On-Topic Guns and Insurance

[Kulindahr]

State law does. If you have a car you have to buy insurance for it. In my state if you're pulled over they ask for your license and proof of insurance. If you don't have your insurance card with you you're fined.

Since gun violence costs billions of dollars, it's not a bad idea to make those who contribute to the carnage to pay for it.

You're saying just exactly what Wayne LaPierre says is the view of the Left: that all gun owners are criminals.

The proper conclusion toy our contention would be to make all politicians pay for it -- they're the ones who have put the country in this condition.

 

[Kulindahr]

It seems reasonable to assume that the design of an item is a manifestation of the intention for which it is produced.

The design of a firearm indicates that it is designed to send a projectile in a ballistic path -- nothing more or less.

If you want to claim that the misuse of items defines their purpose, then the purpose of bathtubs and five-gallon buckets is to drown children, the purpose of baseballs and golfballs is to break windows, and the purpose of pipes is to make bombs.

 

[Kulindahr]

What policy do you have to take guns from the hands of criminal citizens?

Project Exile.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The design of a firearm indicates that it is designed to send a projectile in a ballistic path -- nothing more or less.

If you want to claim that the misuse of items defines their purpose, then the purpose of bathtubs and five-gallon buckets is to drown children, the purpose of baseballs and golfballs is to break windows, and the purpose of pipes is to make bombs.

A gun is a weapon. It is not a tool.

 

[Stardreamer]

Wrong. You can possess a driver's license and not have insurance. If you plan on driving a car you have to obtain insurance before using it.

In every state I have been in you have to provide proof of insurance to obtain or renew your drivers license. That and when you are stopped for a traffic infraction on a public road is the only times it is asked for. I can purchase a car without having to prove insurance.

 

[Stardreamer]

Yes true. If you want to have your car licensed and drive it.... and who wouldn't want a car to drive unless it's a museum piece and then again you would want that insured if it's sitting in a museum... you need insurance.

If you want a car for a paperweight or if you have a cannibalized car sitting in the weeds in your front yard along with your other junk, then it's not a car. It's a piece of junk.



Why don't we get real wrapped up in this trying to prove each other wrong?

Because it is important to understanding HOW The government applies the requirement for auto insurance and HOW that won't work for guns. The auto insurance requirement is applied and is only enforceable because you are using a public road, not because you own a car. You cannot apply the same requirement to owning a gun unless you find a similar hook but since most people do not require any particular piece of public infrastructure to be able to use their guns the hook is simply not there.

 

[CowboyBob]

You're saying just exactly what Wayne LaPierre says is the view of the Left: that all gun owners are criminals.

The proper conclusion toy our contention would be to make all politicians pay for it -- they're the ones who have put the country in this condition.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. All gun owners are not criminals just like all car owners are not bad drivers. But if I want to drive I need insurance in case something bad happens. Why can't all gun owners carry insurance on their guns in case something bad happens with it?

 

[Stardreamer]

I'm not saying anything of the kind. All gun owners are not criminals just like all car owners are not bad drivers. But if I want to drive I need insurance in case something bad happens. Why can't all gun owners carry insurance on their guns in case something bad happens with it?

Because the government does not have the power to required it, that was what the whole issue with the ACA mandate was about and the supreme court has ruled on it. You can only apply such a requirement by applying a TAX to EVERY American and then provide an exemption if you are carrying the insurance. That is the hook that lets the government require health insurance. The hook that lets the government require car insurance is that the government builds and maintains the roads and you need a permit (a license) to use them. They withhold that permit if you don't have the insurance. So what hook would you use to do this if you want to limit it to just gun owners? The second amendment greatly limits your ability to use something like a drivers license since you cannot create a permitting process that denies law abiding citizens the right to own a gun for self defense.

 

[CowboyBob]

Because the government does not have the power to required it, that was what the whole issue with the ACA mandate was about and the supreme court has ruled on it. You can only apply such a requirement by applying a TAX to EVERY American and then provide an exemption if you are carrying the insurance. That is the hook that lets the government require health insurance. The hook that lets the government require car insurance is that the government builds and maintains the roads and you need a permit (a license) to use them. They withhold that permit if you don't have the insurance. So what hook would you use to do this if you want to limit it to just gun owners? The second amendment greatly limits your ability to use something like a drivers license since you cannot create a permitting process that denies law abiding citizens the right to own a gun for self defense.

Wrapping yourself up in the Second Amendment means nothing. When it was written AK47's, Bushmasters & 30 round clips were unknown. Gun lovers who want to cling to the Second Amendment let them have all the muskets they want.

Why aren't they crying about the government taking away your tanks and nuclear warheads too? Aren't those arms? Sure you can own firearms, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what kind you're allowed to own.

These extensions of the penis are an adult toy. Try and take away a spoiled brat's toys or tell them they can't have what they want and watch the tantrums fly.

 

[Stardreamer]

Wrapping yourself up in the Second Amendment means nothing. When it was written AK47's, Bushmasters & 30 round clips were unknown. Gun lovers who want to cling to the Second Amendment let them have all the muskets they want.

Why aren't they crying about the government taking away your tanks and nuclear warheads too? Aren't those arms? Sure you can own firearms, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what kind you're allowed to own.

These extensions of the penis are an adult toy. Try and take away a spoiled brat's toys or tell them they can't have what they want and watch the tantrums fly.

I don't need to wrap myself up in the second amendment, this is already settled law. The Supreme Court rulings in Heller, et all. Dragging out and wrapping yourself in the old chestnuts about citizens having nuclear weapons and field artillery (the courts have ruled on that too and they can't), the right only extends to muskets (the courts say it doesn't) and Freudian jokes (a lot of women want guns to defend themselves from men) are just distractions from the point. The Heller ruling, the ACA ruling and current tax law combined says you cannot apply this mandate the way it is proposed here. You need a hook to apply it so what is the hook? I can think a couple of ways but I don't think they would withstand a court challenge.

 

[CowboyBob]

I don't care about the Heller ruling. What I said is true.

Just because the Second Amendment gives you the right to have a gun it doesn't want you can have any gun you want. And if you're going to have a gun you need to be responsible for it. If that gun of yours injures or kills someone, the owner is liable too no matter who used it. Insurance, gun locks, gun safes, limiting the size of clips, banning civilians from owning instruments of war would solve a lot of these problems. If a gun owner is irresponsible then they lose their right to own a gun.

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't care about the Heller ruling. What I said is true.

Just because the Second Amendment gives you the right to have a gun it doesn't want you can have any gun you want. And if you're going to have a gun you need to be responsible for it. If that gun of yours injures or kills someone, the owner is liable too no matter who used it. Insurance, gun locks, gun safes, limiting the size of clips, banning civilians from owning instruments of war would solve a lot of these problems. If a gun owner is irresponsible then they lose their right to own a gun.

All of that is true but that is not what is being proposed here. If all you are wanting is that gun owners carry personal liability insurance for any harm that 'they' do, that is something you could achieve if its done right. AT least you could make it a condition of getting a concealed carry permit. I'm not sure you could make it stick for weapons kept in the home. The proposal here is to force all gun owners to pay into an 'insurance' fund that would pay for all gun related injury regardless of their relation to that injury, that you would not be legally able to do not even the car insurance example everyone keeps brandying about does that.