7 states introduce legislation to require gun owner's insurance

reply to post by LFN69


COMPROMISE??????

I hope to God that you don't live here.

You stay subservient.
I will keep my Rights guaranteed to me by the American Founding Documents.

What is the big deal peeps. You drive a car you have insurance. Same for your house or when you go traveling.. So why on earth not a gun...

Originally posted by purplemer
What is the big deal peeps. You drive a car you have insurance. Same for your house or when you go traveling.. So why on earth not a gun...

I just checked and I don't see where in our Constitution that We are Guaranteed the right to drive a vehicle.

Also, I just checked my policy and no where does it state that I am covered should I purposely damage my house or vehicle.

reply to post by macman

I just checked and I don't see where in our Constitution that We are Guaranteed the right to drive a vehicle.

Why the hell do you peeps keep going on about your Constitution. It is old outdated dribble. You have rights as a human being regardless if you have a piece of paper.

From where I am standing your country burns and all you care about is your Constitution and guns. Your government is in bed with the bankers and the US is being bent over and robbed silly... Well if your Constitution is there to protect you from your government it has blatantly failed. You need a new one..

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LFN69

 

COMPROMISE??????

I hope to God that you don't live here.

You stay subservient.
I will keep my Rights guaranteed to me by the American Founding Documents.

Well your prayers ( and mine) were answered, no I dont!
The American founding documents are about as useful in 2013 as the Magna Carta.
For a "Super Power" I dont think I have ever witnessed such backward thinking.
Subservient? To who?
We are ALL subservient to somebody/something whether its paying taxes, having INSURANCE or complying with local bye laws.
We all have somebody to answer to and you are answering to a consitution that is utterly outdated and out of place in a modern forward thinking society.
You have no rights!!! Do you not get that? Thats why you have a consitution you fool, not to give you "rights" but to keep you all in line.
Do you REALLY think you needed to be given permission to bear arms when people where walking around America with guns some 100 odd years BEFORE the constitution was written?
Wake up!!

reply to post by purplemer


No......Just like everything....There is no need for new anything, just the upholding of what was established.

reply to post by LFN69


Oh geez, yet another NON-US citizen chiming in on how OUR documents and such are outdated.

Hey, how about you worry about yourself and your home country. I and the other US Citizens will worry about OURS.

reply to post by macman

No......Just like everything....There is no need for new anything, just the upholding of what was established.

How do you expect change to occur and new things to happen if there is not any deviation from the norm. Change is the only constant in life. Embrace it.

reply to post by purplemer


Thought this was about the whole insurance thing?

I did not see where you addressed my statement, nor have I ever seen where "insurance" has stopped any illegal act, let alone accidental act.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by macman

 

No......Just like everything....There is no need for new anything, just the upholding of what was established.

How do you expect change to occur and new things to happen if there is not any deviation from the norm. Change is the only constant in life. Embrace it.

Spoken like a true Progressive.


No, there are several things, all encased within the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are not to be changed, unless the lawful process is adhered to.

But, I really don't believe you, being a NON-US Citizen would ever come to understand things of this nature.

reply to post by macman

But, I really don't believe you, being a NON-US Citizen would ever come to understand things of this nature.

Truly the other way around my friend. I fear you cannot see the woods for the trees..

reply to post by macman

I did not see where you addressed my statement, nor have I ever seen where "insurance" has stopped any illegal act, let alone accidental act.

If guns are insured and taxed then they become more expensive. The more expensive they are the less guns will exist on the streets. It looks to me like a way of cleaning the guns up and it is long overdue...

There are other ways of being manly without carrying guns. You want to see real men. Come to the UK. There are plenty here and we do not have guns.

reply to post by purplemer


Is that the best you can do???
Having had in the past, great debates with you, this is about as disappointing as it gets.


There is no reason for the US to get rid of firearms. Why should we, so we end up like England and Australia or Canada?

No thanks. You have the "no firearms country" and you can keep it.

I still don't get where you and others get off thinking that you know what's best for America.

Insurance isn't the answer, but in states like Texas where you can sell your gun to whomever you want without following the rules a retailer would be required to follow, I would like to see that changed. People are always quick to point out that criminals don't get their guns from the gun store owner. Correct. But, in states such as Texas, once I legally own a gun, I am free to sell it to anyone I want without that person having to go through the process. Just a quick cash transaction.

So, that gun gets sold in a similar manner a few times and eventually ends up in the hands of said criminal. I say (and I am a gun owner) make it law that the same background checks are required for private sales the same as in the original retail environment. Otherwise, if the gun is registered to you, sell it to whoever you want, but understand that you are liable for that gun if you chose to sell it without covering your ass and requiring the background check.

Another way to milk the people. What happens if you don't have insurance?

i dont understand the argument that making guns more expensive, forcing people to buy insurance on the guns, will some how reduce guns on the street, or reduce gun deaths or reduce gun violence or reduce accidental gun deaths.....is the argument that 'rich' people are ......smarter?1?

what would have an insurance policy done at sandy hook? or at the theater in CO? or at the mall in OR? or at columbine or or or or??? just would make a large corporation 'richer' thru insurance premiums.....so once again i dont see any logic in the insurance logic or expensive guns logic...

reply to post by macman


Thank you for you reply. Hope your well.

I still don't get where you and others get off thinking that you know what's best for America.

Probably the same place you get your thinking that you know what was best for Iraq, Afganistan Libya etc.

There is no reason for the US to get rid of firearms. Why should we, so we end up like England and Australia or Canada?

I know you guys like your firearms. But from over the other side of the pond it looks like madness. There really is no need for all your firearms. You can function just fine without them.

A lot of peeps seem to be saying they have them as to protect them from government. I really do not get that. You guns would not save you from your own military. Just my two pence.

Originally posted by KoolerKing
Another way to milk the people. What happens if you don't have insurance?

The same thing that happens when you are responsible for an auto accident and don't have insurance.

If someone is accidentally injured by your gun: You get sued, lose everything you have and likely have your wages garnished until you pay off the judgement levied against you.

If you intentionally injure someone with your gun: It's not covered by insurance and you are going to prison.

It's not "milking people", it's called shared risk. Everyone pays a little and, from time to time, that pool of funds (a.k.a. insurance) is used to pay off your financial liability. It's called insurance for a reason, it insures that you are not in destitute for the remainder of your life because of an honest mistake and/or accident; a mistake or accident that you may not even make yourself, but someone else makes with your property (be it a car, gun, etc.)

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by KoolerKing
Another way to milk the people. What happens if you don't have insurance?

The same thing that happens when you are responsible for an auto accident and don't have insurance.

If someone is accidentally injured by your gun: You get sued, lose everything you have and likely have your wages garnished until you pay off the judgement levied against you.

If you intentionally injure someone with your gun: It's not covered by insurance and you are going to prison.

It's not "milking people", it's called shared risk. Everyone pays a little and, from time to time, that pool of funds (a.k.a. insurance) is used to pay off your financial liability. It's called insurance for a reason, it insures that you are not in destitute for the remainder of your life because of an honest mistake and/or accident; a mistake or accident that you may not even make yourself, but someone else makes with your property (be it a car, gun, etc.)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This!!!
What part of that is not understood? You own a gun, you get insured incase of an "accident". That doesnt go against the constitution, surely? You still get to keep your guns but those that dont fancy being shot in the foot by, how you say, a Dumb ass, will have the ability to claim compensation, simples.
Those that whine and drone on about the cost may also wish to whine about the American citizens who cant afford to own guns, whats the difference?
Yes, an outsider is commenting on American politics and the constitution, why not?
This is an international forum, its not America centric ( no you dont control the forum AND Planet Earth) and you are at perfect liberty to comment on my Countrys idiosyncracies as well as any other nations.
That, obviously, pre supposes you have any kind of interest that goes beyond the borders of the USA.
Whether I agree with your gun culture or not has nothing to do with my posts, my comments pertain to the no brainer of being insured if you possess one.
I cannot fathom why there is any kind of resistance to something so logical, something that will protect the owner from bankrupcy and the third party, should they still be alive after being shot accidentally.
Oh, I see that you didnt quote on my previous points so, i will assume, they must have boxed you into a corner.........

hmmmm..people are killed and injured in other countries with guns..where is the outrage there? where is the call for insurance there? where is the call for MORE legislation there? the argument maybe that 'there is not as much gun violence in this or that country' but..just like in the u.s. now...isnt 1 gun death 1 too many? where is the outrage and call for more strict gun control or just plain taking away guns from the population?...how many people are killed with knives? where is the outrage there? how many people are killed with wooden weapons? where is the outrage there? how many people are killed with fists or feet? where is the outrage there?

for all its faults..the u.s still has not been taken over by foriegn OR domestic terrorist ( read..the govt) yet....and untill the guns are taken out of the LAW-ABIDING citizens hands....which is what the govt is trying to do...the domestic terrorist will not be able to prevail....