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

[daveman]

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.

he might think about it though if the penalty was .....you use a gun to commit a crime you will automatically get 25 years in prison and you have to serve every minute of it,NO time off for good behavior....you serve EVERY minute....and the more damage you caused the more time is added on......and you serve every minute of that......

Progressives oppose that idea because it holds the criminal responsible for his behavior.

Criminals are NEVER responsible.

Right, USMB progressives?

 

[Spoonman]

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.

like that law isn't already on the books. you break the law using a gun you pay the price. no one argues that.

 

[dblack]

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

You still haven't answered this, only offered vague notions of relative threat. There's no principled reason why your point of view wouldn't be used to threaten any inconvenient freedom by 'selling' it to the insurance industry.

I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer.

No, I asked for a principled reason. You offered an estimation of the degree of threat. To wit:

The answer is there is no threat in what you're suggesting, so it doesn't warrant that.

Presumably, if free speech did present such a threat (and again, arguably it does) then you would be in favor of applying the mandatory insurance approach to it, or any of our other rights which might be considered dangerous.

 

[Spoonman]

It's about safety and responsibility folks.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Insurance covers both very well.

No, it's not. It's about confiscation. Once you require a "right" to be insured it is no longer a right and it can then be regulated out of existence. Really, I thought you were smarter than that. We may be gun owners but we're not nearly as stupid as you collectivists. You guys will believe anything... we have brains..

What these gun grabbing morons can't get through their pea brains is owning a gun is not a crime. killing someone is a crime. whether you kill some one with a gun, a knife, your bare hands it's no more or less of a crime either way. in the death, the gun is not the crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

It's not market based when the government forces one to purchase it.

Just sayin'.

It is the government meddling with insurance that put us in the unsustainable mess with Medicare and Medicaid.that we are in.

But I don't expect statists/leftists/political classists to understand the principles behind a free market system any better than they understand unalienable rights.

 

[westwall]

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

You are correct. The "junk gun" legislation was yet another effort to disarm the poor. A por person could afford a Jennings POS, but they can't afford a Colt Python. The libs in their infinite wisdom decided that those guns, that the poor could afford, were somehow bad so they legislated them out of existence.

Gun control boils down to this...."when guns are outlawed only the rich will have guns." Gun control is the ultimate class warfare and it is sad that a supposed thinking person like you has swallowed the hook.


In 1994, for example, after Rockefeller voted for a crime bill with an assault weapons ban, the Charleston Daily Mail reported the following from Washington :

“If burglars are casing big houses around here, they may want to give wide berth to the Rockefeller mansion. The occupant is packing heat and knows how to use it. Sen. Jay Rockefeller disclosed that for the past 25 years he has been the proud owner of a Colt AR 15, a so-called assault weapon used in Vietnam . Rockefeller keeps the rifle in his Washington home.”

The disclosure that Rockefeller had such a weapon in D.C. “was news to the Washington police,” where ownership of AR-15s is banned, author James Bovard quickly pointed out. When Rockefeller learned that such ownership was a crime in D.C., he “remembered” that he had actually kept the gun in northern Virginia , Bovard noted.

Rockefeller has been telling his constituents of late that despite his anti-gun votes, none of his constituents have had their guns taken away. In the 2002 race, the NRA will be pointing out that such talk should be taken with more than the usual grain of salt, coming from a man who lives in a city where politicians of Rockefeller’s persuasion have taken guns away from citizens.


Could Jay Rockefeller be beaten?

 

[Amelia]

If people can't afford gun insurance, will the government then get involved to make sure that affordable insurance is available to them?

Will it make a list of requirements for insurance which results in the doubling or tripling of insurance rates on those who pay for their own insurance in order to subsidize the gun ownership policies of those who can't afford it?

 

[westwall]

Oh you were SERIOUS with that?

I guess if/when we have a problem with deaths due to people exercising their First Amendments rights we can have a serious look into that.

That's my answer.

You don't think abuse of free speech has ever caused harm or deaths? Never heard of the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example?

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

What's the precedent of countless people dying as a direct result of someone exercising their First Amendment right?

How many people abused the 1st Amendment to cause many deaths?

Let's get real here.

The news media has been doing it for centuries. Ever hear the term "yellow journalism"?
They have been responsible directly and indirectly for more death the last century alone then all of religion.

 

[dblack]

If people can't afford gun insurance, will the government then get involved to make sure that affordable insurance is available to them?

Will it make a list of requirements for insurance which results in the doubling or tripling of insurance rates on those who pay for their own insurance in order to subsidize the gun ownership policies of those who can't afford it?

Now you're getting the gist of it!

Everybody sing!

 

[westwall]

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Guns don't have to cost anything. They can be inherited. And then your plan would put the inheritor in danger of going to jail if he wasn't affluent enough.

Whats the likelihood of a person who can't afford the insurance of a Bently inheriting one?

It's like you people are just pulling shat out your A$$.

Are we living in the real world or some made up RW scenario world out in the ether somewhere?

I guess you've never heard of Prop 13 or the families who have had to sell the family farm because they couldn't afford to pay the inheritance taxes. Gosh you're stupid...

 

[Stephanie]

most people already have insurance on their guns, IT'S CALLED HOMEOWNERS insurance

now take your fascist ideas and stuff them...you people are biggest wusses

 

[daveman]

It's about safety and responsibility folks.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Insurance covers both very well.

No, it's not. It's about confiscation. Once you require a "right" to be insured it is no longer a right and it can then be regulated out of existence. Really, I thought you were smarter than that. We may be gun owners but we're not nearly as stupid as you collectivists. You guys will believe anything... we have brains..

What these gun grabbing morons can't get through their pea brains is owning a gun is not a crime. killing someone is a crime. whether you kill some one with a gun, a knife, your bare hands it's no more or less of a crime either way. in the death, the gun is not the crime.

 

[MuadDib]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

It's not market based when the government forces one to purchase it.

Just sayin'.

Take Obamacare for example.

 

[Antares]

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.

No, they ARE thinking "OMG did I pay the insurance on my illegal gun?"

You are an idiot.

 

[dblack]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

It's not market based when the government forces one to purchase it.

Just sayin'.

Take Obamacare for example.

And to paraphrase H.L Mencken, "take it, good and hard".

 

[OriginalShroom]

MarcATL,

Your plan was tried once and ruled Unconstitution..

Remember the "Poll Tax"?


We gun owners already have to supply a photo ID and even permits , Both of which cost money to get, hundreds of dollars just for the permit most of the time, in order to exercise our 2nd Amendment right...

Are you willing to support a photo ID to be required to cast a ballot?

 

[Foxfyre]

Further, there is no law in any of the 50 states that requires a homeowner or owner of any other property to buy insurance on that property. There may be some rules in some property associations but those are a private matter between the property owners only.

Now lenders will require the homeowner to insure his/her property before they will grant a loan for the mortgage, but again that is between the lender and the property owner. If the person pays cash or arranges a deal with a private party, there is no state, federal, or local law that requires that the property be insured.

There is no law in any of the 50 states that requires a vehicle to be insured if it is parked or if it is driven on private property only. The only time that vehcle has to be registered, licensed, and insured is when it is driven on public roads that adds a risk to others that does not exist on the driver's own property.

Obamacare is unique among all government initiatives in the history of the country in that it requires citizens to be insured regardless of whether they present any risk to anybody else. It can be constitutionally justified only because healthcare providers cannot legally deny care to anybody seeking it.

And to require insurance just because a person buys a legal weapon would be the worst kind of policy and a severe blow to constitutional principles of unalienable rights.