RobertNashville

Your dad was a wise man; I could go for that rule.   No need to get overly complicated with the idea; it's simply that if you are a taker of other people's taxes more than a contributor you don't get to vote, period. ;)

And that's exactly what it was; a jumping assumption likely jumped to because not doing so would not have supported your already formed opinion.   Most of the firearms I've purchased in my life have been "used"...there is nothing wrong with a used firearm and I never and have never said otherwise.

You're right...we should not and should never lose sight of that.  I can't even imagine what the parents and families who lost children/loved ones this morning are feeling...there just aren't any words.

I wish I didn't agree with you...I truly do but I think I have to.   There has never been a doubt in my mind that in a second term, Obama will go after our guns as completely and absolutely as he possibly can. This event gives him what he needs to go further and be even more blatant about it,   I don't expect he'll go after the 2A with a frontal assault but rather, he'll do it through executive orders and "rules" from his parrots in such cabinet agencies as Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and others. They'll control size of magazines, "allowable accessories", control over the materials used in ammunition, "gasses" allowed to be expelled when a cartridge is discharged and probably 100 other ways I can't even think of at the moment.  Congress won't be able to stop it because none of it will go through Congress.   I don't know if it can be stopped now...this tragedy is almost beyond anyone's comprehension. Soon, being "anti-gun control" or "pro-firearms" will be synonymous with being pro-child murder.

He's a Memphis politician....expecting anything different out of one would be a bit pointless wouldn't it?

  ---

Just pick up a rock and throw it in any direction you choose and you'll probably hit at least one contributing reason for them.   Basically, people are naturally flawed and sinful and some are downright evil; most people manage to live decent, peaceful lives even with their flaws...some don't.

You can call it an observation or anything you want but it's still a COMPLETELY BASELESS ASSUMPTION about someone you know absolutely nothing about.   And the "new handgun" issue is wholly in your imagination; if you think "decent" means the same as "new" then that's your incorrect assumption.

I know I'm being a hard ass about it but I still think it is probably how it should be done even if such a policy wound up affecting me directly at some point.  People need to have some real skin in the game if they are going to play.  I suppose the prohibition could be limited to exclude only those on specific forms of welfare (food stamps, etc.) and it would still accomplish pretty much the same thing. :)

Even if your doctor's excuses are just anti-gun crap, why risk it anyway?  If she's waited until now to take the class it's not going to hurt anything to wait a little longer is it?

I'm all for sliding scales that are voluntary; not so much when it's dictated by the government.  The first is charity; the second is just taxation by another name. ;)

Except there is a difference; voting IS a proper function of government as is providing for national security and a court system.   And as for voting, I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote unless they are paying more into the government in taxes than they are getting out of it.  People riding in the wagon shouldn't get to dictate to the ones doing the pulling.

It may be unconstitutional although I'm not entirely convinced that even Madison or Jefferson would say that the states have no say so in carrying arms...and more to the point, the courts are starting to make it clear that while people have a right to bear arms, the states have the right to regulate it.

So now we are going to do means testing?  That sounds like most of the misguided Republicans on Capitol Hill right now. ;)

Then call is socialism or redistribution of wealth or just good old fashioned communism but when you confiscate money from one group of people in order to give it to another group, whether in cash or services, it's just plain wrong and immoral.   Yes, the "poor" have a "right" to carry but they haven't done anything to justify taking my money to pay for the requirements the state places on them to exercise that right.   Speaking of those requirements, where were these people when the current laws were passed?  Assuming they voted for the representatives who put our current laws in place then don't they share the blame for the consequences of who they voted for?   If you want to start a foundation to accept voluntary contributions that's called charity and I'm all for it.

Yeah...that was pretty dirty politics on Beaver's part.   Although I don't know that accounts for the recent actions against her.  :shrug:

Well that's great...so my tax dollars have to be stolen from me to pay for somebody else? Sounds like welfare to me.   If the cost is really that onerous, how about we do it the free-market way? How about those who think the cost is too high; form a charitable foundation that can accept tax deductible donations and those donations can then be used to pay for some or even all of the cost of the HCP process for those who truly can't afford it on their own?   It sounds like a great thing for TGO to get involved in and I would love to donate to such an effort...it sure sounds to me like a much more constructive way to address the problem than people yelling about in on the internet.

Okay...I'll ask the dumb question...why go through the hassle and possible serious criminal charges when all that has to be done is have an FFL in the seller's state ship the weapon to an FFL in the buyer's state?   Am I missing something here?   I know it's a hassle and it will cost a little bit but it's better than jail time. ;)

So assuming we aren't going to get constitutional carry for a while (because we likely won't get it for quite a while), what is the "right" cost?    I"v asked before but no one has really answered that question. How much is "too" much?  What level of expense won't be too expensive for anyone?  

Who the hell are you to assume I've never been poor or anything else about me for that matter?  What, exactly do you know about me?  The answer is NOT A DAMN THING. You want to disagree with something I've said; fine...disagree.  You think I don't know what I'm talking about on an issue then fine; think that. But I've worked GOD DAMN HARD for everything I have am I'm sure as hell not ashamed that I have it and I'm not about to start being ashamed just because someone makes a swipe at me like you just did.   Aside form your baseless assumptions, our conversations would go a lot more smoothly if you didn't read what you think I said rather than what I actually said...when did I EVER say someone has to "buy a new handgun"?  The answer is never. If you think that's the wrong answer then please quote the post where I said otherwise.

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. Which begs the question of what are YOU doing to get things changed?   Not trying to throw stones here; just asking because unless people who think our current law is wrong get involved with their time and money nothing is going to change.

Not really disagreeing with you here but "excessive" is pretty much a matter of perspective isn't it? And as I said, make it any total cost you want and someone will complain that it's too high because for someone, it will be too high.   I didn't say whether people carry cheap, junk handguns was my choice but at the same time, if someone is carrying a firearm that is unsafe because it's a cheap piece of junk then "their right to carry" is now potentially interfering my "right to pursue happiness" (in the form of staying alive/not getting shot by their cheap piece of junk handgun) so it's not as if it doesn't affect me. :)   I do agree, having a right, if it is a right should be free...exercising a right probably won't be free and probably never has been nor do I see any reason why it should be.   Even if we have constitutional carry; if someone wants to carry a firearm they will probably have to buy one (unless someone gives you one)...same with ammo...same with a holster/some way to carry it that won't set it off when you reach for it.  Even spending as little as possible may be more than some people can afford.   Please don't get me wrong...I'm not saying the HCP process can't be improved and can't be made less expensive (although honestly, none of us here know what it really cost the state to process a HCP; for all we know they may be losing money on each one) and I'm also very much in favor of constitutional carry...I'm just saying that even constitutional carry isn't free; even if they carry a "cheep" handgun.     ----------   Just for the fun of it and because I was curious, I did some quick research (and since it was quick I can't say with 100% certainty that the information is exactly correct but I think it's still an interesting comparison). In 1880, the average wage for common labor was $0.135/hour. The average working day was 10 hours and the average working week was 6 days a week. That works out to an average income of $421/year.   Today, the average wage for common labor is, at minimum wage, $7.25/hr; in a 40 hour week that works out to an annual income of $15,080.   Now...the cost of a SAA Colt Peacemaker in 1880 was about $25 which represents about 5.9% of a person's annual income.  Let's say with tax and everything a nice new Glock will cost about $550; that's 3.65% of the average worker's annual income.   So...in 1880, pretty much everybody could carry if they had a firearm but it still cost them more, as a percentage of their annual income, than it does today (if we had the same unrestricted freedom to carry that we had in 1880).  I wouldn't be surprised if the cost, as a percentage of income, wasn't even higher in the early 1800s. At least the "cost" of carrying is a little easier on the pocketbook as far as the firearm goes. ;)

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1355444055' post='859674']Me neither, but that isn't the point. Everyone, regardless of economic status, should have access to the privilege of defending themselves. I agree but how much is too much? If $200 is unreasonable how about $100 or $75? Even $50 is a lot for some people. I realize that $150-200 or so can be a LOT to some and pocket change to others but if someone can afford a decent handgun I would think they could afford the cost of getting the HCP. Should the ability to carry a gun be limited to only those that can afford "a decent handgun"? How much is a reasonable amount for it to cost to vote? The cost of the permit is, in my opinion, directly equivalent to poll taxes. They are an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of a constitutionally acknowledged right.[/quote] I don't know, but I don't really want people caring around firearms are really nothing more than a piece of junk. How much should they have to pay for firearm to be safe - $100? $200? Even a "inexpensive "firearm is going to be a good piece of pocket change isn't it? The class is necessary for reciprocity with all the states we can carry in so that's not going to go away nor do I want it to... licensed instructors aren't going to do the classes for free nor should they. I don't know what the "right" or "fair" cost is but I am pretty sure that unless it's free somebody will bellyache about it. Not many things in life are free or should they be. Most people can't afford to go out and buy a radio station either but that doesn't mean they don't have freedom of speech or that somebody else should pay for it ? I'm all for constitutional carry But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the permit process we have in Tennessee now.

I agree but how much is too much? If $200 is unreasonable how about $100 or $75? Even $50 is a lot for some people. I realize that $150-200 or so can be a LOT to some and pocket change to others but if someone can afford a decent handgun I would think they could afford the cost of getting the HCP.

Just make sure they aren't 17 year old thug wan-a-bes out for skittles and a soda.