Guns, Insurance, and alcohol

Lionfish said:
I don't need insurance to cover a right granted to me by the founding fathers.
Click to expand...

Rights do not come from the dead or from a piece of paper.
The right of self defense is inherent. The Constitution specifically prohibits government from messing with this right.
 
martin said:
A single million dollar liability policy is a nice idea.

Also, have Pelosi put a new bill on the floor restoring the so called “”assault weapons ban”, or any named law that would ban sales and possession of AR-15 type weapons and their ammunition. Every House seat is before the voters in November.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional.
 
Cypress said:
Ban high capacity ammunition clips.

It would be perfectly constitutional.

Mass murder involving dozens of unwitting victims would be much harder to accomplish with a shotgun, traditional hunting rifle, or 357 magnum.

High capacity ammunition clips are a military innovation intended for battlefield conditions. There is no legitimate need for a civilian to be locked and loaded with that much ammunition.
Click to expand...

What is a "traditional" hunting rifle?

Do you know the Winchester Model 70 and the Remmington Model 700, both considered very popular hunting rifles, were the sniper rifles in Nam?
 
Concart said:
Two simple proposals:

1. All gun owners must purchase liability insurance for every weapon they own. No insurance, no gun.
2. If you have had a DUI in the last five years, or multiple DUI convictions, no gun.

I'm pretty sure that would effectively keep an AR-15 out of the hands of an 18 year old with no training.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

No to #2.

Absolutely no way no how to #1.
 
RB 60 said:
What is a "traditional" hunting rifle?

Do you know the Winchester Model 70 and the Remmington Model 700, both considered very popular hunting rifles, were the sniper rifles in Nam?
Click to expand...

Yes, I like all this “traditional hunting rifle” stuff I read. What is it? What are they? Besides, the people who wrote the 2nd amendment weren’t thinking about hunting.

I’ve killed the most deer during the past 25 years with one of my several black powder muzzle loaders but I’m not reaching for one of those guns if someone breaks into my house.
 
RB 60 said:
What is a "traditional" hunting rifle?

Do you know the Winchester Model 70 and the Remmington Model 700, both considered very popular hunting rifles, were the sniper rifles in Nam?
Click to expand...

You don't have a constitutional right to high capacity ammunition clips combined with a semi -automatic rifle.

There is no legitimate civilian need for that kind of weapon.

I could kill you with a traditional hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver. But it would be more challenging to quickly kill and maim dozens of unwitting victims with those weapons.

That's what we're talking about, mass murder of dozens of victims.
 
Cypress said:
You don't have a constitutional right to high capacity ammunition clips combined with a semi -automatic rifle.

There is no legitimate civilian need for that kind of weapon.

I could kill you with a traditional hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver. But it would be more challenging to quickly kill and maim dozens of unwitting victims with those weapons.

That's what we're talking about, mass murder of dozens of victims.
Click to expand...
I read that 87 bullet casings and three empty ammo clips were found were he shot from.

He had almost 90 bullets and only needed three high capacity clips (assuming they were 30 round clips) to execute and maim all those people. That is a lot of firepower available to him in a short period of time.
 
The NRA's influence over DC can be compared to our new radical SCOTUS.

Completely out of step with the majority of Americans.

We have to decide as a people: is this how we really want to live? After the San Bernadino attack, the government went all out w/ travel bans, surveillance and other measures against foreign threats. We have the equivalent of a San Bernadino every week now, and no place in America is safe.

What do we want our country to be like? Voters have to make themselves heard.
 
BartenderElite said:
The NRA's influence over DC can be compared to our new radical SCOTUS.

Completely out of step with the majority of Americans.

We have to decide as a people: is this how we really want to live? After the San Bernadino attack, the government went all out w/ travel bans, surveillance and other measures against foreign threats. We have the equivalent of a San Bernadino every week now, and no place in America is safe.

What do we want our country to be like? Voters have to make themselves heard.
Click to expand...

only a moron would demand more government protection after having been told that there is no legal requirement for government to protect you.
 
Cypress said:
You don't have a constitutional right to high capacity ammunition clips combined with a semi -automatic rifle.

There is no legitimate civilian need for that kind of weapon.

I could kill you with a traditional hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver. But it would be more challenging to quickly kill and maim dozens of unwitting victims with those weapons.

That's what we're talking about, mass murder of dozens of victims.
Click to expand...

Legitimate need is not mentioned in the Second.

Right to bear arms is.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Don't forget eating fatty foods. The #1 Killer in America is Heart Disease followed by Cancer. Having the Food Police monitor everyone's life style would save millions of lives.

Being violently shot isn't even in the Top Ten causes of death by the CDC. It appears the idiots who believed "Masks don't work" and "vaxxes are poison" took a huuuuge hit this year:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
  • Heart disease: 696,962
  • Cancer: 602,350
  • COVID-19: 350,831
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 200,955
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 160,264
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 152,657
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 134,242
  • Diabetes: 102,188
  • Influenza and pneumonia: 53,544
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 52,547
Click to expand...

An alcohol bottle isn't going to kill anyone except the person drinking it. Same with fatty foods. Not true with guns. That's why we have insurance for your home or your car. We should require it to own a firearm. Do you have a substantive argument against the proposal?
 
Concart said:
Why? Give me a reason.
Click to expand...

#1 - Puts “legal” guns in only the hands of the rich.

#2 - I’m not a drinker. I’m a tea totaler … but that is extreme to me. I think about the woman who is in an abusive situation and has drunk booze to “handle it” (like they do sometimes) then she decides to clean up and move on. Suppose she needs protection? That’s just one example.

There’s only one way to minimize bad things happening with guns.
 
leaningright said:
#1 - Puts “legal” guns in only the hands of the rich.

#2 - I’m not a drinker. I’m a tea totaler … but that is extreme to me. I think about the woman who is in an abusive situation and has drunk booze to “handle it” (like they do sometimes) then she decides to clean up and move on. Suppose she needs protection? That’s just one example.

There’s only one way to minimize bad things happening with guns.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous argument, and a ridiculous example. Sorry. Guns cost money, therefore we put guns only in the hands of people with money. So what? Why should I be financially responsible if YOU kill someone with a gun?

As for number 2, unless that woman is drinking and driving she's fine. People who use alcohol irresponsibly have no business near a gun. Your example has nothing to do with that.
 
Concart said:
That's a ridiculous argument, and a ridiculous example. Sorry. Guns cost money, therefore we put guns only in the hands of people with money. So what? Why should I be financially responsible if YOU kill someone with a gun?
Click to expand...

And you would have them cost more money…putting the, out of reach of the guy at the bottom of the current list of ones who can afford them.

As for number 2, unless that woman is drinking and driving she's fine. People who use alcohol irresponsibly have no business near a gun. Your example has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

OK, if you insist you can add that she had a DUI 2 years before she decided to “clean up and move on.” By your “rule” she’d be disqualified from owning a firearm.
 
Concart said:
An alcohol bottle isn't going to kill anyone except the person drinking it. Same with fatty foods. Not true with guns. That's why we have insurance for your home or your car. We should require it to own a firearm. Do you have a substantive argument against the proposal?
Click to expand...

Parents are teaching their kids that swilling alcohol and guzzling fatty foods is okay. Should the great minds in Washington set them straight?

I'm actually kind of partial to charging people to exercise their rights. Especially the right to vote. Too many dumbasses out there voting who shouldn't, amirite? LOL

President Gerald R. Ford had a great quote in a speech to Congress: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.asp

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top