Should gun owners be required to buy insurance?[W:324]

[Southern Dad]

So you are now claiming that carrying is part of your role as a police officer?

I am no longer active but LEOSA specifically states that I am allowed to carry concealed without a permit anywhere in the United States. LEOSA covers former LEO, too. This law has been updated a few times since the original signing. If I am not mistaken, Barack H Obama signed it last, I think in 2013.

 

[haymarket]

I am no longer active but LEOSA specifically states that I am allowed to carry concealed without a permit anywhere in the United States. LEOSA covers former LEO, too. This law has been updated a few times since the original signing. If I am not mistaken, Barack H Obama signed it last, I think in 2013.

What about the legal language I presented? Do you have anything to refute that?

You challenged me to research. I did. I found what I presented.

 

[Southern Dad]

What about the legal language I presented? Do you have anything to refute that?

You challenged me to research. I did. I found what I presented.

I don't care about your research or presentation. The topic is should gun owners be required to purchase insurance. Even though I would most likely be exempted from it, I do not support it. Now, I want to know why you all want to keep poor people from being able to afford to buy guns. Do you think grandmother living in the hood needs less protection than I do? How do the poor pay for this insurance? Do you care?

 

[haymarket]

I don't care about your research or presentation. The topic is should gun owners be required to purchase insurance. Even though I would most likely be exempted from it, I do not support it. Now, I want to know why you all want to keep poor people from being able to afford to buy guns. Do you think grandmother living in the hood needs less protection than I do? How do the poor pay for this insurance? Do you care?

You challenged me to research the law. I did just that and presented to you language which shows your toast was factually incorrect. That laws can indeed bar you and your weapon.

So now you run away from it and try to hide behind "the topic"!?!?!?!?! Amazing!!!!

Here was your boast

Originally Posted by Southern Dad
I am no longer active but LEOSA specifically states that I am allowed to carry concealed without a permit anywhere in the United States. LEOSA covers former LEO, too. This law has been updated a few times since the original signing. If I am not mistaken, Barack H Obama signed it last, I think in 2013.

This is about the law you challenged me to research

The privilege specifically does not extend to machine guns, destructive devices, or silencers.

Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two exceptions:
The laws of that state

1. Permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property (such as bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.)

2. Prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

It clearly says you can be restricted and you cannot do as you proclaim. The very law you invoke says you are wrong in your boast.

If you want to claim the law has been changed to get rid of this language, fine, simply present it.

 

[Southern Dad]

You challenged me to research the law. I did just that and presented to you language which shows your toast was factually incorrect. That laws can indeed bar you and your weapon.

So now you run away from it and try to hide behind "the topic"!?!?!?!?! Amazing!!!!

Here was your boast

This is about the law you challenged me to research

The privilege specifically does not extend to machine guns, destructive devices, or silencers.

It clearly says you can be restricted and you cannot do as you proclaim. The very law you invoke says you are wrong in your boast.

If you want to claim the law has been changed to get rid of this language, fine, simply present it.

I did not claim that I could carry a machine gun, destructive device, nor silencer. I can carry a semiautomatic pistol in every state in the nation without having to obtain a permit from those states. No city, county, or state can restrict this right that I have.

 

[haymarket]

I did not claim that I could carry a machine gun, destructive device, nor silencer. I can carry a semiautomatic pistol in every state in the nation without having to obtain a permit from those states. No city, county, or state can restrict this right that I have.

The law does not say that. And I gave you the law that you challenged me to research in the first place.

Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two exceptions:
The laws of that state

1. Permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property (such as bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.)

2. Prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Nothing there about your straw man machine guns or silencers .... just regular old firearms.

Is there some reason you cannot man up and admit you were wrong?

 

[Southern Dad]

The law does not say that. And I gave you the law that you challenged me to research in the first place.

Nothing there about your straw man machine guns or silencers .... just regular old firearms.

Is there some reason you cannot man up and admit you were wrong?

As I have said, I can carry in all fifty states and do. It is legal. I don't drink so I won't be in any bars.

 

[haymarket]

As I have said, I can carry in all fifty states and do. It is legal. I don't drink so I won't be in any bars.

Is there some reason you cannot man up and simply say you were wrong?

here is what you boasted

Originally Posted by Southern Dad
I am no longer active but LEOSA specifically states that I am allowed to carry concealed without a permit anywhere in the United States.

ANYWHERE. You were shown to be wrong as there are places you can be restricted from carrying.

Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two exceptions:
The laws of that state

1. Permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property (such as bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.)

2. Prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Why can't you accept this correction?

 

[BretJ]

yeah - gun people have no emotions and are like Mr. Spock. I wonder how they did that? :doh:roll::shock:

So you are discounting their feelings because they do not align with yours and go as far as to demean them? Very progressive of you Hay.

 

[haymarket]

So you are discounting their feelings because they do not align with yours and go as far as to demean them? Very progressive of you Hay.

WOW!!!! Did that go a mile over your head. My retort to you was to remind you that when right wingers criticize those who disagree with them on gun issues that they are reacting emotionally - they too have emotions and are not some Mr. Spock creatures ...... in other words - CAN IT.... KNOCK IT OFF ... FLUSH IT ..... with the emotional accusation. No human is a damn computer unfeeling and unemotional so stop with playing the "emotional" card as its phony as a three dollar bill with a picture of Bozo on it.

Are we clear now? :doh:roll:

 

[Southern Dad]

Is there some reason you cannot man up and simply say you were wrong?

here is what you boasted

ANYWHERE. You were shown to be wrong as there are places you can be restricted from carrying.

Why can't you accept this correction?

Welcome to ignore...

 

[haymarket]

Welcome to ignore...

Cannot blame you since a fragile ego like yours cannot take being corrected especially when it appears to be from a perceived ideological enemy.

 

[BretJ]

WOW!!!! Did that go a mile over your head. My retort to you was to remind you that when right wingers criticize those who disagree with them on gun issues that they are reacting emotionally - they too have emotions and are not some Mr. Spock creatures ...... in other words - CAN IT.... KNOCK IT OFF ... FLUSH IT ..... with the emotional accusation. No human is a damn computer unfeeling and unemotional so stop with playing the "emotional" card as its phony as a three dollar bill with a picture of Bozo on it.

Are we clear now? :doh:roll:

I can only read what you posted and not what you thought. Seems I struck a nerve. You would know how to play the emotional card. Just called it as I saw it. Get over yourself.

Are we clear now?:roll:

 

[haymarket]

I can only read what you posted and not what you thought. Seems I struck a nerve. You would know how to play the emotional card. Just called it as I saw it. Get over yourself.

Are we clear now?:roll:

We were clear the first time you played the right wing emotion card that you folks this is the ace up your sleeve in gun discussions. It was clear the first moment you played that card that you had lost.

 

[JLee1977]

IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.

No! However in some states if you are involved in a shooting and you miss the bad guy and damage property, or injure a person. Be prepared to be sued, and potentially have to pay out of pocket. My state has a preemptive clause where a person acting lawfully with is firearm can not be held liable civilly for secondary damages caused by that use of force. Negligence with a firearm you are on your own.

 

[BretJ]

We were clear the first time you played the right wing emotion card that you folks this is the ace up your sleeve in gun discussions. It was clear the first moment you played that card that you had lost.

Ahhh...I see. Where exactly in this thread did I play said card?

 

[BretJ]

So people are allowed to publicly use a product which can cause serious harm and damage to others and it is the others who have to assume 100% of the risk including their own lives?

Correct.

 

[TurtleDude]

No! However in some states if you are involved in a shooting and you miss the bad guy and damage property, or injure a person. Be prepared to be sued, and potentially have to pay out of pocket. My state has a preemptive clause where a person acting lawfully with is firearm can not be held liable civilly for secondary damages caused by that use of force. Negligence with a firearm you are on your own.

the gun banners and those who hate gun owners, who push this idiocy ignore two obvious things

1) the people most likely to cause harm with a firearm are not the ones who will have to buy insurance. Since criminals cannot legally own guns, forcing them to buy insurance would run afoul of the fifth amendment

2) I have never seen an insurance policy that covers intentional harm. It might cover you for negligent discharge of a firearm but the vast majority of gun shot wounds are caused by those intending to shoot others (though perhaps not the person being shot)

 

[zsu2357]

IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.

Well Bucky,in other words pay for a right? Yeah,sure,ok. So how much do you think we should pay for the rest them?

 

[zsu2357]

It was very cold that day.

OOPS never could read a tape worth a damn.

 

[zsu2357]

Only a far right winger would dare describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people as mob rule.

Which is exactly what you did. Only you want a 'just' rule that concerns the somewhat far left,you said so yourself. You may not have used the term "mob rule" but that is exactly what it boils down to. Your type of mob.

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
By creating the type of society the vast majority wants to have.

 

[zsu2357]

=haymarket;1067715469]I realize that is a far right wing belief. But its wrong. 325 million people form society and society indeed has life and a pulse and has needs and desires that are expressed in various ways, one major way being through their elected government.



Society determines what its needs and goals and objectives are. Yours are outlined above. Society may feel differently.

I think you summed it up. In essence you are saying the 325 million people that form society are like 325 million Borg drones being part of a collective,and guess who the central mind is?
YOOOUUU GUUEESSED IT! Your elected government. Sorry but Borg just popped in my head and sounded right.

 

[Lursa]

IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.

So are you saying that any person wounded by gunfire should have their medical bills covered by some comprehensive plan using funds from a general 'gun insurance' plan?

Or...why dont you tell me how it would work?

 

[Bucky]

So are you saying that any person wounded by gunfire should have their medical bills covered by some comprehensive plan using funds from a general 'gun insurance' plan?

Or...why dont you tell me how it would work?

What's wrong with that?

Victims of gun violence have a heavy burden of paying for medical bills, rehabilitation costs, therapy, physical and emotional, etc...

A society that puts the responsibility on the victim to pay for things that they did not deserve is unethical.

 

[TurtleDude]

So are you saying that any person wounded by gunfire should have their medical bills covered by some comprehensive plan using funds from a general 'gun insurance' plan?

Or...why dont you tell me how it would work?

In a real insurance environment, those more likely to need the insurance pay more. You have few wrecks or get DUI or two, your rates go up. You go 15 years without a ticket or a claim and your rates go down. You go from teenage male to a married man, your rates go down. etc

but under this scheme, the people most likely to cause incidents with guns would be the ones least likely to contribute to the pool of funds. The people least likely to cause harm with a firearm would be charged the most. You see, people who own lots of guns tend to be both rich and responsible gun owners. Yet, the "Bucky tax" would hit collectors the hardest even though someone who owns 100 or 200 guns is very unlikely to cause harm with firearms.