Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,011
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 24, 2015 21:37:24 GMT
Of course it would. It's no different than someone having to pay a permit fee to hold a parade (i.e. paying to exercise another right.) We can tax guns so we can certainly require insurance on them.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 24, 2015 21:39:21 GMT
How ever often a smart person at the insurance company decides it's necessary to mitigate the risk. With Medicaid and Obamacare, there is no plausible argument that it's a burden that can't be born by someone who can afford to buy a gun in the first place. It's a market based solution - it doesn't involve the government taking any rights away, it's not an undue burden (unless you're someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place) and it's all about personal responsibility. If you're a responsible, competent, non-addicted adult, it will be as simple as getting life or homeowner's insurance. The second part was in response to HappyMomma. Are there other rights granted to us in the constitution that require to pay insurance for? Whether or not this is a good idea (and I don't necessarily think it's a great idea) I don't think this would ever get past the courts. I think you're right. As for the rest, I'm happy to take responsibility for my actions, but I'm not going to take responsibility for criminals who break into my home.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 21:40:04 GMT
It's pretty simple. If you want to buy insurance for a weapon, you'll have to provide proof of mental competency to the insurance company. If you aren't willing to do that, that's your free agency at work. If it's all about personal responsibility, let's make it all about personal responsibility. As far as welfare reform, what specifically would you like to see? Do you know specifically what the current welfare rules, requirements and limitations are (and not just what pundits say they are?) Do you know what percentage of the budget is considered "welfare?" I know that the welfare rules aren't working any better than the gun rules are. Because of human nature we have cheats. I can tell you of many families in my area who are working the system. One is a family closely related to me. The local welfare office (I forget what the agency is called) knows they are working under the table and not reporting. They just can't 'catch them'. They have more assets than I've ever had, yet they still get the money and are in the cheese line every time. Free health care for their kids, etc. This is not an isolated incident. By far. But that's just one area of waste. How much money does this country spend on illegal immigrants? What if we put that money to use to fund mental health care? In my town it is a long wait to get some mental help. Except the VA clinic and thank God for that. Still doesn't always work, but it's something. However that's just for Veterans, not even their family members. There is no place for substance abuse help at all.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 24, 2015 21:43:20 GMT
Exactly! Same thing with Washington DC-which is a tiny city surrounded by Northern Virginia and Maryland. You can easily drive out of DC into Virginia or Maryland, buy a handgun and drive back within say an hour (I've never bought a gun so I'm estimating time here). That analogy doesn't work, unless you are talking about a large country all having the same laws. Obviously we need to fix the mental health problem in this country. Urgently. But it will take time and money. In the meantime we have to do something to stop this avalanche of death. Gun control. I think we should follow Australia's example and do exactly what they did in their country. They are a country much like ours. They had guns, they have huge ranches, and they had a mass killing in Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 1996 that made them sit up and take notice-like Sandy Hook should have done for us. What did they do that we didn't? They decided enough was enough and that things had to change. What they did was very successful-they haven't had a mass killing since, and it's been 19 YEARS! Like the Pea above me said, we've had 204 just this year! Those are cold, hard facts! If we put this type of gun control in effect across our entire nation we should have these results too. Don't you think it would be worth it to save lives? I do. Control doesn't mean banning guns. It means control. It means being able to sit in a movie theatre and watch a movie without the fear that some madman will come in with a gun and shoot up the place killing several people. It means going to the mall and not worrying that the same thing will happen. Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in this country and have that? Yes, I know it's not a guarantee. I'm not an idiot. But hey, Australia’s result of 19 years without a mass gun killing sure does give me hope. Debbie in MD. What I asked on another thread is this: What laws exactly do they have that we don't? What laws are they making and how are they getting people to follow those laws? Because these shooters are not even following the laws we do have and I'm not sure how we will get them to follow new ones. I'd LOVE it if we could find the answer to that. The vast majority of people don't have guns so it's not like they/we are trying to get the majority of the population to abide by unpopular laws. The laws are irrelevant to the majority of people because they don't have a gun that needs securely storing/registering etc etc.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,011
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 24, 2015 21:47:49 GMT
Maybe not but if you fail to secure your weapon and that enables them to commit more crimes, IMO that makes you an accessory. Illegal guns do not come from a vacuum - many of them come from "responsible" gun owners who really weren't but are never held to account for their lack of personal responsibility.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 21:47:55 GMT
Of course it would. It's no different than someone having to pay a permit fee to hold a parade (i.e. paying to exercise another right.) We can tax guns so we can certainly require insurance on them. So you're totally against requiring someone pay to obtain, or find a ride to an office to freely obtain an ID to exercise your right to vote, but totally for requiring insurance to exercise your right to own a gun? (And I don't have a problem with taxing guns...just like every other item we purchase is taxed) If it's unlawful to require an ID to vote, it should be unlawful to require insurance to own a gun. Both are constitutional rights.
Sounds to me like you're making excuses for fees for constitutional rights that you disagree with while strongly protecting other equally important rights that you believe strongly in.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 21:48:53 GMT
Of course it would. It's no different than someone having to pay a permit fee to hold a parade (i.e. paying to exercise another right.) We can tax guns so we can certainly require insurance on them. We can't even require a valid ID to vote because people scream about it being a poll tax. So I don't see having to shell out money to participate in this amendment going through either. Also, my gun is insured. I'm a law abiding citizen, so I'd follow whatever laws there are whether I like them or not. But...criminals wouldn't get these policies I'm sure. Since they're not supposed to have a gun in the first place. Ughhhhhhh. I wish somehow this would all be solved because we are all running in circles. It's like the problem that truly has no answer. I have another problem in my life that truly has no answer. It's beyond frustrating, just like this is, but on a much smaller scale. Some days I truly hate this world and what humankind has become.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 24, 2015 21:51:05 GMT
How ever often a smart person at the insurance company decides it's necessary to mitigate the risk. With Medicaid and Obamacare, there is no plausible argument that it's a burden that can't be born by someone who can afford to buy a gun in the first place. It's a market based solution - it doesn't involve the government taking any rights away, it's not an undue burden (unless you're someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place) and it's all about personal responsibility. If you're a responsible, competent, non-addicted adult, it will be as simple as getting life or homeowner's insurance. Making someone pay to exercise their 2A right is akin to a pole tax to vote.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,011
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 24, 2015 21:56:18 GMT
Okay, you've shared your opinions about my market based, non-"the government is taking my rights away" proposal. What suggestions do you have beyond "enforce our current laws?" Anything constructive rather than obstructive?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 21:56:29 GMT
Two things.
1. In most cases even if one suspects another person has a mental illness one can't force that person to seek treatment. And how many folks go through life with a mental illness that they keep hidden until they explode.
2. I'm not sure what requiring a gun owner to purchase individual insurance coverage would do even if you could find insurance companies willing to offer the coverage. Any loss would most certainly be a total limit loss and I can't see many insurance companies racing to provide the coverage.
I do agree gun owners should be held accountable for the actions of their gun or guns. I also feel the loopholes for all these laws should be closed. Like requiring background checks for guns sold in private sales and at gun shows. I also believe there should be a national gun data base that will track the gun from the time its first sold to a dealer. I firmly believe that legal guns become illegal guns and maybe a national data base will cut down that number.
I have never understood why responsible gun owners are so against laws that help keep them as a responsible gun owner and that may cut down this senseless deaths. Especially when it comes to the death of children.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 24, 2015 21:59:30 GMT
Maybe not but if you fail to secure your weapon and that enables them to commit more crimes, IMO that makes you an accessory. Illegal guns do not come from a vacuum - many of them come from "responsible" gun owners who really weren't but are never held to account for their lack of personal responsibility. My guns are secure. In my locked home. To suggest that it's my fault that someone would break in and steal them is frankly just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jul 24, 2015 22:00:06 GMT
Exactly! Same thing with Washington DC-which is a tiny city surrounded by Northern Virginia and Maryland. You can easily drive out of DC into Virginia or Maryland, buy a handgun and drive back within say an hour (I've never bought a gun so I'm estimating time here). That analogy doesn't work, unless you are talking about a large country all having the same laws. Obviously we need to fix the mental health problem in this country. Urgently. But it will take time and money. In the meantime we have to do something to stop this avalanche of death. Gun control. I think we should follow Australia's example and do exactly what they did in their country. They are a country much like ours. They had guns, they have huge ranches, and they had a mass killing in Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 1996 that made them sit up and take notice-like Sandy Hook should have done for us. What did they do that we didn't? They decided enough was enough and that things had to change. What they did was very successful-they haven't had a mass killing since, and it's been 19 YEARS! Like the Pea above me said, we've had 204 just this year! Those are cold, hard facts! If we put this type of gun control in effect across our entire nation we should have these results too. Don't you think it would be worth it to save lives? I do. Control doesn't mean banning guns. It means control. It means being able to sit in a movie theatre and watch a movie without the fear that some madman will come in with a gun and shoot up the place killing several people. It means going to the mall and not worrying that the same thing will happen. Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in this country and have that? Yes, I know it's not a guarantee. I'm not an idiot. But hey, Australia’s result of 19 years without a mass gun killing sure does give me hope. Debbie in MD. What I asked on another thread is this: What laws exactly do they have that we don't? What laws are they making and how are they getting people to follow those laws? Because these shooters are not even following the laws we do have and I'm not sure how we will get them to follow new ones. I'd LOVE it if we could find the answer to that. I would love to write an in depth answer for you but I've just developed a migraine that's been hovering around my head all day. A quick Google search can explain all of this for you. Whatever they did it is obviously working. You cannot argue with the facts. 19 years without a single mass gun killing event and we have had 204 mass gun killing events just this year in 204 days. I think our nation, our people deserve to at least give what Australia did a try. As mentioned before our Constitution is not written in stone. Amendments have been written and can be written again. Some folks seem to conveniently forget this fact. I also don't believe the difference in our population has anything to do with it. We can still do what Australia did in reference to changing our gun control laws and still have the same result. What do we have to lose? Less dead people. That's what! Debbie in MD.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:01:50 GMT
Honestly Sarah...I don't have any ideas beyond "enforce our current laws". There has to be a way to "discourage" criminals who KNOW they should not have guns from having guns and using them freely. Can't keep them in jail because the jails are overcrowded...is there any other way to punish them or discourage them? There has to be...we just have yet to find it. I'm totally in favor of background checks, and I don't think your average Joe needs an automatic assault rifle with shells that can penetrate a tank. So I totally support reasonable limits. But I hate to see even tougher laws to curb the gun violence epidemic when everyone knows that tougher laws aren't going to do shit to those that disregard the law anyway. So what good is creating even more laws that aren't able to be enforced or prosecuted?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:05:13 GMT
What I asked on another thread is this: What laws exactly do they have that we don't? What laws are they making and how are they getting people to follow those laws? Because these shooters are not even following the laws we do have and I'm not sure how we will get them to follow new ones. I'd LOVE it if we could find the answer to that. I would love to write an in depth answer for you but I've just developed a migraine that's been hovering around my head all day. A quick Google search can explain all of this for you. Whatever they did it is obviously working. You cannot argue with the facts. 19 years without a single mass gun killing event and we have had 204 mass gun killing events just this year in 204 days. I think our nation, our people deserve to at least give what Australia did a try. As mentioned before our Constitution is not written in stone. Amendments have been written and can be written again. Some folks seem to conveniently forget this fact. I also don't believe the difference in our population has anything to do with it. We can still do what Australia did in reference to changing our gun control laws and still have the same result. What do we have to lose? Less dead people. That's what! Debbie in MD. I totally agree that our Constitution is a living document, not written in stone. While I think it's not so hard to make changes giving people additional rights that were not previously there, I think it would be very, VERY difficult to remove a right that has already been granted.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 22:15:24 GMT
Two things. 1. In most cases even if one suspects another person has a mental illness one can't force that person to seek treatment. And how many folks go through life with a mental illness that they keep hidden until they explode. 2. I'm not sure what requiring a gun owner to purchase individual insurance coverage would do even if you could find insurance companies willing to offer the coverage. Any loss would most certainly be a total limit loss and I can't see many insurance companies racing to provide the coverage. I do agree gun owners should be held accountable for the actions of their gun or guns. I also feel the loopholes for all these laws should be closed. Like requiring background checks for guns sold in private sales and at gun shows. I also believe there should be a national gun data base that will track the gun from the time its first sold to a dealer. I firmly believe that legal guns become illegal guns and maybe a national data base will cut down that number. I have never understood why responsible gun owners are so against laws that help keep them as a responsible gun owner and that may cut down this senseless deaths. Especially when it comes to the death of children. I am not trying to be obstructive to a solution. I actually agree with these ideas. I'm not afraid to have my gun in a database, as it's already legal and registered. I've got nothing to hide. I'm not sure how we are going to get the criminals to register their guns though.
|
|
|
Post by gossamer on Jul 24, 2015 22:15:56 GMT
No… Our laws are not working. Our laws are completely ineffective because they are a mishmash of half-assed attempts to pacify people. There are so many loopholes it is beyond ridiculous. They are a joke. The rights of gun owners will trump the right of people to not get shot every time. So whats your plan to fix it? Do you want to remove guns? Make it harder to get a gun? What about those that don't care about laws? I was watching a show about gang violence, and how many deaths that aren't reported, how will you remove their guns or stop them from getting a gun?
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 22:24:20 GMT
Maybe not but if you fail to secure your weapon and that enables them to commit more crimes, IMO that makes you an accessory. Illegal guns do not come from a vacuum - many of them come from "responsible" gun owners who really weren't but are never held to account for their lack of personal responsibility. My guns are secure. In my locked home. To suggest that it's my fault that someone would break in and steal them is frankly just ridiculous. Yep. I live alone. At night my gun is loaded next to my bed. Four locks on each entry to my home, and a dog that alerts me when someone even walks past my home on the sidewalk. Other than that it is locked, in a secret compartment of a closet. Ammo locked away separately, as per recommendation of our concealed carry instructor. Unless I'm at the range target practicing. I don't carry in public, although I could. Too many variables for my liking. Life someone did break in while I'm gone, I guess there's a small possibility they could find and steal my gun, but not likely. Still that's on them. Breaking and entry and theft are criminal acts, which lead us right back in this circle that the criminals are the problem. If only we could make them follow the laws, we'd have this issue licked. Anyone have a plan for that?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:26:50 GMT
My guns are secure. In my locked home. To suggest that it's my fault that someone would break in and steal them is frankly just ridiculous. Yep. I live alone. At night my gun is loaded next to my bed. Four locks on each entry to my home, and a dog that alerts me when someone even walks past my home on the sidewalk. Other than that it is locked, in a secret compartment of a closet. Ammo locked away separately, as per recommendation of our concealed carry instructor. Unless I'm at the range target practicing. I don't carry in public, although I could. Too many variables for my liking. Life someone did break in while I'm gone, I guess there's a small possibility they could find and steal my gun, but not likely. Still that's on them. Breaking and entry and theft are criminal acts, which lead us right back in this circle that the criminals are the problem. If only we could make them follow the laws, we'd have this issue licked. Anyone have a plan for that? Damn those rotten criminals gotta just go and ruin everything.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 22:28:15 GMT
birukitty I'm sorry for your migraine. They suck.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:29:33 GMT
I would love to write an in depth answer for you but I've just developed a migraine that's been hovering around my head all day. A quick Google search can explain all of this for you. Whatever they did it is obviously working. You cannot argue with the facts. 19 years without a single mass gun killing event and we have had 204 mass gun killing events just this year in 204 days. I think our nation, our people deserve to at least give what Australia did a try. As mentioned before our Constitution is not written in stone. Amendments have been written and can be written again. Some folks seem to conveniently forget this fact. I also don't believe the difference in our population has anything to do with it. We can still do what Australia did in reference to changing our gun control laws and still have the same result. What do we have to lose? Less dead people. That's what! Debbie in MD. I totally agree that our Constitution is a living document, not written in stone. While I think it's not so hard to make changes giving people additional rights that were not previously there, I think it would be very, VERY difficult to remove a right that has already been granted. Had a family discussion today about politics, taxes, corporations, government assistance and I mentioned to the kids that it's really difficult to "take government assistance away". No one wants to be the bad guy...but clearly the answer of "just throw more money into the program" isn't the answer either because what happens when we're out of money?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 24, 2015 22:30:48 GMT
Maybe not but if you fail to secure your weapon and that enables them to commit more crimes, IMO that makes you an accessory. Illegal guns do not come from a vacuum - many of them come from "responsible" gun owners who really weren't but are never held to account for their lack of personal responsibility. You will not be charged or held responsible for anything if the gun is reported stolen. Sigh. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 24, 2015 22:34:48 GMT
How ever often a smart person at the insurance company decides it's necessary to mitigate the risk. With Medicaid and Obamacare, there is no plausible argument that it's a burden that can't be born by someone who can afford to buy a gun in the first place. It's a market based solution - it doesn't involve the government taking any rights away, it's not an undue burden (unless you're someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place) and it's all about personal responsibility. If you're a responsible, competent, non-addicted adult, it will be as simple as getting life or homeowner's insurance. The second part was in response to HappyMomma. Are there other rights granted to us in the constitution that require to pay insurance for? Whether or not this is a good idea (and I don't necessarily think it's a great idea) I don't think this would ever get past the courts. You already have to pay to buy a gun. This would be just part of the cost of ownership.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:38:16 GMT
Two things. 1. In most cases even if one suspects another person has a mental illness one can't force that person to seek treatment. And how many folks go through life with a mental illness that they keep hidden until they explode. 2. I'm not sure what requiring a gun owner to purchase individual insurance coverage would do even if you could find insurance companies willing to offer the coverage. Any loss would most certainly be a total limit loss and I can't see many insurance companies racing to provide the coverage. I do agree gun owners should be held accountable for the actions of their gun or guns. I also feel the loopholes for all these laws should be closed. Like requiring background checks for guns sold in private sales and at gun shows. I also believe there should be a national gun data base that will track the gun from the time its first sold to a dealer. I firmly believe that legal guns become illegal guns and maybe a national data base will cut down that number. I have never understood why responsible gun owners are so against laws that help keep them as a responsible gun owner and that may cut down this senseless deaths. Especially when it comes to the death of children. I am not trying to be obstructive to a solution. I actually agree with these ideas. I'm not afraid to have my gun in a database, as it's already legal and registered. I've got nothing to hide. I'm not sure how we are going to get the criminals to register their guns though. Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Holding them responsible for the actions of their gun, including who they sell it to, may force them to treat guns in a truly responsible manner as they should be treated. Top of my hit list would be parents who leave their loaded guns where children can get their little hands on them. The most important roll of a parent is to keep their children safe. When they leave loaded guns around then they have failed. If their child dies from this failure then their sorry asses should be thrown in jail. Sorry in my world this is a preventable accident and there is no excuse. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,011
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 24, 2015 22:40:44 GMT
Yes Rainbow, that's the point. We are talking about CHANGES in the law that we would like to see.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:41:13 GMT
Are there other rights granted to us in the constitution that require to pay insurance for? Whether or not this is a good idea (and I don't necessarily think it's a great idea) I don't think this would ever get past the courts. You already have to pay to buy a gun. This would be just part of the cost of ownership. Paying to buy a gun. Check Paying a tax to buy the gun. Check
Paying to have required insurance is no different than having to pay to have ID to vote. If you cannot require someone have ID to exercise their right to vote, you cannot require someone to pay an insurance fee to exercise their right to own a gun.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 24, 2015 22:43:39 GMT
Are there other rights granted to us in the constitution that require to pay insurance for? Whether or not this is a good idea (and I don't necessarily think it's a great idea) I don't think this would ever get past the courts. You already have to pay to buy a gun. This would be just part of the cost of ownership. No, it isn't. You pay for your weapon/ammo which is all you need, anything else is akin to pole tax to vote. You don't pay to exercise a right. FTR, I'm not against insurance if you decide on your own to purchase it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 22:44:19 GMT
I am not trying to be obstructive to a solution. I actually agree with these ideas. I'm not afraid to have my gun in a database, as it's already legal and registered. I've got nothing to hide. I'm not sure how we are going to get the criminals to register their guns though. Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Holding them responsible for the actions of their gun, including who they sell it to, may force them to treat guns in a truly responsible manner as they should be treated. Top of my hit list would be parents who leave their loaded guns where children can get their little hands on them. The most important roll of a parent is to keep their children safe. When they leave loaded guns around then they have failed. If their child dies from this failure then their sorry asses should be thrown in jail. Sorry in my world this is a preventable accident and there is no excuse. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun. But where do you draw the line on holding people accountable for a criminal breaking into their home and stealing their things and holding them responsible for it? If someone breaks into your home and steals your car, are you going to be held liable for any crimes committed with that vehicle or for any damages to property or people from any accident that car is in?
I don't think you can easily pick and choose how you're going to hold people responsible for the actions of CRIMINALS who play by no rules.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 24, 2015 22:49:24 GMT
Yes Rainbow, that's the point. We are talking about CHANGES in the law that we would like to see. So you want to charge them with something that is beyond their control?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:09:06 GMT
Of course it would. It's no different than someone having to pay a permit fee to hold a parade (i.e. paying to exercise another right.) We can tax guns so we can certainly require insurance on them. So you're totally against requiring someone pay to obtain, or find a ride to an office to freely obtain an ID to exercise your right to vote, but totally for requiring insurance to exercise your right to own a gun? (And I don't have a problem with taxing guns...just like every other item we purchase is taxed) If it's unlawful to require an ID to vote, it should be unlawful to require insurance to own a gun. Both are constitutional rights.
Sounds to me like you're making excuses for fees for constitutional rights that you disagree with while strongly protecting other equally important rights that you believe strongly in.
You can't compare the two Genny ( bolded).Having an insurance for the gun has nothing to do with your right to own one, The insurance is there to cover the possible liability that you ( general you) might encounter from owning one if it injures or kills someone. No different than to insure a car. Having insurance covers you for both legal & monetary responsibility. The insurance covers you if you are being sued by a third party or to protect the monetary value of that car to you. If you own and decide to deactivate a gun you wouldn't need insurance because it can't harm anyone. If it isn't, then your legal responsibility if that gun injures or kills someone would be covered by insurance.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 28, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 23:19:15 GMT
So you're totally against requiring someone pay to obtain, or find a ride to an office to freely obtain an ID to exercise your right to vote, but totally for requiring insurance to exercise your right to own a gun? (And I don't have a problem with taxing guns...just like every other item we purchase is taxed) If it's unlawful to require an ID to vote, it should be unlawful to require insurance to own a gun. Both are constitutional rights.
Sounds to me like you're making excuses for fees for constitutional rights that you disagree with while strongly protecting other equally important rights that you believe strongly in.
You can't compare the two Genny ( bolded).Having an insurance for the gun has nothing to do with your right to own one, The insurance is there to cover the possible liability that you ( general you) might encounter from owning one if it injures or kills someone. No different than to insure a car. Having insurance covers you for both legal & monetary responsibility. The insurance covers you if you are being sued by a third party or to protect the monetary value of that car to you. If you own and decide to deactivate a gun you wouldn't need insurance because it can't harm anyone. If it isn't, then your legal responsibility if that gun injures or kills someone would be covered by insurance. Owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right. Like it or not, owning a gun is.
|
|