• 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!

HR-822 Forces Gun Owners to Obtain Liability Insurance

Yep.. and here is a fact.. that statistic is completely invalid.. because while we may have the highest gun death rate of any first world country... we are among the safest when it comes to violent crime etc.

Facts are not your friend vegas.

Here is a fact. We have the highest violent crime of any first world nation .

Facts are facts. They are not friends to people. Lol
 
Wrong.. no one who understands the issue wants to disenfranchise voters...
When did I ever say I wanted to ban/disenfranchise illiterate voters? And what does any of this have to do with liability insurance?
 
When did I ever say I wanted to ban/disenfranchise illiterate voters? And what does any of this have to do with liability insurance?

wayne JR said:
So we're agreed that no one wants voters to be illiterate, because no one wants illiterate people voting, because reading is essential to being informed.

Is that not your quote?

And as I pointed out.. the use of literacy tests.. were done to disenfranchise minority voters from their rights.

Just as liability insurance.. because of the cost.. would disenfranchise poor people.. of which minorities make up a good portion... of their rights.
 
Is that not your quote?

And as I pointed out.. the use of literacy tests.. were done to disenfranchise minority voters from their rights.

Just as liability insurance.. because of the cost.. would disenfranchise poor people.. of which minorities make up a good portion... of their rights.

He blew off arguments that making someone pay 500 dollars a year, merely to own a firearm is both unconstitutional and would disarm the poor. His claim that if you cannot afford 500 a year, you cannot afford a gun, is typical elitist nonsense that is common with the disarm the poor attitude that many anti gun urban elites harbor.
 
He blew off arguments that making someone pay 500 dollars a year, merely to own a firearm is both unconstitutional and would disarm the poor. His claim that if you cannot afford 500 a year, you cannot afford a gun, is typical elitist nonsense that is common with the disarm the poor attitude that many anti gun urban elites harbor.
You made no argument. You made a lot of posts, but you never made an argument. You tend to post many words and say very little, never providing source material, either.
 
Of course you see where this type of law would lead right? It might take a decade but the insurance would end up becoming expensive enough that you would need to be rich to own a firearm.
Notice how you've already given up the battle? That's why we have as much gon control as we do already.
 
You made no argument. You made a lot of posts, but you never made an argument. You tend to post many words and say very little, never providing source material, either.

Avoidance at its worst. I pointed out that forcing someone to pay 500 a year=perhaps for each gun, is discriminatory against the poor. You merely spouted nonsense-that if someone cannot afford the cost of stupid insurance (again in a bill that was sponsored by one of the most hateful anti gun asses to ever sit in congress), too bad. I think that was a pretty strong argument-and all the real gun rights advocates took issue with your nonsense
 
Notice how you've already given up the battle? That's why we have as much gon control as we do already.

It is because alleged gun owners like you support so much of it.
 
He blew off arguments that making someone pay 500 dollars a year, merely to own a firearm is both unconstitutional and would disarm the poor. His claim that if you cannot afford 500 a year, you cannot afford a gun, is typical elitist nonsense that is common with the disarm the poor attitude that many anti gun urban elites harbor.

It is interesting given the history of gun control laws and the anti gun movement. What most anti gun folks don't know is that gun control really got its start as racism against minorities especially black people. The idea of "uppity black people".. being armed.. and pictures of the groups like the black panthers being armed.? Scared the heck out of white people.. and led to many of the gun laws on the books today.
 
Avoidance at its worst.
Avoidance looks like an ignore list and never replying to anything. I keep replying. This is yet another demonstration of how you are wrong.

I pointed out that forcing someone to pay 500 a year=perhaps for each gun, is discriminatory against the poor.
Things cost money. That's capitalism.

(again in a bill that was sponsored by one of the most hateful anti-gun asses to ever sit in Congress)
I support this kind of law regardless of who writes it. We can always re-package it as a Republican idea, like the machinegun ban and creation of NICS were, if that helps you sleep at night.

I would also support a tax deduction for said insurance, which would solve your communist money argument.
 
It is because alleged gun owners like you support so much of it.
I'm only responsible for I support. I am not responsible for what others support. I only support 2 policies, neither of which remove your gun from your person or control, change the kind of gun you can have, or limit where you can have it.

I only require that you lock it up when not using it, and a party damaged by any negligence on your part be compensated. That's it.
 
Avoidance looks like an ignore list and never replying to anything. I keep replying. This is yet another demonstration of how you are wrong.


Things cost money. That's capitalism.


I support this kind of law regardless of who writes it. We can always re-package it as a Republican idea, like the machinegun ban and creation of NICS were, if that helps you sleep at night.

I would also support a tax deduction for said insurance, which would solve your communist money argument.

LOL this shows how silly your arguments are-

capitalism-buying what you want

authoritarianism -being forced to pay fees for something the government demands you buy

given your level of confusion over what capitalism means, it makes sense you are confused about what gun rights involve
 
LOL this shows how silly your arguments are-

capitalism-buying what you want

authoritarianism -being forced to pay fees for something the government demands you buy

given your level of confusion over what capitalism means, it makes sense you are confused about what gun rights involve
You never provide evidence for your claims, you think "nu-uhh' is a valid rebuttal, and your grammar sucks. Nothing you say matters.
 
You never provide evidence for your claims, you think "nu-uhh' is a valid rebuttal, and your grammar sucks. Nothing you say matters.

No pro gun advocate is taking issues with my posts. None of them are calling me a gun banner. My posts don't get liked by the rabid gun banners. I don't support laws that are sponsored by people with F ratings from GOA and the NRA. Your posts on the other hand, are constantly attacked, or questioned by people whose pro-gun rights credentials and posting history, are beyond reproach. Your anti gun posts are constantly liked by anti gun posters. And you're a big fan boy of crap that Carolyn McCarthy has proposed. The level of honesty and consistency in your posts, suck.
 
You never provide evidence for your claims, you think "nu-uhh' is a valid rebuttal, and your grammar sucks. Nothing you say matters.

If they dont have personal attacks.....well then they have nothing
 
No pro-gun advocate is taking issues with my posts. None of them are calling me a gun banner. My posts don't get liked by the rabid gun banners. I don't support laws that are sponsored by people with F ratings from GOA and the NRA. Your posts on the other hand, are constantly attacked, or questioned by people whose pro-gun rights credentials and posting history, are beyond reproach. Your anti-gun posts are constantly liked by anti-gun posters. And you're a big fanboy of crap that Carolyn McCarthy has proposed. The level of honesty and consistency in your posts, suck.
Uh huh, and YOU 'like' quite a few of my posts as well.

See it's like this: people who support ALL gun control necessarily support Safe Storage and insurance, but people who support Safe Storage and insurance don't necessarily support ALL gun control. Just because the people on this forum who support any and all forms of gun control like my posts on the 2 policies I support, doesn't mean I also support any and all forms of gun control. I don't even know those people, just like I don't know you, and they can 'like' any post they want, just like you have.

One of my local gun dealers supports raising the minimum age to buy any gun to 21, and nothing else. He believes that would solve the school shootings issue. I disagree, but this isn't about the merits and flaws of that particular policy. He supports 1 gun control policy, and nothing else. If he came to this forum and made a thread about raising the minimum age to 21, all the same people who support ALL gun control would 'like' his posts. According to you that would make him 'anti-gun' even though he doesn't support any other gun-control policy, is a USCCA, GOA and NRA member and often waives the fee for his CCL class to low-income, disabled, and vets.

You suffer from 'kicked dog syndrome'.
 
Last edited:
Yup, everyone sees him ignoring the points I brought up.

Nope... we all see YOU ignoring the points that have been brought up.

You cannot define secure. locked in my house according to you.. is not secure. Yet a gun safe can be opened with a crowbar in a matter of minutes

Liability insurance costs money.. and will disenfranchise many a poor person from owning a firearm. Not to mention what happens when an insurance company refuses to insure for whatever reason.

You cannot define an extended magazine.. nor can you give a logical rationale of why say 10 rounds is unsafe versus 9.

Yet.. with all this lack of rationale and logic.. you support laws that would restrict people right to own firearms.
 
You cannot define an extended magazine.. nor can you give a logical rationale of why say 10 rounds is unsafe versus 9.
Wait...when did I ever support a magazine capacity limit?

I could define what an extended mag is but that doesn't mean I want them banned.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom