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.
in those pages is there any page that links one firearm to one man
10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSESWhat about the unorganized militia which is not connected with the regular militia and national guard?
unorganized militia = "citizen not enrolled in the militia" = "private individual citizens [who] possess the right to arms without militia conditioning, for a myriad of lawful uses"
Which ≠
"militia members performing their militia duty" for whom Art I § 8, cl's 15 & 16 applies, by way of the Militia Act of 1792.
Militia laws are not enforceable upon private citizens and their personal arms . . . Only those citizens enrolled and the arm (singular) that they intend to muster with when called to perform militia duty.
Whatever rights a citizen possesses are qualified once he comes under the command of legitimate authority, in this case being in the militia.
Do you dispute that a citizen's 5th Amendment rights are conditioned upon one's militia enrollment and deployment status?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
in those pages is there any page that links one firearm to one man
That information was not included in the reports to the President and Congress. It certainly existed at the Company level and I see nothing in the law that would forbid the reporting of such information to the feds. Demanding, "reporting the actual situation of their arms" would permit a wide breadth of info to be recorded and transmitted up the chain of command, even more-so in today's government climate. . .
Obviously, you're an insurance agent in the land of la-la.
Insurance companies will only insure guns against theft (as in home owners insurance) and lawful shootings. Illegal activity is not covered by insurance.
You're assuming that insurers are jumping at the chance to insure criminal activity. I can ASSURE you they are not.
10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSESunorganized militia = "citizen not enrolled in the militia" = "private individual citizens [who] possess the right to arms without militia conditioning, for a myriad of lawful uses"
Which ≠
"militia members performing their militia duty" for whom Art I § 8, cl's 15 & 16 applies, by way of the Militia Act of 1792.
Militia laws are not enforceable upon private citizens and their personal arms . . . Only those citizens enrolled and the arm (singular) that they intend to muster with when called to perform militia duty.
Whatever rights a citizen possesses are qualified once he comes under the command of legitimate authority, in this case being in the militia.
Do you dispute that a citizen's 5th Amendment rights are conditioned upon one's militia enrollment and deployment status?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Are you really that dense or are you just having a bad day?
It takes all the fun out of things when the pro-gunners are as loopy as the anti's . . .
in those pages is there any page that links one firearm to one man
That information was not included in the reports to the President and Congress. It certainly existed at the Company level and I see nothing in the law that would forbid the reporting of such information to the feds. Demanding, "reporting the actual situation of their arms" would permit a wide breadth of info to be recorded and transmitted up the chain of command, even more-so in today's government climate. . .
apples to oranges no rights for cars or nursing homesObviously, you're an insurance agent in the land of la-la.
Insurance companies will only insure guns against theft (as in home owners insurance) and lawful shootings. Illegal activity is not covered by insurance.
You're assuming that insurers are jumping at the chance to insure criminal activity. I can ASSURE you they are not.
At one point there were no policies written for automobiles or nursing homes. Today there are.
you=fail.
As for illegal activities; that can be remedied by language quite easily. In case your teen takes your gun out of the safe and does something with it....
Again; we're now in the "yeah but" phase of the argument. Happens every time. Soon to come is the "black market" explosion that will take place when you force people to buy insurance.
Obviously, you're an insurance agent in the land of la-la.
Insurance companies will only insure guns against theft (as in home owners insurance) and lawful shootings. Illegal activity is not covered by insurance.
You're assuming that insurers are jumping at the chance to insure criminal activity. I can ASSURE you they are not.
At one point there were no policies written for automobiles or nursing homes. Today there are.
you=fail.
As for illegal activities; that can be remedied by language quite easily. In case your teen takes your gun out of the safe and does something with it....
Again; we're now in the "yeah but" phase of the argument. Happens every time. Soon to come is the "black market" explosion that will take place when you force people to buy insurance.
I don't see it as a money maker at all with the amount of gun violence that goes on in all the gun free cities like Chicago, New York and others.
Rates would be higher there as they are in every insurance market--price differences.
I don't see it as a money maker at all with the amount of gun violence that goes on in all the gun free cities like Chicago, New York and others.Rates would be higher there as they are in every insurance market--price differences.
My gawd. Your argument doesn't add up (including the math).
In the regions in question, gun laws are highly restrictive. In fact the effort is to eliminate all lawful gun ownership. This fact alone means that citizens in those areas are already paying more for any gun they might choose to own that is still considered a legal weapon to posses. You add an outrageous insurance policy requirement to that and you'll see less and less legal gun ownership. A citizen may be reduced to owning only one or two firearms. Even be discouraged enough to not buy a weapon. How is an insurance company going to insure a weapon that isn't owned by anybody?
Thus, the "pool" that generates the income for the insurers is drastically reduced again shifting the burden to folks in regions where there is little to no gun violence.
Again, a State that is less restrictive in gun laws has been proven to have less gun crime. The public has a reasonable expectation to be rewarded by the insurers, not penalized.
As I said, you seem to be an insurance agent in la-la land.
what she also fails to realize is 90% of the guns there are illegal and the owners wouldn't be paying any insurance. so in true liberal fashion she is going to screw the good guy.
As I said in an earlier post, since anti gunners are all about registering dangerous things, maybe they should also add HIV infected people. HIV is very dangerous and the carrier is the weapon.
Yes that would also apply.As I said in an earlier post, since anti gunners are all about registering dangerous things, maybe they should also add HIV infected people. HIV is very dangerous and the carrier is the weapon.
Or using candycorn's logic, forcing gays to buy expensive HIV insurance policies in case they infect an innocent.
Thank you for your continued help in proving that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.So a family of a Newtown 6 year old has to pay for the ER care then the funeral... on top of having their kid murdered.Bump bump bump
They won't answer they know they can't.
Maybe I can help them with some talking points and their sound effects..
Registration of the guns! (burp)
Insurance on guns! (fart)
Taxes on guns! (dribble)
Taxes on ammo! (belch)
You, however still continue to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.At least insurance on the guns will compensate the victims.
Name an insurance company that is willing to do this.
Since most guns are never near a crime, it will be a huge money maker for insurance companies.
We've gotten past the squawking pussy-cut-and-paste responses and now are moving on to the "yeah but" responses that always come up.
How does any of this negate what I said?Arms type were recorded (smoothbore musket or rifle and pistols) as set-out in the Militia Act of 1792. Of course there were no serial numbers back then but a modern law would certainly demand their inclusion and I believe that would be legitimate....You cannot force people who are part of the muilitia to register that firearms because the exercise of the riight and the protection against registration exists independent of the militia
And so, militia framework or not, the constitution protects the right from registration.
I don't see it as a money maker at all with the amount of gun violence that goes on in all the gun free cities like Chicago, New York and others.Rates would be higher there as they are in every insurance market--price differences.
My gawd. Your argument doesn't add up (including the math).
In the regions in question, gun laws are highly restrictive. In fact the effort is to eliminate all lawful gun ownership. This fact alone means that citizens in those areas are already paying more for any gun they might choose to own that is still considered a legal weapon to posses. You add an outrageous insurance policy requirement to that and you'll see less and less legal gun ownership. A citizen may be reduced to owning only one or two firearms. Even be discouraged enough to not buy a weapon. How is an insurance company going to insure a weapon that isn't owned by anybody?
Thus, the "pool" that generates the income for the insurers is drastically reduced again shifting the burden to folks in regions where there is little to no gun violence.
Again, a State that is less restrictive in gun laws has been proven to have less gun crime. The public has a reasonable expectation to be rewarded by the insurers, not penalized.
As I said, you seem to be an insurance agent in la-la land.
I don't see it as a money maker at all with the amount of gun violence that goes on in all the gun free cities like Chicago, New York and others.Rates would be higher there as they are in every insurance market--price differences.
My gawd. Your argument doesn't add up (including the math).
In the regions in question, gun laws are highly restrictive. In fact the effort is to eliminate all lawful gun ownership. This fact alone means that citizens in those areas are already paying more for any gun they might choose to own that is still considered a legal weapon to posses. You add an outrageous insurance policy requirement to that and you'll see less and less legal gun ownership. A citizen may be reduced to owning only one or two firearms. Even be discouraged enough to not buy a weapon. How is an insurance company going to insure a weapon that isn't owned by anybody?
Thus, the "pool" that generates the income for the insurers is drastically reduced again shifting the burden to folks in regions where there is little to no gun violence.
Again, a State that is less restrictive in gun laws has been proven to have less gun crime. The public has a reasonable expectation to be rewarded by the insurers, not penalized.
As I said, you seem to be an insurance agent in la-la land.
Again, we see the "yeah but" response. Again, it works with cars and it will work with guns.
Again, we see the "yeah but" response. Again, it works with cars and it will work with guns.
