OK gun grabbers you have your mandatory gun registration

[bigrebnc1775]

It seems the cry for registration of deadly weapons have grown faint. I wonder why?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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. . .

That information was not included in the reports to the President and Congress. It certainly existed at the Company level


any links to that

i was just wondering because a company keeping a record

and a national registration is as about as far apart one can get

 

[candycorn]

How about HIV infected people should they be forced to register and buy extra healthcare coverage for the damage they may do, because HIV is dangerous and the carrier is the weapon.

Leave it to a conservative to come up with new ways to violate citizens’ civil liberties.

And as usual, as a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you pose a greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

telling people they can't defend themselves and their families ISN't violating their civil liberties. I hate to break it to you honey, but everybody with a communicable disease is quarantined and HIPAA does NOT apply. Except of course HIV/AIDS. Heavens no we can't know who has that. We've given you marriage of your same gender, free birth control, and legalized Marijuana for you, what the hell else do you want?

Someone brought up HIV as a correlation....I would say "shockingly" stupid but that barrier was breached a long time ago.

 

[candycorn]

Again, we see the "yeah but" response.

LOL!

I've completely dismantled, no, decimated your argument.

Butt that.

You've done nothing of the sort which is why you have to resort to cartoons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Leave it to a conservative to come up with new ways to violate citizens’ civil liberties.

And as usual, as a consequence of your ignorance and stupidity, you pose a greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

telling people they can't defend themselves and their families ISN't violating their civil liberties. I hate to break it to you honey, but everybody with a communicable disease is quarantined and HIPAA does NOT apply. Except of course HIV/AIDS. Heavens no we can't know who has that. We've given you marriage of your same gender, free birth control, and legalized Marijuana for you, what the hell else do you want?

Someone brought up HIV as a correlation....I would say "shockingly" stupid but that barrier was breached a long time ago.

You open that door with your insurance suggestion

 

[candycorn]

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.

People that have good driving records are rewarded by the insurance companies. NOT penalized for the wrecks that other people have.

In the first case, you'r speculating on the penalization. In the second case, they are not relieved of having liability insurance no matter how well they drive.

Your latest "yeah but" failed...just like all of your other idiotic protests.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, we see the "yeah but" response.

LOL!

I've completely dismantled, no, decimated your argument.

Butt that.

You've done nothing of the sort which is why you have to resort to cartoons.

I most definitely have done it
What would this new law have done to stop any murders at newton?
You want to register deadly weapons how about HIV infected people, HIV is deadly and the carrier is the weapon.

 

[candycorn]

Again, we see the "yeah but" response. Again, it works with cars and it will work with guns.

If someone steals your car and injures others your insurance doesn't pay for it.

Thats true. We need to change that about guns since they are intended to be deadly weapons. I prefer that the gun companies carry a bond on each weapon they make instead but somehow that is unconstitutional or so I'm told.

Irregardless, we need to build into the system some mechanism that compensates the families of those who get iced by guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, we see the "yeah but" response. Again, it works with cars and it will work with guns.

If someone steals your car and injures others your insurance doesn't pay for it.

Thats true. We need to change that about guns since they are intended to be deadly weapons. I prefer that the gun companies carry a bond on each weapon they make instead but somehow that is unconstitutional or so I'm told.

Irregardless, we need to build into the system some mechanism that compensates the families of those who get iced by guns.

How about those who get ICED by HIV?

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Again, we see the "yeah but" response. Again, it works with cars and it will work with guns.

If someone steals your car and injures others your insurance doesn't pay for it.

Thats true. We need to change that about guns since they are intended to be deadly weapons. I prefer that the gun companies carry a bond on each weapon they make instead but somehow that is unconstitutional or so I'm told.

Irregardless, we need to build into the system some mechanism that compensates the families of those who get iced by guns.[/B]

LOL! Congrats! You just shot your own arguments down all by yourself. You're a real brainiac aren't you.

 

[candycorn]

If someone steals your car and injures others your insurance doesn't pay for it.

Thats true. We need to change that about guns since they are intended to be deadly weapons. I prefer that the gun companies carry a bond on each weapon they make instead but somehow that is unconstitutional or so I'm told.

Irregardless, we need to build into the system some mechanism that compensates the families of those who get iced by guns.[/B]

LOL! Congrats! You just shot your own arguments down all by yourself. You're a real brainiac aren't you.

Why? Because you've figured out how to use the bold function? LOL. Keep the humor coming and I'll continue to laugh at you.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Thats true. We need to change that about guns since they are intended to be deadly weapons. I prefer that the gun companies carry a bond on each weapon they make instead but somehow that is unconstitutional or so I'm told.

Irregardless, we need to build into the system some mechanism that compensates the families of those who get iced by guns.[/B]

LOL! Congrats! You just shot your own arguments down all by yourself. You're a real brainiac aren't you.

Why? Because you've figured out how to use the bold function? LOL. Keep the humor coming and I'll continue to laugh at you.

Yeah but I used the bold function? Yeah but I used a cartoon? Yeah but, yeah but???

 

[candycorn]

LOL! Congrats! You just shot your own arguments down all by yourself. You're a real brainiac aren't you.

Why? Because you've figured out how to use the bold function? LOL. Keep the humor coming and I'll continue to laugh at you.

Yeah but I used the bold function? Yeah but I used a cartoon? Yeah but, yeah but???

Anyway, something needs to be built into the system to compensate those murdered by firearms. Liability insurance which was successfully mandated for autos can be implemented tomorrow to compensate victims of gun violence. Easy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If someone steals your car and injures others your insurance doesn't pay for it.

Thats true. We need to change that about guns since they are intended to be deadly weapons. I prefer that the gun companies carry a bond on each weapon they make instead but somehow that is unconstitutional or so I'm told.

Irregardless, we need to build into the system some mechanism that compensates the families of those who get iced by guns.[/B]

LOL! Congrats! You just shot your own arguments down all by yourself. You're a real brainiac aren't you.

Yes she did. she will not address me because she fears what I have asked her, because it makes her support for registration look stupid.

 

[novasteve]

Why? Because you've figured out how to use the bold function? LOL. Keep the humor coming and I'll continue to laugh at you.

Yeah but I used the bold function? Yeah but I used a cartoon? Yeah but, yeah but???

Anyway, something needs to be built into the system to compensate those murdered by firearms. Liability insurance which was successfully mandated for autos can be implemented tomorrow to compensate victims of gun violence. Easy.

How about a fag tax or insurance surcharge to compensate for the costs of their medical issues?

 

[candycorn]

Yeah but I used the bold function? Yeah but I used a cartoon? Yeah but, yeah but???

Anyway, something needs to be built into the system to compensate those murdered by firearms. Liability insurance which was successfully mandated for autos can be implemented tomorrow to compensate victims of gun violence. Easy.

How about a fag tax or insurance surcharge to compensate for the costs of their medical issues?

I hate to see the televangelists and college football coaches put under more financial stress.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Why? Because you've figured out how to use the bold function? LOL. Keep the humor coming and I'll continue to laugh at you.

Yeah but I used the bold function? Yeah but I used a cartoon? Yeah but, yeah but???

Anyway, something needs to be built into the system to compensate those murdered by firearms. Liability insurance which was successfully mandated for autos can be implemented tomorrow to compensate victims of gun violence. Easy.

No, as you have already admitted that insurers won't pay for crime sprees. Which they won't.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Anyway, something needs to be built into the system to compensate those murdered by firearms. Liability insurance which was successfully mandated for autos can be implemented tomorrow to compensate victims of gun violence. Easy.

How about a fag tax or insurance surcharge to compensate for the costs of their medical issues?

I hate to see the televangelists and college football coaches put under more financial stress.

But it's ok for the average law abiding American to suffer? Yep. Typical la-la land philosophy.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

when I can use my guns on highways I'll think about it.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah but I used the bold function? Yeah but I used a cartoon? Yeah but, yeah but???

Anyway, something needs to be built into the system to compensate those murdered by firearms. Liability insurance which was successfully mandated for autos can be implemented tomorrow to compensate victims of gun violence. Easy.

No, as you have already admitted that insurers won't pay for crime sprees. Which they won't.

Which would be changed of course but that would mean you'd have to comprehend multi-syllable statements; too much to ask I'm sure.