The Best And Most Responsible Plan For Gun Law Is So Simple It's Not Funny

[Steven_R]

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

It's not a loop-hole if it is specifically written into a law.

 

[dblack]

All insurance would do is add an unnecessary expense for responsible gun owners. It wouldn't do a thing to deter irresponsible people or discourage people using illegal weapons in the least.

I get sick tired of the good guys being ever more inconvenienced and oppressed with more and more taxes, expenses, rules, regulations, restrictions, and mandates as if that will somehow discourage the irresponsible and criminal.

Perhaps the most important function of government is to manage shared risk. We use government to protect our freedom to interact with others and deal with disputes when that freedom runs into trouble. If an activity causes too much trouble, we outlaw it. If a person presents an unacceptable risk to society we charge them with a crime and prosecute them via legal channels. There they receive all the protection of Constitutional due process.

Outsourcing this process to private corporations, which is essentially what the mandatory insurance meme does, amounts to an end run around those protections. As this practice expands we'll be living in a world where our freedoms depend, more and more, on our ability to maintain insurance and not on Constitutional government.

 

[Amelia]

People who want to commit crime will still find guns. They might even get insurance. If they don't they'll be careful not to show their uninsured guns to law enforcement.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

Most gun violence is as of the result of illegally acquired guns. It is not going to deter the well-motivated villan who seeks to commit gun violence. One of the proposals put forth as a deterrent was to increase the penalties/jail time for those caught committing a crime using a gun...any crime. Why do you have a gun? Most likely, it's illegal. That plan was shot down.

More jailtime only works in the minds of the childlike. That's a nonsensical and not to mention, emotional response.

No criminal is thinking, "I wonder how much time will I get for this?" during the act of any crime.

You'd be wise to stop saying that claptrap.

So you have no plan for deterring illegal guns?

 

[bripat9643]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

Too bad for your plan we have this thing called the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

All insurance would do is add an unnecessary expense for responsible gun owners. It wouldn't do a thing to deter irresponsible people or discourage people using illegal weapons in the least.

I get sick tired of the good guys being ever more inconvenienced and oppressed with more and more taxes, expenses, rules, regulations, restrictions, and mandates as if that will somehow discourage the irresponsible and criminal.

Perhaps the most important function of government is to manage shared risk. We use government to protect our freedom to interact with others and deal with disputes when that freedom runs into trouble.

Asking government to resolve our disputes is like asking a fox to resolve a dispute between two chickens. Eating one of them might be the way he resolves it. Furthermore, the fox instigates half the disputes so he can have more opportunities for "resolving" them.

If an activity causes too much trouble, we outlaw it. If a person presents an unacceptable risk to society we charge them with a crime and prosecute them via legal channels. There they receive all the protection of Constitutional due process.

"Too much trouble?" That's exceedingly nebulous. We don't charge people with crimes because they pose a risk to society. We charge them with a crime because they have violated someone's rights. At least, that's the theory. The reality is that government has strayed far, far, far from the original intent of law.

Outsourcing this process to private corporations, which is essentially what the mandatory insurance meme does, amounts to an end run around those protections. As this practice expands we'll be living in a world where our freedoms depend, more and more, on our ability to maintain insurance and not on Constitutional government.

I would rather trust my fate to private companies than to the government.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1 in 6 drivers in Dallas County is uninsured | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

What happens if/when they get caught?

Post a link for that.

First fines, then more fines, later possibly suspension of license.

TexasSure - What if I drive without insurance?

That's if they're caught driving.

So if they're caught shooting a gun without insurance what will you do?

Leave them alone. Maybe you need to read the Second Amendment again.

 

[dblack]

Asking government to resolve our disputes is like asking a fox to resolve a dispute between two chickens. Eating one of them might be the way he resolves it. Furthermore, the fox instigates half the disputes so he can have more opportunities for "resolving" them.

Are you arguing for anarchy? I'm sympathetic to that view, but society isn't ready. For now, government is better than shooting it out.

If an activity causes too much trouble, we outlaw it. If a person presents an unacceptable risk to society we charge them with a crime and prosecute them via legal channels. There they receive all the protection of Constitutional due process.

"Too much trouble?" That's exceedingly nebulous. We don't charge people with crimes because they pose a risk to society. We charge them with a crime because they have violated someone's rights. At least, that's the theory. The reality is that government has strayed far, far, far from the original intent of law.

The risk I'm talking about is the risk that their actions will violate your rights. It's not clear to me what you're arguing for, or against, here. Clearly government oversteps its bounds. You don't seem to be getting my point.

Outsourcing this process to private corporations, which is essentially what the mandatory insurance meme does, amounts to an end run around those protections. As this practice expands we'll be living in a world where our freedoms depend, more and more, on our ability to maintain insurance and not on Constitutional government.

I would rather trust my fate to private companies than to the government.

If people who share your view have their way, we'll likely continue our descent into corporatist fascism.

I still think maybe you're missing my point. Are you sure you're not having a knee-jerk reaction and misconstruing corporatism?

 

[Darkwind]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

You are wrong.


You let Me know when you can get full insurance coverage for illicit drug dealers and charge them based upon their ownership of drugs.

 

[Steven_R]

Let's say you get your way and it's insurance to be required. If I can't afford insurance, I can always take public transportation or carpool or buy a bike or take a taxi to get around. If I can't afford to pay gun insurance, then what? How do I defend my home and family and perform my militia duties should the need arise?

 

[Amelia]

Let's say you get your way and it's insurance to be required. If I can't afford insurance, I can always take public transportation or carpool or buy a bike or take a taxi to get around. If I can't afford to pay gun insurance, then what? How do I defend my home and family and perform my militia duties should the need arise?

Excellent question.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm sorry but what is this idea put fourth by the Op supposed to accomplish?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

Um, dumbass, you don't have to insure a car just because you own it. Where'd you get THAT fucking stupid notion?

There's a difference between "simple" and "simpleminded". Simpleminded would be you. Simple would be putting you back on ignore.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Democrats simply will not be happy until they repeal the law of supply and demand.

 

[JimH52]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

And if your gun is used in a shooting, the gun owner is liable for civil suit.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

All insurance would do is add an unnecessary expense for responsible gun owners. It wouldn't do a thing to deter irresponsible people or discourage people using illegal weapons in the least.

I get sick tired of the good guys being ever more inconvenienced and oppressed with more and more taxes, expenses, rules, regulations, restrictions, and mandates as if that will somehow discourage the irresponsible and criminal.

Perhaps the most important function of government is to manage shared risk. We use government to protect our freedom to interact with others and deal with disputes when that freedom runs into trouble. If an activity causes too much trouble, we outlaw it. If a person presents an unacceptable risk to society we charge them with a crime and prosecute them via legal channels. There they receive all the protection of Constitutional due process.

Outsourcing this process to private corporations, which is essentially what the mandatory insurance meme does, amounts to an end run around those protections. As this practice expands we'll be living in a world where our freedoms depend, more and more, on our ability to maintain insurance and not on Constitutional government.

No, the government is not an insurance company. You get an F for the day.

 

[westwall]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

And if your gun is used in a shooting, the gun owner is liable for civil suit.

Gun owners already are dumbass..

 

[dblack]

All insurance would do is add an unnecessary expense for responsible gun owners. It wouldn't do a thing to deter irresponsible people or discourage people using illegal weapons in the least.

I get sick tired of the good guys being ever more inconvenienced and oppressed with more and more taxes, expenses, rules, regulations, restrictions, and mandates as if that will somehow discourage the irresponsible and criminal.

Perhaps the most important function of government is to manage shared risk. We use government to protect our freedom to interact with others and deal with disputes when that freedom runs into trouble. If an activity causes too much trouble, we outlaw it. If a person presents an unacceptable risk to society we charge them with a crime and prosecute them via legal channels. There they receive all the protection of Constitutional due process.

Outsourcing this process to private corporations, which is essentially what the mandatory insurance meme does, amounts to an end run around those protections. As this practice expands we'll be living in a world where our freedoms depend, more and more, on our ability to maintain insurance and not on Constitutional government.

No, the government is not an insurance company.

I didn't say it was. The point is that insurance companies aren't government - and that's what the mandatory insurance movement is trying to do, turn over government functions to insurance companies. Our rights and freedoms shouldn't depend on whether or not we can get insurance.

 

[OnePercenter]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

-Insurance is a good idea.

-If someone steals your unsecured gun you do jail time.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime you go to jail for life.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime and kill some one, automatic death penalty.

-Ten day waiting period for ALL gun sales.

 

[whitehall]

Yeah, insurance, that will cut down on gun violence.