I never suggested any cars are not allowed to be manufactured imported or sold based on its ability to exceed the speed limit. I said and I quote "what are some ways these cars are limited due to their capabilities? I didn't say banned, I didn't say unable to be sold or manufactured. Just read what I posted. Don't read anything else.Originally Posted by David88vert
That's all you need to say. You don't have a scenario then that compares with the current gin control bill. That bill and its structure are what is relevant.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
It is incredibly relevant. It couldn't be more relevant. If you know an answer than give one.
I'm not looking for a scenario that compares to what you think the bill is. That's stupid. I don't know why anyone would do that.
What are some ways these cars I mentioned are limited? Answer that and I'll tell you how it's relevant.
theyre not limited. if you believe they are, then say how
They are not limited in regards to their abilities to be used in illegal activities.
They do have luxury taxes and some have import duties but those are not based upon their physical capabilities.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
They're very limited. I'm trying to see if you guys understand how.
Think of any possible way, when I'm drawing up plans for a GTR, how I could keep it out of the hands of someone who isn't able to handle its capabilities.
There is none. If you have the money, you can purchase the car without an approval process being run by the federal government. You don't even have to register the car or have a license.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You're on the right track!
Private sales between individuals have no limitations, so why try to change that with a select group of rifles?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I've had my fill of liberal rhetoric for the night. Blank getting beat like a pinata as usual. Until next time.......
Why not?
And BTW, there is one, maybe two more limitations on those cars that would affect a private sale....
Do you believe that we should just pass legislation because we can pass it?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You went back and edited.
There is no government limitation on private sales of car between US citizens. If I want to purchase a Lamborghini tonight from another private citizen (and I have enough) then I can purchase it without a background check, or waiting for a government approval. I do not even have to have a drivers license if I only use it on my own property, nor do I have to get a tag for it in every county (some counties have regulations concerning tags in their county, but there is no federal mandate). I simply purchase it, and I can do with it as I want, as long as I do not violate any standard laws - like killing someone.
Why shouldn't semi-automatic rifles be the same way? Why shouldn't a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle and an AR-15 be treated identically? Either can be used in the same manner, and one cannot make a person "more dead" than the other.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Nope. I believe we pass legislation to change something.
On what foundation do you determine if something should be changed?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
If there's something wrong with what's in place.
As in based upon an opinion? Who decides who's opinion is right then?
There is a correct answer - I just want to see if you know it.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You answered the question already. The question was what limits do we already have in place for these high powered cars to prevent speeding and accidents. Purchase price is the limitation. Insurance cost is the other, registration costs are another, limited production runs are another. These limitations, directly or indirectly keep people from breaking laws and injuring other people.
We aren't talking about how we use them on private property, cause if its paid for sitting in your garage, you're probably not speeding, and its also probably not necessary for you to use such a car for your survival.
And all guns should be treated the same way. It shouldn't be as easy as it is for a criminal to get one.
You are delusional again.
Purchase price is controlled by the law of supply and demand. The federal government does not say, "This car is too fast, we need to raise the price on it to slow people down." They don't regulate on perception that someone might drive beyond their capabilities either - if they did, all Honda Civics would be more expensive than Ferraris - all the kids try to drive them beyond their limits and crash.
ANY car that you buy from the dealership can break the speed limit - even a Jetta TDI. Almost every car that you can buy privately can break the speed limit as well, provided that they aren't half broken down. There are NO price controls on purchase price based upon the car's performance abilities alone - not one.
Registration costs are not involved with the federal government at all. They are local county costs, and have nothing to do with the performance capabilities of the car - simply based on the age and taxable value of the vehicle. They have no effect on controlling the driving habits of individuals, nor were they ever intended to.
Insurance costs are not related to regulation by the federal government based upon the capabilities of the car. The federal government does not even require you to have insurance on your car. Insurance is mandated in GA at a state level - and if you use your car on public roads. Track-only cars do not typically have insurance or registration at all, as it is not required. Insurance companies charge rates on what they perceive the risk is, not from any federal table of cost to performance capability.
Limited production runs? Really? Those are controlled by the manufacturer, and have nothing to do with any regulations. They are solely marketing methods to generate the most profit for the manufacturer. Did you even take Economics 101?
What you listed isn't even remotely related to government regulations and laws in keeping people from breaking laws. if you truly believe the drivel that you just typed, you probably should not have a driver's license.
Private property does not have to be inside your garage. It can be on any non-public road, field, farm, etc. Race cars, tractors, farm trucks, etc, are usually not registered or tagged, or driven on public roads - and you can speed as much as you like on private property.
As for firearms, have you tried to purchase an AR15? They already have a much higher cost than a .30-.30 or .308, just like a Ferrari is more expensive than a Honda.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Purchase price is the limitation?
Ok, so whats the problem then? criminals cant afford $2000 AR15s.... i can....
also.....
I currently own a vehicle that will out run a lamborghini...... it cost me about 2 months pay. The insurance on it is $52/month
If we've concluded that its far too easy for criminals to get guns, that a discussion should be raised on how to limit that, and any option should be explored
Who is we? And how do you define conclusion? What calculations and definitions are being used for "far too easy"?
You still didn't answer what the foundation is. You appear not to know, but I'll wait for you to do some critical thinking. Just spout it out.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You sure have to force yourself to believe the things you do don't you. Lol.
So now that you have a better understanding of price controls. Do you think there would be more or less accidents if brand new Ferrari's were $10k, and only $50 a month to insure?
I live in reality, a place that is very foreign to you.
What part of the government does not control the price of cars do you not understand? You stated some obvious false statements, and I called you out on them. You can't just admit you are flat-out wrong, instead you have to try to find some why to try to justify your fantasy.
I already understand the costs associated with cars - I've owned a lot of cars, and still have several. You appear to not have much knowledge though concerning what the costs actually are for, and who controls them.
You claim that you studied economics, but I have a hard time believing that, since you wouldn't have even made it through JA in HS with what you are spouting.
Ferrari sets the price of Ferraris - they aren't magically cheaper outside of the US. You didn't know that?
If you want to talk performance to cost - I can buy an old Mustang for $10K, and pay $50/month for insurance, and have more horsepower and torque than a new Ferrari. Where are the price controls on that?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I still waiting on you to answer "On what foundation do you determine if something should be changed?"
If you can't answer it, just say so. Here's a hint - you are talking about a legal change.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
It's not a fantasy. I just gave you an analogy of how we control guns through policy. Simple as that. This is what happens. This is economics 101. You read too much into the analogy. If you put as much effort trying to understand gun control as you do trying to figure out ways to tell me I'm wrong (and fail at in the process), we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
This is how you control guns with contractionary policy, and contractionary policy happens all over the place. Im not arguing something thats debatable, and its not my opinion. That's what contractionary policy is, and either you disagree with its implementation or you agree with it. It's like you're trying to argue that subtraction isn't a thing.
Stop with the banning=confiscation thing. It's tired.
You are definitely in a fantasy world. Not one of the items that you stated are pricing control policies from the federal government. Not one. Show me these policies and their legal foundation for the regulation of these pieces of private property. Give the actual laws on them, not just your delusional opinion.
Where did I say anything about confiscation? Again, you fail miserably.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
What do you mean "on what foundation?"
The foundation of all of our laws is our Constitution and the Amendments. You seem to think that these were designed to just be changed whenever someone felt their opinion was right. That's not how our legal system was constructed.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
And I never said they were pricing control policies from the federal government, did I? Or did you read too deep into it?
Contractionary policy isn't a law. It's methods the government uses to control the supply of a commodity. Guns aren't your private property until you buy one.
Backpedaling - that's what you are attempting to do.
The fact is, the government, as in federal government, is not doing anything to regulate car prices based upon their abilities. Re-read the discussion from the last couple of pages. That was your main discussion point, and you have shown that you are not able to tie your arguments together.
You are advocating a federal restriction on manfacturing and importing specific products based upon their capabilities. Cars do not have that restriction, period.
Since you are unable to show any policy on pricing control, it appears that you see that your argument has been completely and utterly defeated, and only your desperation keeps you going.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Didnt say that either.
Where do you keep coming up with this stuff?
Re-read your postings. Its pretty clear if you utilize critical thinking. Oh wait, that is beyond your capabilities.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Do you think if AR15s were $500, would more or less people have access to them?
I'll answer - the same number of people would have access to them. Either you are a felon, and are not legally allowed to purchase one, or you are not a felon, and you have the legal access to purchase one, if you desire to do so.
The price is of guns is controlled by the free market, not government regulations. When people weren't buying them in droves like they currently are, the price was lower. The price jumped up when speculators started buying them, thinking that they might be banned. This isn't just happening now, it happened when the 1994 ban was passed as well.
Price really isn't a limitation though, when it is between $500-$2000. If someone wants something enough to prioritize it, they will generally choose to do without other items in order to get it. It might mean eating out less, not having that morning cup of coffee, etc, but if they want it, they will find a way to purchase it.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
More people SHOULD have access to them................... the economy should not limit things only to the rich. An AR15 should be available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.
Guns should cost whatever the manufacturer thinks theyre worth and the government should have no say in it.
Everyone already has access to them, they just have to pay for them, just like a car, food, etc. The government is not raising the cost or limiting it - the free market handles the pricing.
An AR15 is already available to everyone who wishes to have one and can legally own one.
Guns already cost whatever the manufacturer thinks that they can get for them and the government not even attempt to have a say in it.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Ya, i want it to stay that it way. It sounded like Blank was suggesting a change to that.
I didn't say the legal ability to purchase one
So you're suggesting that the demand curve for guns is pretty flat, and a pretty steep drop in price (-$1500) won't increase demand?Price really isn't a limitation though, when it is between $500-$2000. If someone wants something enough to prioritize it, they will generally choose to do without other items in order to get it. It might mean eating out less, not having that morning cup of coffee, etc, but if they want it, they will find a way to purchase it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote