Re: my phrase "censorship, of a sort": agree to disagree, agreed. :)
I doubt that you would harbor "next-to-no ill will" in such a circumstance, even if you felt that it was worth it, but that's a minor point at best. I still respect your stated position nonetheless.
Agreed that we don't know Cooper's priorities or motivations--or, really, what the actual effects of Obama's policies on gun manufacturers might be.
I accept that some firearms enthusiasts shoot as much as you say. But how much did that 2000 rounds cost you in the first place? If it's at least as much as the $100 additional hypothesized cost (that is, if the surcharge no more than doubles the cost, say), then it seems to me that this is a moderately expensive hobby anyway. Certainly if one is in the position to spend a few thousand on a gun, $100 more every few months (say) is still annoying but it doesn't seem like a make-or-break kind of thing.
"Deprivation of one's right to life is the same as deprivation of one's right to defend one's life". I disagree--and that's a strawman anyway. (1) We do have police forces. Sometimes they even come when you call. I do not claim that (2) No one is proposing to deprive you of your _right_ to defend your life. The most that anyone is proposing, as far as I can tell, is that some _tools_ for defending your life should be either more expensive in quantity, or in some cases unavailable.
I do not agree that I should be ashamed that I consider one inherent right to be more important than another. Without the rights to "life [and] liberty", all else is irrelevant (and yes, I know that's not from the Bill of Rights, but I assume my point is taken nonetheless). (For the record, the First Amendment is slightly higher on my list than the Fifth--and both are significantly higher than the Third, say. If you would like to discuss this subtopic, let's take it to another forum (email or a new blog posting would be fine).)
You left out a third option: if I ever buy a firearm, I doubt that I'll feel constrained by any proposed restriction because my needs are likely to be pretty simple. I'm unlikely to carry a gun with me on a regular basis, and for home defense, I'm told that a shotgun is still probably the best bet--and I haven't heard any _solid_ evidence that anyone's talking about banning those.
Just curious: what other issues are of importance to you? If we were to assume that McCain's and Obama's gun policies were likely to be the same, how would you vote?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 3 November 2008 06:29 (UTC)I doubt that you would harbor "next-to-no ill will" in such a circumstance, even if you felt that it was worth it, but that's a minor point at best. I still respect your stated position nonetheless.
Agreed that we don't know Cooper's priorities or motivations--or, really, what the actual effects of Obama's policies on gun manufacturers might be.
I accept that some firearms enthusiasts shoot as much as you say. But how much did that 2000 rounds cost you in the first place? If it's at least as much as the $100 additional hypothesized cost (that is, if the surcharge no more than doubles the cost, say), then it seems to me that this is a moderately expensive hobby anyway. Certainly if one is in the position to spend a few thousand on a gun, $100 more every few months (say) is still annoying but it doesn't seem like a make-or-break kind of thing.
"Deprivation of one's right to life is the same as deprivation of one's right to defend one's life". I disagree--and that's a strawman anyway.
(1) We do have police forces. Sometimes they even come when you call. I do not claim that
(2) No one is proposing to deprive you of your _right_ to defend your life. The most that anyone is proposing, as far as I can tell, is that some _tools_ for defending your life should be either more expensive in quantity, or in some cases unavailable.
I do not agree that I should be ashamed that I consider one inherent right to be more important than another. Without the rights to "life [and] liberty", all else is irrelevant (and yes, I know that's not from the Bill of Rights, but I assume my point is taken nonetheless).
(For the record, the First Amendment is slightly higher on my list than the Fifth--and both are significantly higher than the Third, say. If you would like to discuss this subtopic, let's take it to another forum (email or a new blog posting would be fine).)
You left out a third option: if I ever buy a firearm, I doubt that I'll feel constrained by any proposed restriction because my needs are likely to be pretty simple. I'm unlikely to carry a gun with me on a regular basis, and for home defense, I'm told that a shotgun is still probably the best bet--and I haven't heard any _solid_ evidence that anyone's talking about banning those.
Just curious: what other issues are of importance to you? If we were to assume that McCain's and Obama's gun policies were likely to be the same, how would you vote?