Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2013, 12:45 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,439,637 times
Reputation: 3141

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k View Post
The pen is mightier than the sword. He would do damage with his weapon can do more so with his words. To drive a vehicle upon public roads is a privilege. To be armed is an intrinsic human right (protected, but not granted by the Constitution). To require liability insurance for those who exercise their right to bear arms is no different then requiring liability insurance to those who exercise their right to free speech. Except that, the right to bear arms is far more important than the right to free speech, because the former protects the individuals right to express the latter.
Well, the liberal activists on the Supreme Court just held that it is OK for the government to penalize people via the individual mandate for not having sufficient health insurance. That is in effect requiring insurance simply for exercising your right to be a human being. So I don't think that requiring people to have insurance for exercising your right to bear arms would be a problem for them either. If they can find that simply existing constitutes participating in an interstate healthcare market, I'm sure they can come up with some constitutional justification for required gun insurance too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2013, 12:51 AM
 
919 posts, read 1,901,781 times
Reputation: 507
Insurance? Amazing how some keep coming up with ways to INFRINGE upon my RIGHTS. Next stupid thought!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 01:12 AM
 
1,065 posts, read 1,307,441 times
Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Operating a motor vehicle isn't a constitutional right, it's a privilege and has nothing to do with this thread..
Cannot fathom that people buy into this right vs privilege thing.

Absolute bull****.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix
11,054 posts, read 16,753,813 times
Reputation: 12942
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
I'm seeing a ton of people suggest that requiring gun owners to purchase gun liability insurance is part of their "common sense compromise" for gun control. If you support requiring a gun owner to purchase specific liability insurance in order to just legally own a firearm do you support requiring people to also purchase insurance to cover the liability of excersizing your 1st Amendment right to free speech?
No, but my Freedom of Speech also doesn't have a detachable 30-round mag loaded with Federal XM885 and a Weaver rail with a collimator and a laser sight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:35 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 9,966,918 times
Reputation: 7690
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
No, but my Freedom of Speech also doesn't have a detachable 30-round mag loaded with Federal XM885 and a Weaver rail with a collimator and a laser sight.
Not it doesn't but it does have the ability to reach, affect and endanger hundreds of millions of people in an instant while my (insert firearm name here) couldn't possibly do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:37 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 9,966,918 times
Reputation: 7690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DivineComedy View Post
Cannot fathom that people buy into this right vs privilege thing.

Absolute bull****.
You can't fathom basic common sense and a couple well known facts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:43 AM
 
Location: NC
6,032 posts, read 9,168,663 times
Reputation: 6378
Gun owners are already covered under their homeowners insurance policy or policies available through the NRA. Many states have laws where if you shoot someone in self defense, they cannot collect judgements from you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 9,966,918 times
Reputation: 7690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49 View Post
Gun owners are already covered under their homeowners insurance policy or policies available through the NRA. Many states have laws where if you shoot someone in self defense, they cannot collect judgements from you.
I understand that, I'm talking the current call for gun owners to be required to purchase a stand alone insurance policy to cover whatever "damage" they might cause with their gun.

I don't fully understand the logic behind it, that's why I started this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:01 AM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,498,106 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49 View Post
Gun owners are already covered under their homeowners insurance policy or policies available through the NRA. Many states have laws where if you shoot someone in self defense, they cannot collect judgements from you.
Then in this case, the requirement for insurance is already met. Although I would read the fine print to ensure the policy covers firearms. The populations this requirement would affect would be possibly renters (if not covered by renter's insurance) and the homeless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:03 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,460,060 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49 View Post
Gun owners are already covered under their homeowners insurance policy or policies available through the NRA. Many states have laws where if you shoot someone in self defense, they cannot collect judgements from you.
Why should anybody collect judgement if you shot him in self defense and the grand jury agreed with your action?

By the way, I am an NRA life member, there's no such automatic insurance policy I am aware of either through homeowner's insurance or NRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top