• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should you have to purchase insurance to exercise constitutional rights?

Should you have purchase insurance to exercise constitutional rights?


  • Total voters
    24
Wait, I thought it was pretty much conservative dogma that constitutional rights only applied to the individual as it relates to federal law, not state law.

And we see once again that you either have a completely misinformed, unrealistically stereotyped version of Conservatism in your head or you're just being intentionally dense.

Conservative dogma states that constitutional rights apply to the individual and can not be infringed upon by the state of the federal government. Yes, the federal government can't ban guns, neither should a state, because its garaunteed in the 2nd amendment. The Federal Government shouldn't put a law in place criminalizing complaining about the president, nor should the states do such for criticizing governors as its protected under the 1st amendment.

Conservative dogma has issue when the federal government legislates or rules on matters that are not innumerated within the Constitution and as such belong to the STATES, not the federal government.
 
Well thats dumb.

I wonder if they are going to require that insurance companies come up with a "gun owners" liability insurance program. Your homeowners insurance already covers you for any liability for anything that happens on your property, but rarely do people carry 1 million in coverage, unless they have an umbrella policy. I can't imagine too many insurance companies would be wanting to cover "gunfire" insurance, for wherever you may go. Thats just going to give people deeper pockets to go after, if they get shot. Thus increasing the cost of said insurance over time.
Cool we need to make law enforcement and military personnel purchase malpractice insurance, since they are more likely to shoot someone. :lol:
 
How does a convicted criminal not have the right to bear arms? Rights are innate and inalienable; of course they do. It's just that the State has used force to suppress the exercise of that right. On that note, I do believe that criminals should have the full of their rights recognized again once their punishment is done in full, meaning jail time, fines, probation, etc.

So should we police the criminals right to purchase weapons?

If so, how do you do that without forcing everyone to pass a background check?
 
-- Personally though, I don't mind proving that I am eligible for the right if it helps remove the ability to get easily get gun for those illegal to posses guns --

Just speaking as an outsider, in the UK gun ownership has become incredibly restricted. You need licences, you need to demonstrate that you can keep the weapons you have secure from theft and misuse and you are subject to all kinds of background security checks.

However gun ownership among criminals is probably as high now as it was when gun ownership was more widespread. Restrictions only stop those who would and could legally own a gun, it does not stop the criminal in any serious way, shape or form.
 
Just speaking as an outsider, in the UK gun ownership has become incredibly restricted. You need licences, you need to demonstrate that you can keep the weapons you have secure from theft and misuse and you are subject to all kinds of background security checks.

However gun ownership among criminals is probably as high now as it was when gun ownership was more widespread. Restrictions only stop those who would and could legally own a gun, it does not stop the criminal in any serious way, shape or form.

Good point. If they are criminals then they are most likely have no problems getting a gun in an illegal way. If that stat is true in the US then my concern of wanting to checks in place for the purpose of disallowing criminals from easily purchasing weapons is invalid.

I say screw guns all together. Let's go back to swords and knives and fight it out medieval style.
 
I wanted to wait until later but since you asked.

I am glad my state(Oklahoma) respects the second amendment.

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687

Bill Status of HB0687 96th General Assembly
Full Text Votes View All Actions Printer-Friendly Version


Short Description: FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

House Sponsors
Rep. Kenneth Dunkin

Last Action
Date Chamber Action
2/6/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
430 ILCS 65/4.5 new
430 ILCS 65/8 from Ch. 38, par. 83-8


Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

Rep. Kenneth Dunkin is an absolute IDIOT! He is NOT an American. How about exiling him to Zimbabwe?
 
What if you don't have the right to bare arms? You are a criminal, mentally handicapped, or a child.

If licensing is not put into practice how are those restrictions to be enforced if there is no way for gun sellers to tell that your right to bare arms is restricted?

If you can offer another alternative I would most likely before it. I just can't fathom another way to stop restricted individuals from openly purchasing guns that are illegal for them to own.


why don't we make people get insurance before voting. There are voting rights restrictions too and idiots voting irresponsibly have caused more damage than gun rights.
 
Mostly because the right to bare arms is the only right that you can be legally denied. Not all citizens have the right to bare arms.

There is no such restriction on free speech, religion, etc.

Bear arms not Bare arms.

ANd now there are other rights that can be legally denied- YOu clearly have no clue about rights.
 
You are talking about two different things here.
LICENSING is a precondition not inherent to the right, and thus, an infringement.
BACKGROUND CHECKS are a form of prior restraint, and thus, an infringement.

background checks are not an infringment to law abiding citizens with the mental capacity to properly use firearms....it is only an infringement to those who should not have them....
 
background checks are not an infringment to law abiding citizens with the mental capacity to properly use firearms....it is only an infringement to those who should not have them....

perhaps perhaps not. If you are delayed because of a glitch than it is an infringement.
 
perhaps perhaps not. If you are delayed because of a glitch than it is an infringement.

the "infringement" you are worried about is essential to keep guns out of the wrong hands, pedophile out of certain jobs that involve children, unstable people from becoming nuclear power plant operators, etc.
 
why don't we make people get insurance before voting.
If you think we should go for it. I personally don't think insurance is required for voting or gun control.

There are voting rights restrictions too and idiots voting irresponsibly have caused more damage than gun rights.
How exactly would you compare the harm done by voting in a politician vs the harm done by killing someone?
 
background checks are not an infringment to law abiding citizens....
Background checkls are a form of prior restraint.
They are, therefore, and infringement.
 
Background checkls are a form of prior restraint.
They are, therefore, and infringement.

so when you get shot by someone who got a weapon without a background check, and would have been denied that weapon, who is to blame?


we don't rule by who has the most powerful weapons, but by the ballot box....
 
so when you get shot by someone who got a weapon without a background check, and would have been denied that weapon, who is to blame?
Irrelevant to the issue -- its still an infringement.
You cannot try to pre-empt crime by violating the rights of the law abiding.
 
so when you get shot by someone who got a weapon without a background check, and would have been denied that weapon, who is to blame?
The person who shot me. There is no one else to blame for their actions but them.
 
The person who shot me. There is no one else to blame for their actions but them.

if you are dead, or one of your family members, they don't come back because you are afraid of "infringement".....

surely you know people who shouldn't have access to guns? maybe you even are one?:2razz:
 
we don't rule by who has the most powerful weapons, but by the ballot box....

We rule by the rights and liberties of the individual. This is not a pure democracy.
 
if you are dead, or one of your family members, they don't come back because you are afraid of "infringement".....

surely you know people who shouldn't have access to guns? maybe you even are one?:2razz:

Criminals do not obey the law in the first place, why one earth would they obey a law that says they have to pass a background check before purchasing firearms when they can get fire arms illegally?
 
Last edited:
Actually, asking gun owners to provide insurance seems like a good idea. I fly remote-controlled airplanes, and I'm required to carry an AMA license which automatically provides insurance when I fly. The second amendment may give you the right to own a gun, but it does not give you the right to duck the responsibility if you shoot someone accidentally.
 
Actually, asking gun owners to provide insurance seems like a good idea. I fly remote-controlled airplanes, and I'm required to carry an AMA license which automatically provides insurance when I fly. The second amendment may give you the right to own a gun, but it does not give you the right to duck the responsibility if you shoot someone accidentally.

The 2nd amendment isn't a coverall to accidental shooting. You can easily be charged and/or sued for an accidental shooting.
 
Actually, asking gun owners to provide insurance seems like a good idea. I fly remote-controlled airplanes, and I'm required to carry an AMA license which automatically provides insurance when I fly. The second amendment may give you the right to own a gun, but it does not give you the right to duck the responsibility if you shoot someone accidentally.

Nobody says it does; however, the 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is just another attempt by the left to attack gun ownership.
 
Nobody says it does; however, the 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is just another attempt by the left to attack gun ownership.

Well see, I consider it an attempt to attack model airplane ownership
 
Back
Top Bottom