what do you guys think of the gun regulation conceptt?
 

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.

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.


.

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! :):)




:)


.

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

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!

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...

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

.

Voting is a right and its regulated.

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

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.

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. :2 cents:

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

Do rednecks hate Lynyrd Skynyrd now?

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....

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

.

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

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.

.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

.

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

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.

I do not like the idea it at all.

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

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

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. :thumbsup

lawyers and civil right people :2 cents:

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..

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.

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...

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

</thread>

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.