Defend your right to own a car.

[.blank cd]

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.

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.

[.blank cd]

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.

Didnt say that either.

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff?

[David88vert]

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.

[David88vert]

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.

[Sinfix_15]

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.

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

[.blank cd]

Purchase price is the limitation?

Ok, so whats the problem then? criminals cant afford $2000 AR15s.... i can...

Do you think if AR15s were $500, would more or less people have access to them?

[David88vert]

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.

[.blank cd]

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.

I didn't say the legal ability to purchase one

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.

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?

[David88vert]

I didn't say the legal ability to purchase one

"Access" does not imply ability to afford to purchase one. Access is ability to acquire, period.

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?

No, I did not say that. Use some critical thinking. I made it abundantly clear.

[.blank cd]

No, I did not say that. Use some critical thinking. I made it abundantly clear.

Why do you keep answering questions that I didn't ask? I know what access means. I didnt ask if people would prioritize so they could afford them. All I asked was would demand for assault style rifles increase if we dropped the price $1500 or not?

[David88vert]

Why do you keep answering questions that I didn't ask? I know what access means. I didnt ask if people would prioritize so they could afford them. All I asked was would demand for assault style rifles increase if we dropped the price $1500 or not?

You stated that you took economics? Did you not? If you took economics, then why are you even asking this question? The answer though is completely irrelevant to the overall discussion, and is nothing more than a tangent (something that you are very fond of).

[.blank cd]

You stated that you took economics? Did you not? If you took economics, then why are you even asking this question? The answer though is completely irrelevant to the overall discussion, and is nothing more than a tangent (something that you are very fond of).

It's still very relevant. I'm trying to break down contractionary and expansionary policy so you can understand it and its applications better.

Some time between 1776 and now, somewhere along the line, we decided it was in the public interest for the government to regulate firearms. So we do. As time went along, we also figured out that we can manipulate the supply and demand of certain commodities with policy. It works with money, it works with oil, it works with sugar, it works with corn, it can work with just about any kind of commodity you see traded on the stock market, and it works with guns. An externality is a direct or indirect result of such a policy. A policy is a regulation or law that a government or a business or some entity puts in place. Congress could pass a law saying all school children k-12 have to wear uniforms (an example, not that it could or would). An externality would be a sharp decline in the sale/production of blue jeans, or an increase in sales at a specific uniform company.

So, now that you know the basics of expansionary and contractionary policy, and what a policy is, and what an externality is, and that you understand that a decrease in price of a certain commodity results in an increase in demand of that commodity, and in turn, the increase in price of the same commodity results in a decrease in demand, if i was someone who wrote laws and understood this basic concept, what would be a way I could decrease demand for an assault rifle?

[David88vert]

It's still very relevant. I'm trying to break down contractionary and expansionary policy so you can understand it and its applications better.

Some time between 1776 and now, somewhere along the line, we decided it was in the public interest for the government to regulate firearms. So we do. As time went along, we also figured out that we can manipulate the supply and demand of certain commodities with policy. It works with money, it works with oil, it works with sugar, it works with corn, it can work with just about any kind of commodity you see traded on the stock market, and it works with guns. An externality is a direct or indirect result of such a policy. A policy is a regulation or law that a government or a business or some entity puts in place. Congress could pass a law saying all school children k-12 have to wear uniforms (an example, not that it could or would). An externality would be a sharp decline in the sale/production of blue jeans, or an increase in sales at a specific uniform company.

So, now that you know the basics of expansionary and contractionary policy, and what a policy is, and what an externality is, and that you understand that a decrease in price of a certain commodity results in an increase in demand of that commodity, and in turn, the increase in price of the same commodity results in a decrease in demand, if i was someone who wrote laws and understood this basic concept, what would be a way I could decrease demand for an assault rifle?

You still didn't show a government policy to support your earlier claims. Instead, you drivel on without supporting your opinion with factual statements.

The first federal law regarding gun control, other than the Second Amendment, wasn't until 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was implemented under FDR's leadership, during the sensationalistic crime era of the gangsters. National Firearms Act of 1934 legal definition of National Firearms Act of 1934. National Firearms Act of 1934 synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Do you see any resemblance to current legislation tactics?
Now, did that law stop gangsters from killing, or did more aggressive enforcement of non-weapons related laws spell the doom of the gangster era?

Now, as to firearms and taxes, that is specifically already spelled out in law. Read 26 USC § 5801
26 USC § 5801 - Imposition of tax | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You may think that you have knowledge, but in reality, I am already well-versed in pretty much every subject that you have tried to intertwine as tangents, and I keep my eye on the intent of the discussion.

Fact is - you have failed to back up your statements over the last couple of pages, and are simply attempting to deflect attention from your inability to support your own statements.

[.blank cd]

You still didn't show a government policy to support your earlier claims. Instead, you drivel on without supporting your opinion with factual statements.

WHAT opinion? I haven't posted an opinion at all. Lol. Please quote exactly what I said that you believe is my opinion.

What claim are you talking about?

The first federal law regarding gun control, other than the Second Amendment, wasn't until 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was implemented under FDR's leadership, during the sensationalistic crime era of the gangsters. National Firearms Act of 1934 legal definition of National Firearms Act of 1934. National Firearms Act of 1934 synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Do you see any resemblance to current legislation tactics?
Now, did that law stop gangsters from killing, or did more aggressive enforcement of non-weapons related laws spell the doom of the gangster era?

Now, as to firearms and taxes, that is specifically already spelled out in law. Read 26 USC § 5801
26 USC § 5801 - Imposition of tax | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

What. Is. Your. Point?

You may think that you have knowledge, but in reality, I am already well-versed in pretty much every subject that you have tried to intertwine as tangents

Obviously not since you're arguing that basic economic concepts somehow don't exist. You're keeping an eye on the way YOU want the discussion to go: off on a straw man. And when you say tangents, do you mean like starting a discussion about imposing taxes on guns, that no one is talking about? That kind of tangent?

Fact is - you have failed to back up your statements over the last couple of pages, and are simply attempting to deflect attention from your inability to support your own statements.

WHAT do you want me to back up?

[David88vert]

WHAT opinion? I haven't posted an opinion at all. Lol. Please quote exactly what I said that you believe is my opinion.

What claim are you talking about?

What. Is. Your. Point?

Obviously not since you're arguing that basic economic concepts somehow don't exist. You're keeping an eye on the way YOU want the discussion to go: off on a straw man. And when you say tangents, do you mean like starting a discussion about imposing taxes on guns, that no one is talking about? That kind of tangent?

WHAT do you want me to back up?

You made the claim of policies creating limitations on "highly capable cars" while we were discussing governmental control. After I showed you that your statement were clearly incorrect, you continued to try to make those claims. Where is the proof? Show us the federal policy documentation.

You are the one who ignored the most basic economic reality of supply and demand and tried to claim that performance vehicles (Corvettes and "north", remember?) were price controlled by these policies. I want to see these federal restrictions on price. Show them to us.


Finally, you stated that the gun control restrictions started between 1776 and now. I simply showed you when. I didn't even charge you tuition. Of course, you won't be getting any credit either. You didn't answer the questions that I posed though. In regards to the actual results, did that proactive, financially restrictive law accomplish its goal of reducing or eliminating gun violence? Here's a hint - the answer has two letters.

[.blank cd]

You made the claim of policies creating limitations on "highly capable cars" while we were discussing governmental control. After I showed you that your statement were clearly incorrect, you continued to try to make those claims. Where is the proof? Show us the federal policy documentation.

Lets be clear here, I made an analogy. An analogy that was prompted by sinfix. You didn't show me I was incorrect incorrect at all. You read too deep into the analogy.

You are the one who ignored the most basic economic reality of supply and demand and tried to claim that performance vehicles (Corvettes and "north", remember?) were price controlled by these policies. I want to see these federal restrictions on price. Show them to us.

I never claimed there was a federal restriction on performance vehicles with regards to price. Did you read too much into the analogy? What about it confused you?

Finally, you stated that the gun control restrictions started between 1776 and now. I simply showed you when. I didn't even charge you tuition. Of course, you won't be getting any credit either. You didn't answer the questions that I posed though. In regards to the actual results, did that proactive, financially restrictive law accomplish its goal of reducing or eliminating gun violence? Here's a hint - the answer has two letters.

Is this about the tangent you went off on, about imposing taxes no one was proposing or even discussing?

[David88vert]

...What are some proactive methods we use to stop people from committing crimes in very capable cars?

....what methods, policy or otherwise, do we use to limit people purchasing and using high powered cars?

...Higher powered cars are limited in some fashion..

There are government policies...
...All the cars I listed are "limited" in some fashion, government policy or otherwise. What are those fashions?

They're very limited....
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.

...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...

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....

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.

Lets be clear here, I made an analogy. An analogy that was prompted by sinfix. You didn't show me I was incorrect incorrect at all. You read too deep into the analogy.

I never claimed there was a federal restriction on performance vehicles with regards to price. Did you read too much into the analogy? What about it confused you?

Re-read your statements. Everyone else has already seen your error.

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.

And all guns should be treated the same way. It shouldn't be as easy as it is for a criminal to get one.

Is this about the tangent you went off on, about imposing taxes no one was proposing or even discussing?

Are you saying that you did not say the above?

[.blank cd]

I said every last bit of that. Which part of that did I say there is a federal regulation on performance cars? Can you quote that specific part please?

...or are you assuming?

No one has seen my error yet, particularly since I haven't made one, and you've yet to point that non existent error out. But I'll let you keep trying. Lol.

[David88vert]

I said every last bit of that. Which part of that did I say there is a federal regulation on performance cars? Can you quote that specific part please?

...or are you assuming?

No one has seen my error yet, particularly since I haven't made one, and you've yet to point that non existent error out. But I'll let you keep trying. Lol.

#4 and #6 were pretty clear.

The entire context of this entire thread has been federal legislation, has it not?
Are we supposed to believe that you are suddenly invoking state and county regulations on this federal restriction discussion?

[.blank cd]

#4 and #6 were pretty clear.

Did you see the part that said "...or otherwise"? Key word "otherwise"?

The entire context of this entire thread has been federal legislation, has it not?
Are we supposed to believe that you are suddenly invoking state and county regulations on this federal restriction discussion?

I made an analogy. An analogy prompted by Sinfix. I'm not invoking anything. I made an analogy using the auto industry. Are you still confused? The whole thread is built on an analogy by him. That is the context of the thread.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you think if AR15s were $500, would more or less people have access to them?

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.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not seeing this connection between price limiting our ability to own excessive vehicles. The fastest and most dangerous vehicle on the road can be had for about $15000....

[.blank cd]

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.

Why do you think more people should have access to these high powered rifles? Does the "more" include children and people who are unable to handle the extra capability mentally or physically?

[.blank cd]

I'm not seeing this connection between price limiting our ability to own excessive vehicles. The fastest and most dangerous vehicle on the road can be had for about $15000....

Don't look too deep into it. I made one analogy and you're introducing others. How many people you think have the disposable cash for a $15k bike(Since I'm guessing you're referring to liter+ bikes)

If the price of AR15s drops $1500 tomorrow, do you think demand for them would go up or down? What about if the price went up $1500?

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you think more people should have access to these high powered rifles? Does the "more" include children and people who are unable to handle the extra capability mentally or physically?

A child cant purchase any gun. Any use of a gun is under the supervision of the parent. I dont think you will ever accurately be able to identify mental illness to any degree of certainty.

Why should people have guns? You're asking the wrong question................. this is america, we dont ask why, we ask why not. People have the right to enjoy their lives how they see fit.

[Sinfix_15]

Don't look too deep into it. I made one analogy and you're introducing others. How many people you think have the disposable cash for a $15k bike(Since I'm guessing you're referring to liter+ bikes)

If the price of AR15s drops $1500 tomorrow, do you think demand for them would go up or down? What about if the price went up $1500?

They finance them to anyone............ a bike is one of the easiest things to buy...... easier than a car........

The economy will balance out, if AR15 jumped up $1500 tomorrow, people would stop buying them, when people stopped buying them, they would drop back down. Are you suggesting that the government should be able to keep the price high for the purpose of limiting access?

[.blank cd]

They finance them to anyone............ a bike is one of the easiest things to buy...... easier than a car...

Not according to my loan officer at the bank. I tried that. Unless you're coming to the table with a significant DP and a stellar credit score.

[QuoteThe economy will balance out, if AR15 jumped up $1500 tomorrow, people would stop buying them, when people stopped buying them, they would drop back down. Are you suggesting that the government should be able to keep the price high for the purpose of limiting access?[/QUOTE]All I'm saying is that its possible to manipulate the demand like that with policy and without placing a direct tax on guns. Maybe not to a $1500 extent, but its possible.

[Sinfix_15]

Not according to my loan officer at the bank. I tried that. Unless you're coming to the table with a significant DP and a stellar credit score.

[QuoteThe economy will balance out, if AR15 jumped up $1500 tomorrow, people would stop buying them, when people stopped buying them, they would drop back down. Are you suggesting that the government should be able to keep the price high for the purpose of limiting access?

All I'm saying is that its possible to manipulate the demand like that with policy and without placing a direct tax on guns. Maybe not to a $1500 extent, but its possible.[/QUOTE]

Why would you want to do something like that?

Is your goal for america to be softcore communist?

[Sinfix_15]

Would you feel the same way if the government priced other things out of the reach of common citizens? for the sole purpose of making them out of reach to common citizens

[Sinfix_15]

Careful when standing on the moral ground of the liberal left...... it's very thin ice.

Barack, Michelle, Biden All to Skip Thatcher Funeral to Push Gun Control

[Sinfix_15]

accidental honesty on display

[Sinfix_15]

America as it should be

Guns and Grub: Louisiana restaurant serves free fried chicken to concealed carry holders

[Sinfix_15]

[.blank cd]

Why would you want to do something like that?

Is your goal for america to be softcore communist?

I haven't said if I wanted them to do it or not

This happens with a lot of other commodities as well. Not just guns.

[.blank cd]

Would you feel the same way if the government priced other things out of the reach of common citizens? for the sole purpose of making them out of reach to common citizens

Im not suggesting the government is pricing anything. I'm saying that the government has ways of manipulating demand.

[David88vert]

Did you see the part that said "...or otherwise"? Key word "otherwise"?

I made an analogy. An analogy prompted by Sinfix. I'm not invoking anything. I made an analogy using the auto industry. Are you still confused? The whole thread is built on an analogy by him. That is the context of the thread.

The whole discussion has been about federal government gun control legislation concerning the banning of importation and manufacturing of assault style weapons. Explain how your analogy can still be an analogy to that subject, when you wish to remove all of those relevant details.

[Echonova]

You would think the President could afford a Kindle.

[David88vert]

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.

[David88vert]

Why do you think more people should have access to these high powered rifles? Does the "more" include children and people who are unable to handle the extra capability mentally or physically?

On this, blank, I agree with you. MORE people do not need to have access to them, as everyone except felons, mentally handicapped, and children, already have full access to them.

[David88vert]

Don't look too deep into it. I made one analogy and you're introducing others. How many people you think have the disposable cash for a $15k bike(Since I'm guessing you're referring to liter+ bikes)

If the price of AR15s drops $1500 tomorrow, do you think demand for them would go up or down? What about if the price went up $1500?

Lot of people have access to liter bikes - we have vehicle loans.
I do not think that gun specific loans sound like a good idea, although people already can get personal loans.