what do you guys think of the gun regulation conceptt?

[Grapesoda]

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

[L-Pink]

Do gangs get a group discount? Do armed robbers get a professional discount?

I read where almost 25% of Florida drivers are uninsured, sorta answers that question.


.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

I like it. After all, only rich people deserve to protect their homes and families, as they are the only ones responsible, intelligent and educated enough. It's well known that poor people are not responsible enough to have the right of self protection. Can you imagine a single woman working a low paying job, trying to take care of her kids having some kind of weapon to protect herself against intruders? Everyone knows that she can't be trusted to have that right! Let her wait until the police get there, I'm sure she can some other way to protect herself. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the lower classes!







.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Do gangs get a group discount? Do armed robbers get a professional discount?

I read where almost 25% of Florida drivers are uninsured, sorta answers that question.


.

well it would work the same way, when they finally get caught they get fined.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I like it. After all, only rich people deserve to protect their homes and families. Poor people are not responsible enough to have the right of self protection. Can you imagine a single woman working a low paying job, trying to take care of her kids having some kind of weapon to protect herself against intruders? Everyone knows that she can't be trusted to have that right! Let her wait until the police get there, I'm sure she can some other way to protect herself. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the lower classes!







.

So your argument against is that it would be prohibitively expensive for the lower class? That seems odd that insurance would be so expensive given how safe firearms are!

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I like it. After all, only rich people deserve to protect their homes and families, as they are the only ones responsible, intelligent and educated enough. It's well known that poor people are not responsible enough to have the right of self protection. Can you imagine a single woman working a low paying job, trying to take care of her kids having some kind of weapon to protect herself against intruders? Everyone knows that she can't be trusted to have that right! Let her wait until the police get there, I'm sure she can some other way to protect herself. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the lower classes!







.

so why don't we lower rent/groceries/insurance in general for all these poor people? surely a decent place to live and good food isn't only for rich people...

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

Why do you have trouble understanding what a "right" is ?

.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Why do you have trouble understanding what a "right" is ?

.

Voting is a right and its regulated.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

I agree and they have to take classes and pass a test. Then you can own whatever u want. All guns start as legal.

[Rochard]

I am not sure if I see the point in this. I guess it makes sense. It's like car insurance - I you can't afford the car insurance, you cannot drive. The huge downside here is it would require you to register any / all firearms with the local government. While I am fine with this - If find it highly unlikely that the US government is going to take our firearms away from us - but I can see the vast majority of gun owners have large issues with this.

I honestly believe our first step is mental health issues. My wife works for a doctor's office, and her computer system is set up with local hospital systems. They do this for "our protection". For example, a patient came in and needed an operation and failed to mention he just had a heart attack two weeks prior. If you see one doctor, every other doctor in the system knows about it.

I've mentioned this before on GFY and was told this would be an issue due to privacy concerns. No, it isn't. The doctor files already exist, the government already has access to this, and you've already signed away your privacy rights when you asked for the background check.

Then... If you have seen a counselor/therapist or if you are on certain medications in the past three years, you are restricted from owning a firearm. If anyone in your house has seen a counselor/therapist in the past three years, or been on certain medications, you are restricted from owning a firearm.

99.9% of firearm owners are legal, law abiding citizens. It's the mentally ill that is the problem.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

That would never fly and would be impossible to regulate due to all the non registered firearms in the country.

However, taxing ammo and/or the components thereof and using the money to fund an insurance carrier might be possible. The more you shoot, the higher the probability of an accident and the more you pay on ammo tax.

Not a perfect system as all anybody needs is a single round to cause harm but there could be something to it. Obviously as a "concept" it would require a lot more thought.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by tony286

Voting is a right and its regulated.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

[SuckOnThis]

Do rednecks hate Lynyrd Skynyrd now?

[mikesouth]

Cant happen it is a restraint on a constitutionally recognized right to bear arms. Wouldnt begin to pass constitutional muster with this or any foreseeable supreme court.

I like the idea of voters insurance meaning if you misuse your vote you can be sued but alas that wont happen either....

[tony286]

Originally Posted by sarettah

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Ok but its still regulated.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by tony286

Ok but its still regulated.

Because the constitution does not say that it cannot be abridged or infringed except where they have specified. ie: race, sex, age over 18, poll taxes.

The 1st amendment specifically states that free speech, free press, assembly and grievance cannot be abridged and the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the constitution stated that the right to vote cannot be abridged or shall not be infringed the comparison between the right to vote and the right to bear arms or free speech would be valid but since the constitution does not state that, the comparison is invalid.

Ok Honey Buns ?

I still love you even when you are wrong and deluded ;p

.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by tony286

Voting is a right and its regulated.

No it's not, many states do not require a state ID

[sarettah]

If we want restrictions on the right to bear arms the proper way to attain them is through amending the constitution.

People argue "but that takes too long", "it is a long, hard process", etc.

Yes, it is a long, hard process. That is purposeful. It attempts to guarantee that the change is well thought out and has been debated properly before just haphazardly making changes to the document that is the basis of our laws.

People nowadays constantly make arguments that can be summarized as "we do not have the time to do it right". I argue the opposite. We do not have time it do it wrong.

When you do things back ass-ward they tend not to stick and we have to repeat the discussion again and again and again.

Just imho, of course.

.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by sarettah

If we want restrictions on the right to bear arms the proper way to attain them is through amending the constitution.

We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Because the constitution does not say that it cannot be abridged or infringed except where they have specified. ie: race, sex, age over 18, poll taxes.

The 1st amendment specifically states that free speech, free press, assembly and grievance cannot be abridged and the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the constitution stated that the right to vote cannot be abridged or shall not be infringed the comparison between the right to vote and the right to bear arms or free speech would be valid but since the constitution does not state that, the comparison is invalid.

Ok Honey Buns ?

I still love you even when you are wrong and deluded ;p

.

The 2nd amendment never specifically states that felons are exempt from this right. Isn't that regulation not specified in the text?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

so why don't we lower rent/groceries/insurance in general for all these poor people? surely a decent place to live and good food isn't only for rich people...

how about all us guys working just pay 98% taxes so the privileged can just sit around all day, watch big screen TV's, get high and have sex with each other?

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

In theory it sounds great but the biggest issue is and always will be illegal firearms. It's the same where I live where most people can't legally get or afford a gun. The solution: steal them, buy cheap Chinese ones on the black market, or make your own. Many of the gun murders here are from homemade one-shot pistols. I just can't think of a way to stop someone from making their own or stealing one from someone else.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.

obviously we can't suppress the mentality ill people rights...

[Helix]

No...and like the fiscal cliff talks...it's not open for discussion.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Rochard

restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.

Sell me your AR-15 before they come to your house.

.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

obviously we can't suppress the mentality ill people rights...

Why not?

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we? I have a friend who has a twenty-one year old son who lives in assisted living. He has a job, but he's not allowed to drive a car. Surely he shouldn't have a firearm....

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Why not?

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we? I have a friend who has a twenty-one year old son who lives in assisted living. He has a job, but he's not allowed to drive a car. Surely he shouldn't have a firearm....

First of all driving isnt a right it is a privilege, gun ownership isnt a privilege it is a right.

second the meaning of the second amendment is whatever the supreme court says it is at a given time but saretah is right if you want to abridge the right to bear arms...amend the constitution.

finally the feds have pretty much left it up to the states as far as most gun legislation so long as the states dont run afoul of the constitution. The recent gun control bills would have taken a lot of that away from the states and made it a federal issue, at a time when many states are actually relaxing firearm restrictions. Some states like Idaho even allow the unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) some states (NY, CA, WA, DE) dont allow the ownership of machine guns at all

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we?

Of course we do, depending on the level of their "illness."

Bi-Polar and Manic/Depressive disorders doesn't keep people from driving but they certainly could be classified as something that would keep you from legally owning a gun.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

I do not like the idea it at all.

[Yngwie]

It's BARE arms.. not BEAR! lol come on!

[Robbie]

I think the insurance companies are going to be the richest companies on Earth.
We are already forced to by car insurance. Now we have ObamaCare and are forced to buy health insurance.
I own my own home so I pay home insurance and mortgage insurance.

So yeah...why not hand the insurance companies even more money? And why stop there? I love working hard and not getting to keep any of my own money...I'm taxed and insured to the hilt. lol

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Of course we do, depending on the level of their "illness."

Bi-Polar and Manic/Depressive disorders doesn't keep people from driving but they certainly could be classified as something that would keep you from legally owning a gun.

NOTHING stops anybody from driving. Plenty of people out there who are so low IQ they can barely function but have drivers licenses. Also a LOT of people out there who drive with suspended licenses.

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Robbie

NOTHING stops anybody from driving. Plenty of people out there who are so low IQ they can barely function but have drivers licenses. Also a LOT of people out there who drive with suspended licenses.

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.

Very true.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Why not?

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we? I have a friend who has a twenty-one year old son who lives in assisted living. He has a job, but he's not allowed to drive a car. Surely he shouldn't have a firearm....

lawyers and civil right people

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Of course we do, depending on the level of their "illness."

Bi-Polar and Manic/Depressive disorders doesn't keep people from driving but they certainly could be classified as something that would keep you from legally owning a gun.

seriously I think at least 80% of peeps on the road are high on something or fucked up on pills like meds or some shit like that..

[Elli]

Originally Posted by Robbie

NOTHING stops anybody from driving. Plenty of people out there who are so low IQ they can barely function but have drivers licenses. Also a LOT of people out there who drive with suspended licenses.

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.

Yes, there will always be people who don't obey laws for whatever reasons. But sometimes it's better to have a law in place to keep most people's behaviour in line than to ignore a situation. I'm glad it's a law that vehicle manufacturers include seat belts in their cars. Do all people wear them? no, but the fact that most people do keeps my insurance rates lower than they otherwise would be.

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.

If the Mentally ill can own them, then we do need stronger laws. This is also a slippery slope as to what is Mentally ill? My thoughts No female should own a firearm for one week out of the month. HA

Also, I do not think many of the mentally ill people Owned the firearms? Maybe the did?

I only quoted you so I could reply on my phone...

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

First of all driving isnt a right it is a privilege, gun ownership isnt a privilege it is a right.

second the meaning of the second amendment is whatever the supreme court says it is at a given time but saretah is right if you want to abridge the right to bear arms...amend the constitution.

finally the feds have pretty much left it up to the states as far as most gun legislation so long as the states dont run afoul of the constitution. The recent gun control bills would have taken a lot of that away from the states and made it a federal issue, at a time when many states are actually relaxing firearm restrictions. Some states like Idaho even allow the unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) some states (NY, CA, WA, DE) dont allow the ownership of machine guns at all

I just read today that Kansas made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any gun laws, for guns owned, made, purchased in Kansas. Big Daddy said they would take Kansas to court, and the Gov made an awesome reply...

Mr. Brownback replied to Mr. Holder on Thursday.
?The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,? Mr. Brownback wrote in a letter dated May 2. ?It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights.
?The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,? he said.
Mr. Brownback goes on to write that the legislation was passed on wide and bipartisan votes in the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas Senate (96-24 and 35-4, respectively), and that the Democratic minority leader in each chamber supported it.
?This is not a partisan issue in Kansas,? he wrote. ?The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.?


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2SG5nXgX3
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.

</thread>

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by Rochard

We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.

How many times do I have to point out that you're wrong about this?

Here's an idea...If you don't know WTF you're talking about...STFU.

[AaronM]

Read.

Learn.

Stop posting ignorant and false statements.

http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-i-3310-4.pdf

[kane]

I don't see how this will help.

Most criminals who use guns to commit crimes use guns that were gotten illegally. These guys were likely stolen and then resold to the criminal (or stolen by the criminal). I can insure the hell out of my gun, but if someone steals it and uses it for a crime that insurnace likely will do no good.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by kane

I don't see how this will help.

Most criminals who use guns to commit crimes use guns that were gotten illegally. These guys were likely stolen and then resold to the criminal (or stolen by the criminal). I can insure the hell out of my gun, but if someone steals it and uses it for a crime that insurnace likely will do no good.

I believe this thread is in reference to accidental shootings etc...Situations where you, as the firearm owner, could be exposed to liability and civil litigation.

If your gun is stolen then you would report it as such and would, in most cases, not have any liability from any crime committed with it. Common sense says that you may still be liable if it was stolen due to negligence or if you failed to report the theft.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Do rednecks hate Lynyrd Skynyrd now?

[kane]

Originally Posted by AaronM

I believe this thread is in reference to accidental shootings etc...Situations where you, as the firearm owner, could be exposed to liability and civil litigation.

If your gun is stolen then you would report it as such and would, in most cases, not have any liability from any crime committed with it. Common sense says that you may still be liable if it was stolen due to negligence or if you failed to report the theft.

I guess I could see how it might be helpful with accidental shootings, but if the shooting happened in your house wouldn't home owners insurance cover it? If it were away from the house like out hunting or shooting, if you had health insurance and were injured it should cover it, but death might be another thing.

I guess I don't see a huge advantage to insuring a gun.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by kane

I guess I don't see a huge advantage to insuring a gun.

That's because you aren't Big Govt. and/or Big Insurance.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's because you aren't Big Govt. and/or Big Insurance.

This is true

[pimpmaster9000]

man you US guys talking about the constitution reminds me of arabs talking about the quran LOL...

its not the 10 commandments and it was written by dirty smelly ethnic cleansing traitors from europe...

and also, if you have not noticed, the government takes away your "constitutional" rights anyway...its amusing to see all of you find a false sense of security in a "magic Scroll" LOL

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

man you US guys talking about the constitution reminds me of arabs talking about the quran LOL...

its not the 10 commandments and it was written by dirty smelly ethnic cleansing traitors from europe...

and also, if you have not noticed, the government takes away your "constitutional" rights anyway...its amusing to see all of you find a false sense of security in a "magic Scroll" LOL

'written by dirty smelly ethnic cleansing traitors from europe... pretty much... but then so is everything

[arock10]

Second amendment needs to be amended to get with the times. Sick of just hearing but but but the second amendment says so

First amendment is for free speech but its still illegal to yell fire in a movie theater when there is none

Just like I shouldn't be allowed to buy assault rifles from private parties with no background check or registering...