The price of freedom 153,000 deaths in 14 years.

[Stephanie]

Well as we've been seeing. Lib/dem/progressives should not be allowed to be in our governments, run our country and our lives

they are too emotional and then come up with all these stupid ideas they expect to push off on all of us to live by. BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM fweeeeel better.

they are never Rational. it's from one extreme to the next. they wail about criminals being locked up and then try and punish all of us with all these new Gun laws, take away our guns, etc when the criminal they wailed and felt sorry for goes out and kills someone.

and get this. they (lib/dems) this administration is getting ready to RELEASE 100,000 more criminals on us because they felt bad about their sentence. now who would you want to protect you from these criminals, gang bangers, etc

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the same period there were like 400,000 auto related deaths?

Also the cost of freedom

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.

I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

 

[CowboyTed]

In the same period there were like 400,000 auto related deaths?

Also the cost of freedom

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.

I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

Absolutely not. We need to remove most gun laws...not add more. We have too many right now. Should we put a tax on free speech? Of course not.

Free Speech doesn't kill anyone.. If it did I would ask responsible people to get insured before they do that as well...

I am asking for people to be responsible for their own actions, when you buy a gun you have to get insurance for what it could do... Let the market decide...

Why are against personal responsibility all of sudden?

 

[CowboyTed]

In the same period there were like 400,000 auto related deaths?

Also the cost of freedom

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the same period there were like 400,000 auto related deaths?

Also the cost of freedom

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

 

[CowboyTed]

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

Really...
Check this out:
If I shoot an intruder, will my home insurance cover me?

Gun Owners cost taxpayers $229bn a year, how is that responsible... You showed your lack of responsibility on this thread when you expect your home insurance to pick up the bill when you are probably not fully covered.

So you believe this cost should be a burden on the taxpayers... It doesn't matter peoples motive... You're motives actually lets criminals and mentally insane get access to guns, which in turn means normal people are scared into buying guns...

Why are you such a free loader... You say there is no problem people making claims! Of course there isn't a problem because taxpayer are subsidizing gun owners by $229bn a year. That's $700 per gun... Bunch of moochers...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

Really...
Check this out:
If I shoot an intruder, will my home insurance cover me?

Gun Owners cost taxpayers $229bn a year, how is that responsible... You showed your lack of responsibility on this thread when you expect your home insurance to pick up the bill when you are probably not fully covered.

So you believe this cost should be a burden on the taxpayers... It doesn't matter peoples motive... You're motives actually lets criminals and mentally insane get access to guns, which in turn means normal people are scared into buying guns...

Why are you such a free loader... You say there is no problem people making claims! Of course there isn't a problem because taxpayer are subsidizing gun owners by $229bn a year. That's $700 per gun... Bunch of moochers...

Your article often uses the word "may." It "may" not cover........

It is also making reference to those situations where the law does not protect you from liability. I would say that instead of forcing everybody to get insurance, why not force your legislatures into creating law that will give you protection?

Here in my state of Ohio, our legislatures passed the Castle Doctrine several years ago. The Castle Doctrine protects me from any kind of lawsuit that a criminal (or family) may bring against me. If the shooting is justified such as an intruder breaking into my home, it doesn't matter if I have insurance or not because there is nothing he or his family can do to me.

Of course, you would probably have to get rid of the Democrats in your state and elect a Republican leadership to get this kind of common sense law, but even if you live in a liberal state with nonsensical laws, a criminal or family has the option to sue you for your house in compensation.

 

[Pop23]

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

And of course, criminals would not buy the insurance.

But hey......

 

[Stephanie]

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

And of course, criminals would not buy the insurance.

But hey......

yeah but, it would make them fweeel better no matter it stomps the rights of millions of innocent people

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is your reason for allowing these people having guns...

Liberalism is based on govt violence so it is no surprise that liberals want only govt to have guns. Sadly and necessarily, most conservatives don't want to open the door even a tiny bit to let liberals take away our freedom and our guns since they know what liberals really want in the end.

 

[westwall]

Why do you lie, guns didn't cause anyone's death.

That must be a quote from American Dad ... oh here it is.

Sorry to destroy your stupid ass thread with the truth, I imagine that happens to you a lot. Here's a tip, don't be stupid.

Ajem, that was just a shorthand for : "local American bearing guns" have caused 153,000 deaths.... etc
By the by:
1) Threads have no ass.
2) You can't destroy the thread unless you are a moderator.
3) Sory for destroying your stupid conceptions about threads, I imagine that happens to you a lot. Here's a tip: don't be stupid.

Trust me your thread is destroyed, just let me do your thinking for you since you seem incapable of rational thought.

Not really.

But we know what you are like...

You are the kind of guy that doesn't mind criminals and mentally insane getting a guns. You are by neglect, arming those groups.
You are the pro-criminal gun guy.

What is your reason for allowing these people having guns...

No, that would be you. The criminal element and the mentally ill never seem to have a problem getting their hands on firearms. Never. The laws you wish to force down peoples throats will ONLY affect the law abiding so you will in essence be contributing to the deaths of more people than you hope to stop. A typical progressive goal. Feel good legislation that does more harm than good. Pretty much the progressive method of operation for time immemorial.

After several years of your failed legislation your response is "but we meant well so the death and misery are not our fault"! Meanwhile, those who remain are left to suffer the consequences of YOUR actions.

How about we take ALL violent criminals and toss them in prison forever? They NEVER get out. You would see violent crime drop by 60% immediately. How about we try something we know will work? Or is that too simple, and too supportive of the rights of the individual for a statist such as yourself?

 

[westwall]

In the same period there were like 400,000 auto related deaths?

Also the cost of freedom

Links please .

Do the math. http://www.newsweek.com/us-traffic-deaths-injuries-and-related-costs-2015-363602

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.

I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

My guns don't drive down the road where they can interact with people on a secondly basis. My guns stay at home.

 

[Misty]

Sensitive topic. While terrorists have caused up to 4,000 deaths, local guns have caused 153,000 deaths in 14 years.
It's a rather high price for freedom, gun controll laws simply don't seem to work. Maybe it's just the price it has to be paid, just as car accidents are the price for having cars.

It's a rather high price for freedom

Here in Chicago, we lacked that freedom for a time. I don't remember the gun deaths dropping to zero.
Or even dropping.

More abortions are preformed in one year than gun deaths in 14 years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Very good.

Now do you need insurance and a licence to drive on the road?

Gun related injuries and deaths cost US taxpayers $229bn a year, the estimate there are 300m guns.


I say mandatory gun insurance just like a car. Why should taxpayers have to pay for gun owners. Gun Owners are just stealing money out everyone's pockets.

So I say insurance would be an average of $700 per gun with no profit.

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

And of course, criminals would not buy the insurance.

But hey......

yeah but, it would make them fweeel better no matter it stomps the rights of millions of innocent people

What they don't realize is that insurance isn't for the other person, insurance is for you.

I don't have health insurance to make sure the doctors get paid, I have health insurance so that I'm not buried in hospital bills should I need medical care. I don't have auto insurance to make sure the other person I hit is compensated, I have auto insurance so I'm not sued into the next century because I'm financially responsible for the damage I did to the vehicle(s) of others and their personal injuries.

If somebody unjustly shoots a member of my family, the last thing I'm worried about is how much money I'm going to get. I guess liberals think differently than I do.

 

[easyt65]

Want laws that will help curb violence?
- Enforce existing Immigration Laws instead of bringing in of criminal illegals

- Pass Katie's Law that would put deported illegals in jail if caught back in the US

- Close the loophole that allows repeat violent fellony illegal offenders to go free because DHS / ICE refuses to take them, allowing them to continue to prey on US citizens

- Outlaw Sanctuary Cities that provide Safe Haven to violent criminal illegals

- Declare State of Emergency in Chicago and bring in the National Guard to take on the gangs and criminals who now control the city, causing back-to-back weekends of 50+ shootings and murders.

 

[Pop23]

I suppose you have a link to your claims here?

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

And of course, criminals would not buy the insurance.

But hey......

yeah but, it would make them fweeel better no matter it stomps the rights of millions of innocent people

What they don't realize is that insurance isn't for the other person, insurance is for you.

I don't have health insurance to make sure the doctors get paid, I have health insurance so that I'm not buried in hospital bills should I need medical care. I don't have auto insurance to make sure the other person I hit is compensated, I have auto insurance so I'm not sued into the next century because I'm financially responsible for the damage I did to the vehicle(s) of others and their personal injuries.

If somebody unjustly shoots a member of my family, the last thing I'm worried about is how much money I'm going to get. I guess liberals think differently than I do.

So the insurance would be for the criminal then?

Seriously

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I seriously wrote "gun vilonce cost" into google...

But if the number is lower than $229bn, happy days.... Insurance will be lower...

All I am asking is for some personal responsibility...

Google

And how many lives will this insurance save? Probably about as many as car insurance or house insurance saves---zero.

Gun owners are personally responsible. If you shoot somebody you're not supposed to, they can sue your home owners insurance. They can sue you personally in the courts if outside of your home.

Insurance (on top of all the other Democrat ideas) is suggested for one reason and one reason only; to put up more hurdles for gun owners. That's it. There is no other reason because we don't have a problem in this country with people not being able to make claims for injury or death that are not settled.

And of course, criminals would not buy the insurance.

But hey......

yeah but, it would make them fweeel better no matter it stomps the rights of millions of innocent people

What they don't realize is that insurance isn't for the other person, insurance is for you.

I don't have health insurance to make sure the doctors get paid, I have health insurance so that I'm not buried in hospital bills should I need medical care. I don't have auto insurance to make sure the other person I hit is compensated, I have auto insurance so I'm not sued into the next century because I'm financially responsible for the damage I did to the vehicle(s) of others and their personal injuries.

If somebody unjustly shoots a member of my family, the last thing I'm worried about is how much money I'm going to get. I guess liberals think differently than I do.

So the insurance would be for the criminal then?

Seriously

Nope, just the opposite. You buy insurance for you. If you live in a state where a criminal can sue you, then you need to protect yourself with insurance.

Thank goodness I live in a state where I don't need that protection.

 

[FJO]

You wanna cure crime? Cure poverty. That would put a much bigger dent in homicides and other violent crimes, and property crimes, than gun control would.

Cure poverty: GET A JOB!

This would be a twofor since if the current freeloaders were not so high and mighty they would take the jobs that only immigrants, usually the illegal variety, take now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You wanna cure crime? Cure poverty. That would put a much bigger dent in homicides and other violent crimes, and property crimes, than gun control would.

Cure poverty: GET A JOB!

This would be a twofor since if the current freeloaders were not so high and mighty they would take the jobs that only immigrants, usually the illegal variety, take now.

It's legal and illegal immigrants causing the problem. I see it in my industry constantly. Most of the jobs are not that bad of pay and offer a rewarding future. Americans don't want to do the jobs. They would rather stay home on their Obama phone and pig out on their SNAP's cards. So industry turns to foreigners who will not only do the jobs, but for much less pay. It's a big problem in this country.

 

[easyt65]

94,610,000 Americans are out of work.
Obama not long ago gave illegals the authority to compete with Americans for ANY job. As a result job growth for illegals has reportedly been greater for illegals than citizens.