7 states introduce legislation to require gun owner's insurance

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by intrepid

Is this saying you can't own a gun? No. It's saying you need insurance. Thus NO right is being infringed upon.

Oh good hell. Are you a twin to Bill Clinton? Trying to redefine words.
What does "Shall not infringe" mean?
If you can't own a gun, without the insurance, then yes, it is infringing. My 5 year old even understands that.

Originally posted by intrepid

I've got a better idea. Maybe some here could be less obnoxious.

Not really a better idea. Just a response of someone that believes that they know whats best for others.
The others being people in another country.
Sure your not part of the US Govt?? You know, telling other people's countries what to do and what not to do?

Im impressed.
Maybe your 5 year old also understands that their countries freedom to bear arms has led to one of the highest gun related deaths in the western World.
What did you tell them when all those children were massacred? Dont worry little one, daddy is gonna git ya a BIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGG Gun to shot the bad guys with.
Tell you what, you live in Cloud Cuckoo land and just continue to be blase about it all and hope to God that some maniac doesnt do the unthinkable anywhere near YOUR child.
Thats the difference fella, I may live in a small tin pot country but out attrocities are few and far between and our young children dont need armed guards in school corridors.
Constitutional rights? You can keep them.

Originally posted by intrepid


Why do I feel like I'm debating with a 5 year old? Where in ANY of this does it say you can't own any firearms? Simple question. WHERE?

If the insurance is not purchased, which is Unconstitutional, then the exercising of the right to bear arms is infringed upon.

This is not hard to understand.
Again, you seem to not grasp the rights of the American Citizen, show it repeatedly, yet want to continue as if you do.
Ignorance or arrogance???

Originally posted by macman
I will stop being obnoxious when you stop trying to impose your wants and will on me and fellow American's.

I'm not imposing my will. I'm giving my opinion. Secondly, half of your "fellow Americans" are in favor of this type of legislation. Maybe you want to stop imposing YOUR will on fellow citizens.

Originally posted by LFN69
Im impressed.

If you are impressed, then you need to get out more.

Originally posted by LFN69
Maybe your 5 year old also understands that their countries freedom to bear arms has led to one of the highest gun related deaths in the western World.

Oh really?? Care to provide your stats.

Originally posted by LFN69
What did you tell them when all those children were massacred? Dont worry little one, daddy is gonna git ya a BIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGG Gun to shot the bad guys with.

What I discussed with my children are really none of your business. Just as my Constitutional Rights are none of your business.

Originally posted by LFN69
Tell you what, you live in Cloud Cuckoo land and just continue to be blase about it all and hope to God that some maniac doesnt do the unthinkable anywhere near YOUR child.

Um...ok and thanks, I guess.

Originally posted by LFN69
Thats the difference fella, I may live in a small tin pot country but out attrocities are few and far between and our young children dont need armed guards in school corridors.

And you are free to stay there and do what ever you want with it. You live there, not me. I don't begin to think I have the right to tell you how to be inside your country or how your country should act.

Originally posted by LFN69
Constitutional rights? You can keep them.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt.

Originally posted by intrepid

I'm not imposing my will. I'm giving my opinion.

Oh, I get it now. Just an opinion.
Okay then. Opinion of a NON-US Citizen has been noted and filled in the spherical cabinet under my desk.

Originally posted by intrepid
Secondly, half of your "fellow Americans" are in favor of this type of legislation. Maybe you want to stop imposing YOUR will on fellow citizens.

Oh really?? Care to provide where you see this?

I understand that people from other countries have opinions about our country. It's only natural since the US tells other countries how to do things unsolicited.

The fact remains, however, that people who live outside of the US really have no concept of how the loss of 2nd Amendment rights will affect us in the US. It is easy to decide at a distance that, for our own good, we should overturn the 2nd or make people buy insurance for gun ownership.

Places like the UK and Canada have been stripped of their ability to defend themselves and have become thoroughly brainwashed by their governments into believing it's for their own good. You should hear yourselves. It's sad.

From a country where we are fighting hard to maintain our Constitutional freedoms, it is really none of your business or up to you what happens in the US just as it is none of my business or up to me what happens in your country. Your opinions, while acceptable in this forum, are irrelevant.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by intrepid

I'm not imposing my will. I'm giving my opinion.

Oh, I get it now. Just an opinion.
Okay then. Opinion of a NON-US Citizen has been noted and filled in the spherical cabinet under my desk.

Expected.

Originally posted by intrepid
Secondly, half of your "fellow Americans" are in favor of this type of legislation. Maybe you want to stop imposing YOUR will on fellow citizens.

Oh really?? Care to provide where you see this?

Before I actually put the work into this I would like a list of sources that you will crap on because you don't like the stats.

Originally posted by intrepid


Before I actually put the work into this I would like a list of sources that you will crap on because you don't like the stats.

You see, that is where things don't just go your way.

You provide the info. Others provide where it is either viable or crap.

The whole firearms issue can be summed up really nicely by looking at the stats of NRA memberships over the last 5 months and in total. And the sales for firearms and ammunition over the same time period.

The People are not wanting more restrictions or infringements upon their rights.

There is more want to restrict those with mental illness then restricting law abiding citizens with further crap.

You go right ahead and pitch what ya got.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by intrepid

 

Yes you can. It's called Compensation.

DO you mean, "Comprehensive"? As, in "acts of God", accidental or incidental damage, etc...

Not, willful, malicious, pre-conceived or intentional...Adjusters would LOVE to have clients like you...

No, Compensation. For when someone purposefully damages your car.

OK...Let's go with that, then!

If anyone is afraid that they might be SHOT by someone with a firearm, then the law should require THEM to get an insurance policy that would "COMPENSATE" them, in such a case!

PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

Originally posted by macman
You go right ahead and pitch what ya got.

OK:

The ABC News/Washington Post survey showed 54 percent of respondents backing new limits on gun rights, with 43 percent opposed. When asked about banning ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets, 59 percent supported the idea, while 38 percent opposed it. In addition, 52 percent backed a ban on semiautomatic handguns, with 44 percent in opposition.

www.bloomberg.com...

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
If anyone is afraid that they might be SHOT by someone with a firearm, then the law should require THEM to get an insurance policy that would "COMPENSATE" them, in such a case!

PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

In other words punish a victim for the stupidity of another. Man, this just keeps getting better and better. Logic... you are not needed when it comes to the gun debate.

I took a knife three times. You don't hear me screaming for knife owners to be licensed and insured.

To use an expression from the younger generation, "Get real."

Why shouldn't you be required to have liability insurance for the deadly weapons that you own?

NRA already lobbied to have gun makers excempt from this sort of lawsuit, so why shouldn't the gun owner's be liable?

You hit someone with a car, or someone slips on your sidewalk outside your home, they can sue you for damages and you can claim on insurance. Why shouldn't this be the same for firearms?

Originally posted by babybunnies
Why shouldn't you be required to have liability insurance for the deadly weapons that you own?

People already do - see my post above. It covers accidents not intentional criminal acts and it certainly doesn’t cover intentional acts resultant from the theft of the firearm and subsequent injury. That is what these bozos want - for one to have insurance that if your inanimate object is stolen and used by another in the commission of a violent act that you the original owner be liable. That is absurd.

Originally posted by babybunnies
You hit someone with a car,

Right, the key word there is you insurance doesn't cover the injury caused by a thief who takes my car on a rampage. My insurance covers anyone I give my consent to operate my vehicle absent consent they are acting on their own and I am not liable - period. My insurance is not going to pay out for a carjackers accident spree and chase. That is what these dudes are after.

Originally posted by babybunnies
or someone slips on your sidewalk outside your home, they can sue you for damages and you can claim on insurance.

Depending on the law where you live if the person is in the commission of an unlawful act i.e. trespassing, burglary or something you are not liable for their damages - that is the law here. The intentional illegal act on the part of the perpetrator negates the liability of the home owner.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Why shouldn't this be the same for firearms?

Again, homeowners insurance already covers accidents in the home or injury to others by accident. No insurance is ever going to cover liability for an intentional criminal act...

reply to post by intrepid


From your trusted source

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 14-16, 2012, among a random national sample of 602 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 4.5 points, including design effect. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

Hardly a TRUE outlook of American opinion.

reply to post by babybunnies


Please, go back and read the responses on this.

Already been addressed.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
If anyone is afraid that they might be SHOT by someone with a firearm, then the law should require THEM to get an insurance policy that would "COMPENSATE" them, in such a case!

PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

In other words punish a victim for the stupidity of another. Man, this just keeps getting better and better. Logic... you are not needed when it comes to the gun debate.

WHO is the victim? The criminal who just broke into my house? The guy raping the college co-ed? The armed thief who wants your wallet?

Who is this innocent group of "victims" that NEEDS to be compensated for someone's "stupidity"?

And, WHO, of those stupid people would you be able to legislate, to do ANYTHING?

Really!.....Please tell me! Tell me how you perceive carrying this out, "logically", so that the stupid ones, will be required to maintain this proposed policy?

reply to post by macman


Hardly surprising. Saw it coming. I wanted to point out the ridiculous reasoning behind this debate. Also why I held back one from Fox:

Fox News: The conservative news network asked 1,008 registered voters about various policies, finding that 91 percent favored universal background checks on all gun purchases; 54 percent supported banning assault weapons; while 56 percent supported banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.

www.salon.com...

Is Fox good enough for you?

reply to post by intrepid

Results have a margin of sampling error of 4.5 points, including design effect.

That's a fancy way of saying, we skewed the hell out of this survey, and there is no way that you can prove, how much!

LOL