Mandate this, again - and again ...

[g5000]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

We already have that! It's called TAXES!

Gun owners don't receive a tax expenditure for owning a gun.

 

[g5000]

Hmmm...

A tax credit if your gun is solar-powered and made from recycled cars...

 

[OriginalShroom]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

We already have that! It's called TAXES!

I already pay taxes as do those people in California, and yet there are some who want to force me to pay more because I exert my 2nd Amendment rights to protect myself.

Since those who do not exert those rights to protect themselves, but would rather depend entirely on law enforcement to protect them, then they should pay extra.

 

[MeBelle]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

We already have that! It's called TAXES!

Gun owners don't receive a tax expenditure for owning a gun.

I was referring more to police protection then the actual owning of a firearm.

 

[MeBelle]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

We already have that! It's called TAXES!

I already pay taxes as do those people in California, and yet there are some who want to force me to pay more because I exert my 2nd Amendment rights to protect myself.

Since those who do not exert those rights to protect themselves, but would rather depend entirely on law enforcement to protect them, then they should pay extra.

Do you know all the freaking hoops we have to go through in CA just to own a gun?
I've never seen anything like it in any state I've ever lived in.

 

[OKTexas]

When you have a system in place to guarantee criminals will buy their policies then get back to me. Until then fuck off.

 

[MeBelle]

Hmmm...

A tax credit if your gun is solar-powered and made from recycled cars...

What can you do with a muffler? lol

 

[OriginalShroom]

We already have that! It's called TAXES!

I already pay taxes as do those people in California, and yet there are some who want to force me to pay more because I exert my 2nd Amendment rights to protect myself.

Since those who do not exert those rights to protect themselves, but would rather depend entirely on law enforcement to protect them, then they should pay extra.

Do you know all the freaking hoops we have to go through in CA just to own a gun?
I've never seen anything like it in any state I've ever lived in.

I've heard horror stories,, I go into a gun store, pick out my gun, show my license, pay, and walk out with it.

I like it that way.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance

Pat Sullivan/AP

Proposed legislation in California would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Who should bear the costs of damages caused by gun violence? According to the non-profit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, gun shootings cost the country $174 billion a year, roughly $644 per firearm owned in the U.S. The agency took into account work lost, medical care, criminal justice expenses, insurance and pain and suffering. While nothing can replace a child, parent, spouse or future, there are quantifiable costs involved in every shooting; who should bear those costs?

A new bill introduced in Sacramento would require California gun owners to carry liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons. ...

Under the new normal, corporate sponsorship will be more important in securing your rights than Constitutional protections.

I am not costing America one penny by owning a gun. Not one cent. Don't make me pay for the cost of some shithead holding up a liquor store.

But that's what we're going with apparently. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC



Under the new normal, corporate sponsorship will be more important in securing your rights than Constitutional protections.

I am not costing America one penny by owning a gun. Not one cent. Don't make me pay for the cost of some shithead holding up a liquor store.

But that's what we're going with apparently. Guilty until proven innocent.

And you don't think that would be a bit unconstitutional?

 

[dblack]

I am not costing America one penny by owning a gun. Not one cent. Don't make me pay for the cost of some shithead holding up a liquor store.

But that's what we're going with apparently. Guilty until proven innocent.

And you don't think that would be a bit unconstitutional?

According to Roberts? Who knows? I sort of doubt it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Hmmm...

A tax credit if your gun is solar-powered and made from recycled cars...

What can you do with a muffler? lol

Give it to the Mythbusters and find out?

 

[Rozman]

Why don't you guys take away all our money and be done with it.
Assign us government housing according to our needs and the whim of government to accommodate.We can get a government account that is credited every month and all money earned by us goes to government and they decide what we get...

The beauty for the Libs here is that no matter how much we kick in by way of earnings we all get the same amount of credits to spend every month.

Every body gets treated fairly.
Nobody gets to live in the big house on the top of the hill anymore,
that is reserved for government administrators.

 

[MeBelle]

I already pay taxes as do those people in California, and yet there are some who want to force me to pay more because I exert my 2nd Amendment rights to protect myself.

Since those who do not exert those rights to protect themselves, but would rather depend entirely on law enforcement to protect them, then they should pay extra.

Do you know all the freaking hoops we have to go through in CA just to own a gun?
I've never seen anything like it in any state I've ever lived in.

I've heard horror stories,, I go into a gun store, pick out my gun, show my license, pay, and walk out with it.

I like it that way.

How does a law in the State of CA effect you?

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for the candor. I think the entire nation is conflicted, just as you are.

In my view, if a freedom presents too much of a risk to society, government should limit that freedom. But because limiting freedoms isn't generally popular, politicians have sought other ways to achieve the same thing without as much press. And that's where the insurance mandates come in. Rather than crafting law that directly addresses risky behaviors, our leaders are outsourcing their authority to make these calls to insurance companies.

At least you admit that this bill is nothing but a ploy designed to abolish the 2nd Amendment. That kind of candor is amazing coming from a lib.

 

[dblack]

Thanks for the candor. I think the entire nation is conflicted, just as you are.

In my view, if a freedom presents too much of a risk to society, government should limit that freedom. But because limiting freedoms isn't generally popular, politicians have sought other ways to achieve the same thing without as much press. And that's where the insurance mandates come in. Rather than crafting law that directly addresses risky behaviors, our leaders are outsourcing their authority to make these calls to insurance companies.

At least you admit that this bill is nothing but a ploy designed to abolish the 2nd Amendment. That kind of candor is amazing coming from a lib.

Heh.. out of curiosity, how do you define a 'lib'?

 

[OKTexas]

But that's what we're going with apparently. Guilty until proven innocent.

And you don't think that would be a bit unconstitutional?

According to Roberts? Who knows? I sort of doubt it.

He upheld a tax, not insurance.

 

[dblack]

And you don't think that would be a bit unconstitutional?

According to Roberts? Who knows? I sort of doubt it.

He upheld a tax, not insurance.

Same difference. In any case, I agree. It's all blatantly unconstitutional. Regardless of what Roberts and the Court might decide.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

Every citizen already pays that "fee". Its called taxes.

Gun nuts will do anything they can to avoid taking responsibility for their guns. They want to be exempt from liability.

If we were talking about cars, would anyone say the driver/owner should not be responsible?

If not liability insurance, those who want military type rifles and high capacity clips should be able to prove financial ability to pay damages.

But in reality, how much is a child's life worth?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

According to Roberts? Who knows? I sort of doubt it.

He upheld a tax, not insurance.

Same difference. In any case, I agree. It's all blatantly unconstitutional. Regardless of what Roberts and the Court might decide.

While you might believe whatever nonsense you read on line, the DEFINITION of what is Constitutional is what thee SCOTUS says is Constitutional.

Period.