• 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
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should you have to purchase insurance to exercise a constitutional rights?

I say no, it is a right not a privilege that can be issued by the government Therefore the government has no business forcing people to purchase licenses in order to exercise what is their constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
What is this leading too?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Being required to carry insurance to exercise any right is an act of treason.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
:spin:
In the case of Bill of Rights abuses it is the federal governments DUTY to uphold the constitution, it is one of the few exceptions where federal law should trump state law. I thought you liberals liked to uphold the constitut.....Oh wait, never mind, you're the side that believes the end justifies the means......sorry, forgot. See! I can play the label game too.
 
jamesrage said:
Should you have to purchase insurance to exercise a constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
Regardless of the subject of the poll, my answer is no.

Given the intended subject of the poll, my answer is hell no.

Licensing and registration of guns, on their own, are infringements.
Requiring insurance to obtain either of those items, even more so.

Perhaps journalists should be required to obtain professional liability insurance (against libel/slander) before obtaining a license to report the news.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
However true that may have been at one time, the 14th amendment changes all of that.
 
Goobieman said:
Regardless of the subject of the poll, my answer is no.

Given the intended subject of the poll, my answer is hell no.

Licensing and registration of guns, on their own, are infringements.
Requiring insurance to obtain either of those items, even more so.

Perhaps journalists should be required to obtain professional liability insurance (against libel/slander) before obtaining a license to report the news.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that liberals haven't voted yes yet,perhaps I should have worded the poll "Should you have to purchase liability insurance to own firearms?" to see if they'll vote yes.
 
Meh, sounds like a dumbass way to bring in more revenue for the government and these politicians' cronies in the insurance lobby.

Firearm accidents really aren't common enough where I think people need to be insured just in case. It would be the equivalent of demanding people carry liability insurance before they buy a box of matches, or a sharp knife, or a kiddie pool. Sure, someone COULD get hurt using any of those things (or a gun)...but it just doesn't happen often enough to require mandatory insurance.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hell no. And hell no again.
 
LaMidRighter said:
:spin:
In the case of Bill of Rights abuses it is the federal governments DUTY to uphold the constitution, it is one of the few exceptions where federal law should trump state law.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Just remember that next time the supposed conservatives on here get all up in arms over the Federal Judiciary ruling that the states say, can't use public office to endorse or promote specific religious beliefs then.
 
jamesrage said:
Should you have to purchase insurance to exercise a constitutional rights?

I say no, it is a right not a privilege that can be issued by the government Therefore the government has no business forcing people to purchase licenses in order to exercise what is their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

No you should not. You should however be proven you qualify for said right, those licensing comes into play.
 
Illinois, ffs, do you want to be kicked out of the Union?

If I were in their assembly, I would ask that the measure include "Katanas, Rapiers, Sledgehammers and other sharp or blunt instruments". Then I'd laugh as I was slowly kicked in the nuts.
 
NOOO!!!!

The No option was on top..

I clicked Yes by accident,

James you tricky p.o.s
 
Gibberish said:
No you should not. You should however be proven you qualify for said right, those licensing comes into play.
Click to expand...

Should you have to take speech classes so you do not say something treasonous or slanderous?
 
jamesrage said:
Should you have to take speech classes so you do not say something treasonous or slanderous?
Click to expand...
Talking a class to learn how to NOT do something has nothing to do with it.

Let me ask you this. Is it unconstitutional to deny convicted criminals, mentally handicapped, or children guns?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Talking a class to learn how to NOT do something has nothing to do with it.

Let me ask you this. Is it unconstitutional to deny convicted criminals, mentally handicapped, or children guns?
Click to expand...

No it is not.

A felon gives up his rights during the commission and conviction of the felony.

Children have limited rights until the age of adulthood.

If by mentally handicapped you mean retarded or unable to function in society then they also have limited rights.

Rights for a mentally fit adult are considered inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. Making insurance or licensing for guns limits someones ability to exorcise that inalienable right. This makes it un-constitutional and anti-freedom.
 
No, no, just... NO. And no again. ****ing big government ****tards.
 
Gibberish said:
No you should not. You should however be proven you qualify for said right, those licensing comes into play.
Click to expand...
So... journalists should be required to get a license?
That's actually a good idea. I get to write the test.
 
Gibberish said:
Let me ask you this. Is it unconstitutional to deny convicted criminals, mentally handicapped, or children guns?
Click to expand...
No. Not everyone has every right; rights may be removed thru due process.
 
Goobieman said:
So... journalists should be required to get a license?
That's actually a good idea. I get to write the test.
Click to expand...

Are there laws that restrict specific persons from exercising the free speech right? If not, then no they don't need a license.
 
Goobieman said:
No. Not everyone has every right; rights may be removed thru due process.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Licensing allows for multiple things. 1) It allows tracking of education and ability. Just as a drivers license does. 2) It clearly defines who has the right to carry/own a weapon. This expedites things for gun sellers/owners/ and law enforcement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom