posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:11 PM
Originally posted by sorgfelt
reply to post by BlindBastards
Insurance is based on number of insured versus number of incidents. If gun owners are as safe as they claim, the insurance would not be excessive,
especially if every gun owner was required to have it, and I would not consider it an infringement, just common sense. After all, would you consider
it an infringement that you have to pay money just to buy a weapon in the first place? We have to buy insurance for our cars; is that an infringement
of our right to liberty? Guns are actually meant to kill, and accidents happen more frequently than many think; cars aren't meant to kill, and you
would require insurance for cars and not for guns?
Concerning the kind of weapons allowed, I agree that everyone should be allowed their own nuclear weapon, or at least a few Stinger missiles for
drones and anti-tank guns for armored troop carriers that may be sent after them. Otherwise, there is infringement and having lesser weapons to
protect their liberty really isn't sufficient to actually work. Or maybe you don't agree that the neighbors across the street that don't like you
and that have evaded their mental health tests should be allowed to have such things?
There is no Constitutional right to drive, or own a car. Voters are finally understanding why the founding fathers said "Shall not be infringed".
Insurance is just another control scheme.