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.
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?
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?
Hello.... Speech does not murder people.
That said, I don't support liability insurance for gun owners anyways. But I do support as close to universal background checks as feasible, which no rational person should oppose.
The pen is mightier than the sword. He who 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.
Last edited by Widowmaker2k; 02-05-2013 at 11:57 PM..
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.
I think they are equal and protect each other. After all, the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment which is described with words written on a piece of paper.
[this is an interesting mental exercise - I'm not interested in requiring liability insurance for guns]
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.
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.
]
]
