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.
Not that it matters that much but (from your quote that is not showing up in my quote), Pete Stark is no longer a rep.
Swalwell has Stark's old seat.
No it doesn't matter whether they're still in office or not. What matters is that all of them with the exception of Lincoln Chaffee are Democrats. Obviously Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton no longer hold public office either.
But as I write this most of the current Democrat candidates for president are calling for additional gun control measures including so called "assault weapons and magazine bans". Same for current Democrat members of congress and the senate.
More like crony capitalists. The big businesses like Krupp and Volkswagen that played ball with the nazis made out like bandits. Under a true socialist system they would have been nationalized.
I would think so, as it is indeed an infringement. So in affect you would be denying millions of Americans from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights because of the financial hardship it may impose. I suspect that the premiums would be quite high because of the amount of civil suits filed.
I don't see how an insurance company could do a better job of vetting a prospective gun buyer than the present NICS system that's already in place? Again guns are not like cars where a driver has a history of accidents or traffic citations to indicate they are reckless drivers. If a person is reckless with a firearm they will get arrested and charged with violating any one of the thousands of gun laws that are already on the books. If convicted they will already be prohibited by law from owning a firearm. If a person is reckless with a firearm and never gets caught then the insurance company would have no way of knowing that.
There already is an insurance program called "Carry Guard". There are others available too. But they have quickly been categorized as "murder insurance". In other word's people would be more willing to use deadly physical force knowing that their insurance would cover most if not all liabilities.
As far as reasonable restrictions go there are already thousands of laws that address both the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms along with civil litigation penalties. There are thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable with punishments up to and including execution. We don't need any more laws. Especially feel good laws that serve no other purpose other than to criminalize one's lawful activities and possessions.
If buying liability insurance when you own a gun is an infringement of the 2nd amendment by creating an undue financial hardship, then it's just as reasonable to claim that having to pay upwards of 1000.00 for an AR15 is just as much an infringement on an individual's right to own and possess a firearm. I see no difference except semantics. To faithfully carry out the mandate of "Shall not be infringed", government would have to hand out guns for free. If, as you say paying a price for gun ownership is infringing.
Also Insurance carriers would vet the applicant for liability insurance much more thoroughly than the NICs form 4473 would. The NICs form is based on the customer filling it out. Many entries are just because the applicant say's so. Insurance cos. don't like to lose money. They use many parameters to determine the price of a policy. Many more than the government uses.
This whole gun control debate could be totally mitigated by the Federal government passing 1 law. Liability insurance is required for all gun purchases. Let the insurance companies figure out the rest.
In name only. they brutally exterminated any true socialist/communist in Germany early on in their takeover of the German Government as they perceived them as their major threat to dominance..
Originally Posted by maineguy8888 Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were Socialists.
No they weren't. They were Called the National Socialist German Worker's Party. After 1934 they were far right (fascist). Don't let the name fool you into believing they were socialist just so you can blast the left.
Do a little reading and you just might learn something. Hitler purged the socialists among other groups but you already knew that, right?
More like crony capitalists. The big businesses like Krupp and Volkswagen that played ball with the nazis made out like bandits. Under a true socialist system they would have been nationalized.
You mean like Thomas More's Utopia? Because I have yet to see any "true socialist system" that isn't in bed with Big Business.
If buying liability insurance when you own a gun is an infringement of the 2nd amendment by creating an undue financial hardship, then it's just as reasonable to claim that having to pay upwards of 1000.00 for an AR15 is just as much an infringement on an individual's right to own and possess a firearm. I see no difference except semantics. To faithfully carry out the mandate of "Shall not be infringed", government would have to hand out guns for free. If, as you say paying a price for gun ownership is infringing.
Also Insurance carriers would vet the applicant for liability insurance much more thoroughly than the NICs form 4473 would. The NICs form is based on the customer filling it out. Many entries are just because the applicant say's so. Insurance cos. don't like to lose money. They use many parameters to determine the price of a policy. Many more than the government uses.
This whole gun control debate could be totally mitigated by the Federal government passing 1 law. Liability insurance is required for all gun purchases. Let the insurance companies figure out the rest.
Hey, I like this idea. Something to ruminate on, discuss, etc. But I won't hold my breath.
No they weren't. They were Called the National Socialist German Worker's Party. After 1934 they were far right (fascist). Don't let the name fool you into believing they were socialist just so you can blast the left.
Do a little reading and you just might learn something. Hitler purged the socialists among other groups but you already knew that, right?
Of course he knew that. The numbers 8888 after his screen name tells you everything you need to know.
No it doesn't matter whether they're still in office or not. What matters is that all of them with the exception of Lincoln Chaffee are Democrats. Obviously Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton no longer hold public office either.
But as I write this most of the current Democrat candidates for president are calling for additional gun control measures including so called "assault weapons and magazine bans". Same for current Democrat members of congress and the senate.
I'm betting a majority of your fellow Americans want more gun control, not less. This includes many gun owners like myself.
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.
