Insurance requirement for gun ownership

[MadRat]

Vast majority of gun shots do not kill even including stats from suicide. Gun crime does not imply homicide. Homicides are often not even tied to guns, and all too often people assume gang violence when they hear the word. Too many jump to those conclusions because they've been conditioned to do so.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Vast majority of gun shots do not kill even including stats from suicide. Gun crime does not imply homicide. Homicides are often not even tied to guns, and all too often people assume gang violence when they hear the word. Too many jump to those conclusions because they've been conditioned to do so.

Most gun deaths are suicides.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Hint: It's all the people, (males if you want to be accurate) but why would you want to be accurate at this late date? You never have before.

HINT: it is not. The founding father's most emphatically did not mean every male when they wrote 'as a well regulated militia'. They literally meant the militias that most towns had that were regulated by the town. Yes, in most cases any male could be a member of that militia, and when they were they would have been trained and their use and ownership of the gun would have been regulated. But most people were not a member of a militia.

What the 2nd Amendment at the time really meant was that the federal government could not ban local militias and force towns or states to be dependent on a federally controlled military or police for protection.
The 2A is intended to give the regulation of firearms to the local governments so they could maintain their own military force as a way to limit the federal government from growing too powerful. At that task it failed miserably.

 

[Matt390]

The pen is mightier than the sword. Would you need insurance for exercising the First Amendment?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The pen is mightier than the sword. Would you need insurance for exercising the First Amendment?

Yes. Most places require groups to have insurance to peacefully assemble. That is part of the First Amendment too.

Edit: Also, the 2a clearly says in it 'Well Regulated' which means that it can be regulated. Requiring insurance would be a way to regulate it. Something the amendment clearly states is permissible.

 

[Matt390]

Yes. Most places require groups to have insurance to peacefully assemble. That is part of the First Amendment too.

I was talking about the speech part of the first amendment. Not the collective right.

 

[MadRat]

Most gun deaths are suicides.

That's probably true if we don't include hunting.

 

[pcgeek11]

Isn't gunpowder not technically an explosive? It doesn't actually detonate. Is my gasoline car propelled by explosives?

It in fact doesn't explode it burns rapidly and propels the bullet. Black powder, Many different formulations of smokeless powders. Shotgun powders burn really slow as they are large granulates. It is considered as a low order explosive. Where bombs and warheads use a high order explosives such as TNT, RDX, RDX3, PETN. If you used a true high order explosive in rifle round the barrel would explode or warp.

 

[herm0016]

Seems like a great way to keep guns out of the hands of poor people.

yep. just like Biden said, there is a history of restricting constitutional rights for certain groups. . . and that he supports the continued restriction of rights.

"From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons. "

cant have the poors having guns. more taxes and fees should do it.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

 

[MadRat]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

Personal responsibility is preached by liberals. Don't expect them to pay for their own policy consequences.

 

[MrSquished]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

With insurance they'll be tracking at the point of sale. This will discourage gun trafficking from regressive states where guns can be sold like candy , to those who spread them around the country.

You don't see the big picture.

 

[MrSquished]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

With insurance they'll be tracking at the point of sale. This will discourage gun trafficking from regressive guns can be sold like candy states, to those who spread them around the country.

You don't see the big picture.

 

[MrSquished]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

With insurance they'll be tracking at the point of sale. This will discourage gun trafficking from regressive guns can be sold like candy states, to those who spread them around the country.

You don't see the big picture.

 

[MrSquished]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

With insurance they'll be tracking at the point of sale. This will discourage gun trafficking from regressive guns can be sold like candy states, to those who spread them around the country.

You don't see the big picture.

 

[MrSquished]

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder. End the war on drugs. Just like ending prohibition, ending the war on drugs eliminates a huge source/incentive of violence. The only thing this stupid idea does is take money away from people who already obey the law and gives it to corporations that are already wealthy. I'm thinking the vast majority of people who don't give a shit that murder is illegal won't give a shit that having a gun without insurance is illegal.

With insurance they'll be tracking at the point of sale. This will discourage gun trafficking from regressive guns can be sold like candy states, to those who spread them around the country.

You don't see the big picture.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Isn't gunpowder not technically an explosive? It doesn't actually detonate. Is my gasoline car propelled by explosives?

You mean automobiles aren't really explosive devices?

 

[nickqt]

You mean automobiles aren't really explosive devices?

Yeah I know, stupid libruul thinks gunpowder is explosive. What a moron.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yeah I know, stupid libruul thinks gunpowder is explosive. What a moron.

Lol, they're so smart, they can't simple look it up.

Low explosives versus high explosives

 

[Pipeline 1010]

With insurance they'll be tracking at the point of sale. This will discourage gun trafficking from regressive guns can be sold like candy states, to those who spread them around the country.

You don't see the big picture.

The big picture is that there are 400,000,000 guns in the U.S. The bad guys can get one with or without insurance. Which option do you think the BAD GUYS are going to choose? Not having vehicle insurance doesn't prevent people from obtaining and driving cars and it won't prevent anyone from obtaining and using guns. It will punish the good guys who are basically the only ones who will pay it. The big picture is that this does fuck all to prevent gun violence and it is little more than a feel-good "I'm doing something hur hur!" type of solution. The good news is that there are lots of actually effective ways to reduce violence. The bad news is that neither party gives a shit about reducing violence or else they would actively advocate these ways to reduce violence. Instead the right wants to increase punishments and use cops as Judge Dreads and the left wants to ban shit. Both are ineffective.

 

[MrSquished]

The big picture is that there are 400,000,000 guns in the U.S. The bad guys can get one with or without insurance. Which option do you think the BAD GUYS are going to choose? Not having vehicle insurance doesn't prevent people from obtaining and driving cars and it won't prevent anyone from obtaining and using guns. It will punish the good guys who are basically the only ones who will pay it. The big picture is that this does fuck all to prevent gun violence and it is little more than a feel-good "I'm doing something hur hur!" type of solution. The good news is that there are lots of actually effective ways to reduce violence. The bad news is that neither party gives a shit about reducing violence or else they would actively advocate these ways to reduce violence. Instead the right wants to increase punishments and use cops as Judge Dreads and the left wants to ban shit. Both are ineffective.

So let's stop selling cars with registration and insurance since there are so many out there already.

Are you this fucking dumb? Or do you take classes of stupidity at the same place you register to be a Republican?

 

[Chocu1a]

Seems like a great way to keep guns out of the hands of poor people.

This. It is extremely discriminatory. Only the rich would be able to own guns and able to protect themselves. They already do this with automatic firearms. Fully auto guns are illegal unless you can afford a tax stamp for one. This leads to poorer population not being able to afford one, or illegally owning one, while the rich have no problems. Gun control is always aimed at keeping the poor in line.

"Gun control in the United States is based on a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. While blacks were the first targets of gun control measures, different racial and ethnic minorities have been targeted over time, and today the poor now face economic discrimination in many gun control laws. Gun control may be portrayed as a measure to reduce crime,1 but even in its earliest forms firearms regulation has been used as a means to control specific societal groups by keeping them from possessing weapons. The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands. Even after the Civil War, Black Codes were enacted which ensured that supposedly freed blacks would not have effective means to defend themselves, and would remain an unarmed and subordinate group in society, unable to defend themselves or fight for their legal and constitutional rights. By the end of the 19th century, the focus of gun control shifted from predominantly anti-black to anti-immigrant legislation. This was also the first time that gun control was enacted in the northern United States where there was almost no firearms legislation in place prior to the late 1800’s. With the arrival of European and other immigrants in the country, anti-immigrant prejudices arose and anti-immigrant groups did much to associate immigrants with crime. 1The Brady Campaign, “About the Brady Campaign,” http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/.

[2] Unlike the South, Northern gun control laws were much less explicitly discriminatory in their aims and their terms. In particular, discretionary permitting allowed authorities to selectively issue licenses and was tantamount to absolute authority to deny permits to immigrants or other supposedly dangerous elements of society. The Gun Control act of 1968 was another major shift in firearm restrictions. The supposed aim of this bill was a reduction in crime, but an underlying motive was to keep black militant groups from arming themselves with readily available and inexpensive weapons. The new objective became the removal of inexpensive firearms from the market. Banning cheap guns was justified as a safety precaution to protect consumers and a way to keep criminals from accessing cheap firearms. One of the major accomplishments of this kind of legislation, however, was keeping guns out of the hands of the poorer people in society. The poor had truly become the primary target in gun control. Gun bans were instituted in order to keep the poor from legally possessing firearms. On the surface this seems like a reasonable way to keep guns out of crime prone areas. In reality, it ensures that criminals will be the only people with firearms. People who obey the law, but need housing assistance, will have no means to protect themselves."

 

[darkswordsman17]

Its cute seeing right wingers declare their concern about poor people's access to guns considering the NRA and other Republicans have literally cited poor people as one of the groups they need to arm themselves against. Your concern is duly noted. Noticeably absent, your concern for the victims of gun violence.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It seems like many are assuming the cost of insuring would be astronomically high, and forgetting about the free market.

 

[Greenman]

Its cute seeing right wingers declare their concern about poor people's access to guns considering the NRA and other Republicans have literally cited poor people as one of the groups they need to arm themselves against. Your concern is duly noted. Noticeably absent, your concern for the victims of gun violence.

I have no concern over poor people having access to firearms.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

So let's stop selling cars with registration and insurance since there are so many out there already.

Are you this fucking dumb? Or do you take classes of stupidity at the same place you register to be a Republican?

LOL my main position is that the most immediate and successful thing we can do to reduce gun violence is to end the war on drugs and divert money to treatment and rehabilitation instead of punishment. I was unaware that the Republican party was in support of defunding police/prisons but it seems like you are declaring I'm on their team now for no actual reason other that I don't think your solution will be very effective. Look, we can do your registration and insurance thing but don't come back surprised when it doesn't accomplish anything. Wanna accomplish something or not?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Its cute seeing right wingers declare their concern about poor people's access to guns considering the NRA and other Republicans have literally cited poor people as one of the groups they need to arm themselves against. Your concern is duly noted. Noticeably absent, your concern for the victims of gun violence.

So then why don't republican's support this regressive tax then? It would literally give them the evil result that you claim they are seeking. They should literally be on your side on this issue if what you are claiming is true.

 

[MichaelMay]

This is boring. Nothing can EVER be done about it so why waste time discussing things that cannot ever happen?

"living document" my ass...

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The pen is mightier than the sword. Would you need insurance for exercising the First Amendment?

Some need insurance for the mouths or fingers, yes. Think Libel or Slander.

No way. This does NOTHING to prevent murder.

Who said it would? It might help with medical costs for the victim(s) though, accidental or intentional.

Its cute seeing right wingers declare their concern about poor people's access to guns ...

... when they don't seem to be concerned with their access to the polling places.