights come societal costs.  That is inevitable.  If you disagree with those rights, there is a way to change them.  Charging people solely for exercising their rights is just an end-run around the process of altering rights.  It is an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and allow tyranny of the majority.

---

christopera said:

That's an argument of purity.

The system hasn't work that way not since the day it was conceived.

---

koods said:

Enlil said:

Again, completely different from what you're suggesting.  10,000 people marching are required to pay for the governmental costs caused by THOSE SAME 10,000 PEOPLE.  You're saying that because I have a pistol in my night stand, I should pay for the costs caused by some wacko in Vegas shooting out of a window.

---

Yes. Those 10,000 people pay costs to provide security, whether they personally incur costs or not. The government is saying that “your right to protest isn’t without cost. As a protester, you are responsible for the burden this places on society”  Why should everyone have to
Pay the costs incurred by those who choose to exercise their rights. Rights ARE NOT AN OBLIGATION. You don’t have to own a gun and those that choose to should be the ones who pay for the associated costs.

---

christopera said:

You have a right to vote, but it costs gas money to get to a station, and gasoline is taxed. It requires auto insurance to drive on the public roads. Whether you own a car or not you pay taxes towards roads. So that right to vote gets pretty expensive. You are paying into all sorts of things just to exercise that right. The government sure is "Charging people solely for exercising their rights."

---

Quote:

You still haven't really explained why all gun owners are not only at fault for the sheer existence of bad gun owners, but are directly responsible for any decisions that bad gun owner makes.

---

koods said:

Obviously gun owners don’t like this idea. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it.

---