Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah, we see the libertarains and a few far right wanting to shirk their responsibility for accidental damage with cars and guns.
What about intentional use of cars or guns to kill: execute the driver or shooter.
The whole reason behind mandatory car insurance is that the volume of civil cases resulting from car accidents would swamp the system. Insurance is a way of reducing the # of cases to a more manageable level.
There is not the same issue with gun cases, so forcing insurance is not needed.
Also, considering RTKBA is a right, and driving a car isn't, different standards apply.
You, young Marty, are not the authority here on quotation style. Did you say it, you betcha your skinny pock marked ass (your boy friend told us) you did.
"There is not the same issue with gun cases, so forcing insurance is not needed" without out any fact, rhyme, or real reason. Give us some.
No one is stopping some from owning and carrying arms at all by requiring insurance.
Marty, you are not the authority, so whine all you want. You wrote, "It's infringing, which is the standard, not 'stopping'". And you are not a constitutional authority in even the loosest sense of the meaning. No constitutional right is absolute, unless my the religious right to believe whatever you want. Yes, gun owners can be required to carry insurance.
NYcarbineer writes that, "The Constitution says the freedom of the press cannot be abridged, and yet we have laws against child pornography.
What does your Constitution say about denying child pornographers protection under the First Amendment?" Ending Individual Liberty | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
That is true, and the logic applies to guns as well.
Marty is floundering. He is not an authority on anything.
As Jesus says, Marty, the poor we will always have with us, but that does not excuse them for the wrongful if unintentional damage by their use of autos and guns.
Requiring the purchase of a reasonable minimum of insurance in both cases is reasonable and constitutional. You can offer nothing but your opinion to the contrary.
It is also a means of gun registration. A slick move by fucking gun grabbers like the Fakey here...NYcarbineer writes that, "The Constitution says the freedom of the press cannot be abridged, and yet we have laws against child pornography.
What does your Constitution say about denying child pornographers protection under the First Amendment?" Ending Individual Liberty | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
That is true, and the logic applies to guns as well.
Child porn is a crime because the acts recorded are a crime. making someone insure their guns is just an end run around the 2nd, and more negatively impacts poor people.
Why do you have poor people farkey farkey?
… and you are??? Self proclaimed authority?Marty is floundering. He is not an authority on anything.
As Jesus says, Marty, the poor we will always have with us, but that does not excuse them for the wrongful if unintentional damage by their use of autos and guns.
Requiring the purchase of a reasonable minimum of insurance in both cases is reasonable and constitutional. You can offer nothing but your opinion to the contrary.
Ah, we see the libertarains and a few far right wanting to shirk their responsibility for accidental damage with cars and guns.
What about intentional use of cars or guns to kill: execute the driver or shooter.
The whole reason behind mandatory car insurance is that the volume of civil cases resulting from car accidents would swamp the system. Insurance is a way of reducing the # of cases to a more manageable level.
There is not the same issue with gun cases, so forcing insurance is not needed.
Also, considering RTKBA is a right, and driving a car isn't, different standards apply.
….and with "insurance registration">>>>> confiscationIt's the same principle. We're turning our rights into something we have to pay for.
S. Morales wrote, "Same arguments can be said for vehicles! Vehicles don't kill people, people driving them kill people, which is why they NEED insurance, JIC they on purpose or ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, or damage other people or things.
Gun owners should have insurance too, JIC they, you know, kill a bunch of people in the movie theater, or school, or whomever. On purpose or accidentally."
This makes sense. You own a gun, you own the responsibility to use it properly
Muddly, my dear, just why are you calling people who believe in the Constitution as a whole "nutters?"
Fuck off take your more taxes and shove it up your ass.
Have not had a car insurance claim in 30 years
Have not used medical insurance in 35 years...
Shove it ....
