This is terrible. Hope the asshole is dead. Please don’t be the dick that starts the debate…please
The penalty is phased-in over a three year period. In 2014, the penalty will be the greater of 1.0% of taxable income or $95 per adult and $47.50 per child (up to $285 per family). In 2015, the penalty will be the greater of 2.0% of taxable income or $325 per adult and $162.50 per child (up to $975 per family). In 2016, the penalty will be at the greater of 2.5% of taxable income or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child (up to $$2,085 per family). After 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the increase to the cost-of-living.
Do they have a second amendment? If you want to pass controls like what they have in other countries, then you’ll need to alter or abolish the second amendment. Until then, referencing other countries is a waste of time.
Point taken. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I agree with you to a degree. My only problem is, the state that I live in currently has the “discrestionary” licensing and background checks you speak of. The chief of police decides whether or not you get your rights. It has failed and chiefs in each town and city have different rules and different assesments of people. It is a major issue. That is the problem with anything over and above a statutory licensing scheme. What you propose looks great on paper, but the execution of such would be irrational if the past has taught us anything.
Those countries do not have a second amendment, so how can you arrive at any reasonable and achievable conclusion through the use of other countries’ methods or laws?
So? Read this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Then come back on and tell me what you think.
Until a person is adjunicated mentally ill or is CONVICTED of a crime punishible by more than a one year prison sentence, they will pass a background check. Are you actually suggesting that being accused of a crime should be enough to remove a constitutional right? Are you suggesting that someone on a sleeping pill for minor anxiety should be enough to remove a constitutional right? Are you suggesting that someone convicted of an unpaid fine, a non-violent drug offense (like possession of weed) or for a shoplifting charge as a minor should result in the loss of a constitutional right? Come on!
You don’t really believe that people wouldn’t be shot if there was more gun control, right?
And passed a background check, the same check he would have passed in DC. So what’s your point?