7 states introduce legislation to require gun owner's insurance

Originally posted by LFN69

So there have been no cases whatsoever of accidental discharges of firearms in a public place. Really?

And that means what??
If someone does get struck with an AD, then they file a civil lawsuit. Done. Nothing else needed.

Originally posted by LFN69
You still havent come up with one single reasoned argument as to why insurance on firearms is against your constitution.
So do tell.

Uh, simple.
It infringes upon that right.
Infringement by requiring a US Citizen, exercising a guaranteed right, must purchase something before they can exercise said right.
Akin to a poll tax for voting. I guess next step will make people get "Freedom of Speech" insurance, because after all, I could say something that you don't like, which offends you or drives you to kill someone.

Again, no basic understanding of OUR rights.

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LFN69

 

Still don't see where the people are guaranteed the right to "Drive cars" here....en.wikipedia.org...

I do see where WE, US Citizens, are guaranteed the "Right to bear arms".

The car insurance comparison is about as weak as it gets.

I have never stated that people have been guaranteed the right to drive cars.
I have only discussed the legal requirements to be insured to drive them.
Get it right or it makes you look stupid.

Stupid huh.

No more stupid I guess then thinking that forcing US Citizens to purchase insurance to exercise a Right is not only Constitutional but will do anything to curtail violent acts.

So, since it is not comparable to vehicle insurance, why did you bring it up??

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Because the Progressive thinks they always know what is best for others.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by LFN69
You still havent come up with one single reasoned argument as to why insurance on firearms is against your constitution.
So do tell.

Uh, simple.
It infringes upon that right.
Infringement by requiring a US Citizen, exercising a guaranteed right, must purchase something before they can exercise said right.

Remember last week when everyone was all, "Let's ban cars then. They kill people"? Stupid argument but I'll use it here. You can't drive a car without insurance. What makes this different?

reply to post by intrepid


Don't see anywhere it is stated that "Shall not infringe upon the right to drive a car".

Plus, no policy covers the intentional damage/destruction of your vehicle.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by intrepid

 

Don't see anywhere it is stated that "Shall not infringe upon the right to drive a car".

No and insurance doesn't preclude it either.

Plus, no policy covers the intentional damage/destruction of your vehicle.

Yes you can. It's called Compensation.

reply to post by macman


Exactly. That's the key concept people here are missing. When you give your INALIENABLE rights conditions or requirements, they aren't your rights anymore. We the people have been effectively removed from the decision making process. We are no longer attached to the political system, as intended. Our hired lawmakers have divorced us, the American people, from contributing to the formation of laws and executive decisions. Even laws effecting our own Constitution. This document, although great, has failed. Or perhaps America has failed?

The path down is steep

Originally posted by intrepid
No and insurance doesn't preclude it either.

It infringes upon.
I must buy insurance before I exercise a guaranteed right???
Nope. That is not just unlawful, but it is just stupid.
It will do nothing but force us, US citizens to purchase more crap by force.
Hey, how about you worry about Canada, and leave the decisions that are for American Citizens to the Americans.

Originally posted by intrepid

Yes you can. It's called Compensation.

RIGGGGGHHTT.
So, please, come on down to the states, purchase a house/car, insure it, set it on fire and then file a claim. I am going to love what the insurance company tells you.

reply to post by intrepid

Yes you can. It's called Compensation.

DO you mean, "Comprehensive"? As, in "acts of God", accidental or incidental damage, etc...

Not, willful, malicious, pre-conceived or intentional...Adjusters would LOVE to have clients like you...

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by intrepid

 

Yes you can. It's called Compensation.

DO you mean, "Comprehensive"? As, in "acts of God", accidental or incidental damage, etc...

Not, willful, malicious, pre-conceived or intentional...Adjusters would LOVE to have clients like you...

No, Compensation. For when someone purposefully damages your car.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by intrepid
No and insurance doesn't preclude it either.

It infringes upon.
I must buy insurance before I exercise a guaranteed right???
Nope. That is not just unlawful, but it is just stupid.
It will do nothing but force us, US citizens to purchase more crap by force.

Is this saying you can't own a gun? No. It's saying you need insurance. Thus NO right is being infringed upon.

Hey, how about you worry about Canada, and leave the decisions that are for American Citizens to the Americans.

I've got a better idea. Maybe some here could be less obnoxious.

Originally posted by intrepid

Is this saying you can't own a gun? No. It's saying you need insurance. Thus NO right is being infringed upon.

Oh good hell. Are you a twin to Bill Clinton? Trying to redefine words.
What does "Shall not infringe" mean?
If you can't own a gun, without the insurance, then yes, it is infringing. My 5 year old even understands that.

Originally posted by intrepid

I've got a better idea. Maybe some here could be less obnoxious.

Not really a better idea. Just a response of someone that believes that they know whats best for others.
The others being people in another country.
Sure your not part of the US Govt?? You know, telling other people's countries what to do and what not to do?

Originally posted by macman
If you can't own a gun, without the insurance, then yes, it is infringing. My 5 year old even understands that.

Cool. Maybe he should also explain that it's everyone's individual choice whether pony up for insurance or not. If it's "or not" YOU are the one infringing on your own rights.

*Childishness no responded to*

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by LFN69

So there have been no cases whatsoever of accidental discharges of firearms in a public place. Really?

And that means what??
If someone does get struck with an AD, then they file a civil lawsuit. Done. Nothing else needed.

Originally posted by LFN69
You still havent come up with one single reasoned argument as to why insurance on firearms is against your constitution.
So do tell.

Uh, simple.
It infringes upon that right.
Infringement by requiring a US Citizen, exercising a guaranteed right, must purchase something before they can exercise said right.
Akin to a poll tax for voting. I guess next step will make people get "Freedom of Speech" insurance, because after all, I could say something that you don't like, which offends you or drives you to kill someone.

Again, no basic understanding of OUR rights.

...and who pays the damages in a civil lawsuit? How do they pay it? Can they afford to pay it?
Infringes upon that right? You still have the right to own a firearm, nobody is stopping that.
I do understand YOUR rights, give or take, they are no different to MY rights or anybody elses rights in a modern democratic society.
Maybe you want to consider the rights of your fellow citizens who would welcome such legislation, do their views not matter and are they less atuned to your constitution than you?
Get over it fella, its eating away at you, chill out and accept that a 400 year old constitution isnt neccessary fit for the purpose in 2013.
It happens, move on.

reply to post by intrepid


If it is the free choice to do so, then it is a non issue.

But, that is not what is being proposed.

Again, maybe stick with Canadians issues.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by intrepid

 

If it is the free choice to do so, then it is a non issue.

But, that is not what is being proposed.

Right. And the fact remains that it is YOUR choice.

Again, maybe stick with Canadians issues.

Ain't going to happen Sparky. I'll post where I choose. That's MY choice.

Originally posted by intrepid


Cool. Maybe he should also explain that it's everyone's individual choice whether pony up for insurance or not. If it's "or not" YOU are the one infringing on your own rights.

Do you really believe that crap????
I, a US Citizen, am guaranteed the right to bear arms.
If there is something placed in the way of bearing said arms, like insurance, then the imposing authority is infringing upon the right.

No, this whole idea you have on how to go from A to B to C to D doesn't work within the confines of US law.

Yet again, stick with Canadian things and issues.

Originally posted by intrepid


Right. And the fact remains that it is YOUR choice.

Um, no not really, as the Govt is trying to step in and say I MUST/HAVE TO buy insurance to exercise the right.

Originally posted by intrepid
Ain't going to happen Sparky. I'll post where I choose. That's MY choice.

And you will continue to act like the outsider trying to impose unwanted will onto others.
YOU are no better then the Govt here in America.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by intrepid


Cool. Maybe he should also explain that it's everyone's individual choice whether pony up for insurance or not. If it's "or not" YOU are the one infringing on your own rights.

Do you really believe that crap????
I, a US Citizen, am guaranteed the right to bear arms.
If there is something placed in the way of bearing said arms, like insurance, then the imposing authority is infringing upon the right.

Why do I feel like I'm debating with a 5 year old? Where in ANY of this does it say you can't own any firearms? Simple question. WHERE?

Originally posted by intrepid


Ain't going to happen Sparky. I'll post where I choose. That's MY choice.

Oh, so nice to hear.

I guess that you are fine with it being your choice.

Yet, you so willfully want to have MY choice taken away from me.

I will stop being obnoxious when you stop trying to impose your wants and will on me and fellow American's.