Why should I have to pay

[nashscan]

It's bad enough that one has to pay several hundred dollars for the safety class and the carry permit. Why should I have to pay $50 every four years also?

Why can't the government leave me alone? I don't have to pay $50 this year to exercise my right to stand on the street corner to exercise my first amendment.

[rocky top buzz]

I don't have a conceled weapons permit. What is the $50 for?

[nashscan]

I don't have a conceled weapons permit. What is the $50 for?

You have to pay a whopping $115 to GET the permit to carry a handgun. This is in addition to the $80-$100 you'll pay for the gun safety class. You must pasy $50 every four years thereafter to keep the permit.

If you fail to renew in a certain period of time, you must retake the class and pay the original fees.

[Hankster]

It amazing me the ways government find to raise money. And they are continually searching for new ways to raise money to satisfy their insatiable thirst for spending it.

[rocky top buzz]

Check out statistics: Cities that make it easier for citizens to own guns have lower murder and crime rates. Cities that make it more difficult for citizens to own guns are the most dangerous places in the world. Ever hear 'fences are built to keep honest people honest?' We are fencing in the honest people and the criminals are stealing guns like they always have.

I'm not saying that there should bo no gun control laws, but honest and innocent citizens should have the right to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. And all the money involved in this appears to be ridiculous.

[northernbizzkit1]

Check out statistics: Cities that make it easier for citizens to own guns have lower murder and crime rates. Cities that make it more difficult for citizens to own guns are the most dangerous places in the world. Ever hear 'fences are built to keep honest people honest?' We are fencing in the honest people and the criminals are stealing guns like they always have.

I'm not saying that there should bo no gun control laws, but honest and innocent citizens should have the right to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. And all the money involved in this appears to be ridiculous.

that's similar to the Amsterdam/pot thing. Pot is legal in the Netherlands, and the drug problems there are minute in comparison to the US.

[satalac]

that's similar to the Amsterdam/pot thing. Pot is legal in the Netherlands, and the drug problems there are minute in comparison to the US.

by drug problems do you mean people that are in jail for drugs? or those people that are in rehab or the hospital? i do agree with what they've done in amsterdam and wish they would do it here too. i wasn't even aware that they are trying to tack on another $50 every 4 years for the carry permit. i've been thinking about getting one myself. this is ridiculous. if i ever have a legislator that comes in my store and tries to buy something, everything is going to suddenly go off sale.

[BnaBreaker]

by drug problems do you mean people that are in jail for drugs? or those people that are in rehab or the hospital? i do agree with what they've done in amsterdam and wish they would do it here too. i wasn't even aware that they are trying to tack on another $50 every 4 years for the carry permit. i've been thinking about getting one myself. this is ridiculous. if i ever have a legislator that comes in my store and tries to buy something, everything is going to suddenly go off sale.

They have far less people in jail for drugs and they have a far smaller rate of drug addiction. You make something taboo and it becomes almost glamourous. If they sold pot at Krogers do you think kids would be going behind their parents' back to try it? lol

[Onyte9]

It's bad enough that one has to pay several hundred dollars for the safety class and the carry permit. Why should I have to pay $50 every four years also?

Why can't the government leave me alone? I don't have to pay $50 this year to exercise my right to stand on the street corner to exercise my first amendment.

Maybe some of those from the far left that chime in on this forum daily could explain why its so important to keep guns away from those who use them with honesty. They seem to be the ones that want to raise the stakes on carrying permits.

[BnaBreaker]

I can only speak for myself, as my political views are very diverse and don't follow any ideological path inparticular. I simply don't understand this nation's gun fetish. I think people should be allowed to have certain types of firearms in their homes. I think people should be able to buy sporting guns (although I think hunting is a pretty sick pasttime). I simply think there should be limits.

Although it is impossible to know for sure, I don't think that in the time of musket balls, the authors of the Constitution ever intended it to be an authorization for people to own automatic weapons and rocket launchers in their homes.

It is somewhat evident that banning firearms altogether actually helps to increase the murder rate. However, just because the criminals among us may or may not be able to get their hands on high-powered military style weapons doesn't mean we should just hand them out to anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. Nobody was born a criminal. People can change just like that.

So to sum up my views: Sporting weapons and weapons of self defense should be allowed (although they shouldn't be necessarily 'easy' to obtain...they can easily kill afterall). What should be banned are any purely offensive weapons designed to do the most damage possible in the smallest amount of time.

[nashscan]

So to sum up my views: Sporting weapons and weapons of self defense should be allowed (although they shouldn't be necessarily 'easy' to obtain...they can easily kill afterall). What should be banned are any purely offensive weapons designed to do the most damage possible in the smallest amount of time.

Guns can kill, therefore the process to get one should be lengthy and stringent. Sounds good at first glance, but let's think about a situation where a "waiting period" would be very bad. Say a small female just got out of an abusive relationship. She moved here from Los Angeles and has no friends or family. She now fears that macho man will come back to ger apartment and kill her. She goes down to Gun City and tries to buy a nine milly. Unfortunately for her, a few liberals in congress passed a law that requires her to wait 48 hours. She goes home dissapointed, and the ex boyfriend kills her later that night in her own bed.

[Fallingwater]

It's bad enough that one has to pay several hundred dollars for the safety class and the carry permit. Why should I have to pay $50 every four years also?

Why can't the government leave me alone? I don't have to pay $50 this year to exercise my right to stand on the street corner to exercise my first amendment.

Hello Nashcan,

I have been watching a series of videos on the US Constitution as taught by one time Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, for the US Presidency. I hold no affiliation with any political party and endorse none but Badnarik's class has a ton of interesting things to learn and I think should be viewed whether one agrees with Libertarianism or not. I have watched the first four installments and have yet to view the remaining three. It is 7 hours total in length.

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Badnarik appears to be one who is indeed a lover of his guns. Personally I do not care too much for gun nuts.

At any rate, I believe it is in the fourth installment where he addresses himself as to why it is that you are paying for permission to exercise your RIGHT to bear arms. He explains how it came to be that the "Inaliable RIGHT" has been eroded to a priviledge. According to him, the first gun permits came about after the Civil War proceeding the amancipation of blacks. Those newly freed slaves were supposedly given equal status to their Caucasion counterparts, hence, the "RIGHT" to bear arms as well. Well, many thought this not too good an idea since they might arm themselves in order to get revenge, you know? So, gun permits were instituted as a means of controling which Blacks could have them. Eventually, this came to include all Americans.

Likewise, there was no such thing as a marriage permit prior to the Civil War and such came about because many wanted to control the idea of inter-racial marriages. He even reads from a document stating that very thing. There are now three partys involved in a marriage agreement; You, your spouse, and the State and the State now has a vested interest in the outcome of your marriage (i.e. - children - they now co-own them) which is why they can now come in at any time saying you are a "bad parent" and take them away or force them to attend school.

He repeatedly asks the question; "If x is right then why do I need permission?" One needs permission for priviledges but not rights which are said to be "inaliable." Think you fully own your car once it is paid? Think again! Think you own your land? Not without alludial Title and in Tennessee you do not have Alludial Title. He goes on to assert (I think it is in the 2nd installment) that with either the 13th or 14th Amendment, once one claims "US Citizenship" then one becomes a "subject" to Congress and Congress is then an entity above that included in the term "We the People." Hence, tis better to never claim US Citizenship but, rather, US National and a citizen of the State. Congress became the old King of England and one no longer has "rights" but "priviledges."

Back to guns and Badnarik though; He makes statements about his right to bear arms throughout and, quite frankly, some of his remarks are maniacal. Unfortunately, it is these types of remarks which I hear everyday from a wide range of people who are "gun enthusiests" at my workplace. Scary people indeed.

[satalac]

the interesting thing about the whole gun debate is that guns kill people. i'm not sure if that is really all that strong of a debate for making a permit harder to obtain. i see it being more of an defensive tool than anything else. people getting gun permits are not the ones commiting crimes. besides, drivers licenses are easier to obtain than gun permits, and cars kill a whole lot more people than guns. my point being, people wanting to get a gun permit are going to typically be more responsible with their reason for the license. what criminal would voluntarily spend money and go through a process to prove that they are responsible with a gun? the government should not punish those willing to do this.

[BnaBreaker]

Guns can kill, therefore the process to get one should be lengthy and stringent. Sounds good at first glance, but let's think about a situation where a "waiting period" would be very bad. Say a small female just got out of an abusive relationship. She moved here from Los Angeles and has no friends or family. She now fears that macho man will come back to ger apartment and kill her. She goes down to Gun City and tries to buy a nine milly. Unfortunately for her, a few liberals in congress passed a law that requires her to wait 48 hours. She goes home dissapointed, and the ex boyfriend kills her later that night in her own bed.

With all due respect, while that scenario is indeed possible, i'm sure it is extremely rare. You don't think I could come up with a million hypotheticals to support my argument too? Are you actually suggesting there should be no limits on who can purchase a gun? Anybody that wants a gun should be able to simply go pick one up at Guns R Us?

You're right that i'm sure there have been cases where the waiting period has hindered somebody in some way. Seat belts have been known to malfunction and hold people in after their car crashes and goes into the water, thus drowning them. Should we get rid of seat belt laws? Hell lets just let people strap themselves to the roof of the car while we're at it. Restrictions are bad!

Okay, i'm obviously not suggesting you are against seat belts. What I am trying to say is that there are hypotheticals that can be conjured up for just about anything. That doesn't make it a justification for doing away with that thing altogether. Furthermore, there needs to be limits somewhere. There are certain limits to our freedoms. Yes, we have free speech, but you can't go into a crowded theatre and yell "FIRE!". You can't board a plane and proclaim that you have a bomb. Likewise, not just anyone should be able to go purchase a loaded weapon whenever they please like it was a loaf of bread.

[BnaBreaker]

the interesting thing about the whole gun debate is that guns kill people. i'm not sure if that is really all that strong of a debate for making a permit harder to obtain. i see it being more of an defensive tool than anything else. people getting gun permits are not the ones commiting crimes. besides, drivers licenses are easier to obtain than gun permits, and cars kill a whole lot more people than guns. my point being, people wanting to get a gun permit are going to typically be more responsible with their reason for the license. what criminal would voluntarily spend money and go through a process to prove that they are responsible with a gun? the government should not punish those willing to do this.

Just because someone isn't a criminal doesn't mean that they aren't prone to accidents and mistakes. Obviously accidents can't be done away with, because human error will always be a concern, but the least we can do when dealing with a deadly weapon is make sure a person is mature enough to own one, and knows how to use it properly.

Should just anyone be able to drive a vehicle? Of course not! Vehicles have the potential to be a deadly weapon too. This is why we require people to prove that they are capable of operating one. Obviously most people obtaining a drivers license aren't felons, and have zero intention of hurting anybody, but accidents still happen anyway. You know what though? If there were no requirements or no licenses involved the accident rate would be so much higher than it already is. Similarly, I think that the rate of accidental gun death in this country would skyrocket were proper training not required.

Kids in America are 12 times more likely to be killed by a gun than kids in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(05): 101-105, February 07, 1997.

In 18 years (1979-97) more Americans were killed by guns than by every war since this nation's founding.

More Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858). And while a sharp drop in gun homicides has contributed to a decline in overall gun deaths since 1993, the 90's will likely exceed the death toll of the 1980s (327,173) and end up being the deadliest decade of the century. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 350,000 Americans will have been killed in non-military-related firearm incidents during the decade.

(Press release from CDC data)

[satalac]

Just because someone isn't a criminal doesn't mean that they aren't prone to accidents and mistakes. Obviously accidents can't be done away with, because human error will always be a concern, but the least we can do when dealing with a deadly weapon is make sure a person is mature enough to own one, and knows how to use it properly.

Should just anyone be able to drive a vehicle? Of course not! Vehicles have the potential to be a deadly weapon too. This is why we require people to prove that they are capable of operating one. Obviously most people obtaining a drivers license aren't felons, and have zero intention of hurting anybody, but accidents still happen anyway. You know what though? If there were no requirements or no licenses involved the accident rate would be so much higher than it already is. Similarly, I think that the rate of accidental gun death in this country would skyrocket were proper training not required.

Kids in America are 12 times more likely to be killed by a gun than kids in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(05): 101-105, February 07, 1997.

In 18 years (1979-97) more Americans were killed by guns than by every war since this nation's founding.

More Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858). And while a sharp drop in gun homicides has contributed to a decline in overall gun deaths since 1993, the 90's will likely exceed the death toll of the 1980s (327,173) and end up being the deadliest decade of the century. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 350,000 Americans will have been killed in non-military-related firearm incidents during the decade.

(Press release from CDC data)

the question i raise to this, is how many of those homes were of people who had gun permits? most of those with permits are a lot more careful with guns than those without, hence the willingness to get the permit. to get a permit you have to take a course in safety. this i agree with. it's the extra money that the government is trying to make these responsible gun owners pay that i don't agree with. why deter the people who are being responisble? to really compare this to a drivers license, let's put it this way. do you think it would be fare to make everyone pay extra $$$$ every 4 years to keep a driver's license? if you're worried about people being trained, then you shouldn't worry about the way the system was set up. they required that you get trained before you got the license. they are simply trying to make you pay more money now.

[rocky top buzz]

This all ties back into the old statement "fencese are made to keep honest people honest." If you make it more difficult to get a weapon, the honest people will abide by the law. If you make guns illeagal, the honest people will abide by the law. By the dis-honest, the criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns. That's why more restrictive gun laws lead to higher crime rates.

I get so sick of the argument about guns are ok only for hunting. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with killing a deer. We have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyranical government like England was to us. The reason a Castro or Hitler charecter hasn't come to power in American is because of our right to bear arms.

And guns don't kill people; people kill people

[The Tot Pack]

Stop your whining.

Pay the fees...

How else would the gov't be able to pay to build a 500 lane highway thru country side, hrm?