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)
 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:53 AM
 
401 posts, read 79,451 times
Reputation: 425

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
Hey, I like this idea. Something to ruminate on, discuss, etc. But I won't hold my breath.
Well, we can discuss the root issue
The exact text of Amendment is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What what the reasoning for this amendment to exist at all? Here it is:
"Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training."

So, the main and only reason to have this amendment is to prevent government from oppressing the people.
The idea is that people will organize and throw away the govt that went too far.

Hmm, tell me, when last time this happened?
And, what are chances for this happening in any foreseeable future when govt troops are equipped well beyond anything ordinary citizens have?

To truly support this amendment, people should be able to buy, keep and bear exactly same arms as govt does, i.e. - nukes, bombers, tanks etc

Without that ability, this amendment is just ... nothing.

 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
10,467 posts, read 5,764,853 times
Reputation: 8729
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
I can't understand why the cops let him "surrender"
It saves the department and city lawsuits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
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.
Will we be required to get liability insurance because we voted for Trump?

For if it goes for one item in the Bill of Rights, it should go for all of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanonka View Post
.................
Hmm, tell me, when last time this happened?
And, what are chances for this happening in any foreseeable future when govt troops are equipped well beyond anything ordinary citizens have?

To truly support this amendment, people should be able to buy, keep and bear exactly same arms as govt does, i.e. - nukes, bombers, tanks etc

Without that ability, this amendment is just ... nothing.
Well, I certainly don't want to give them anymore than they already have. To borrow from the other side, Enough is Enough.

Further, one's tactics will always be different for those who can defend themselves vs those who can't.

Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 08-05-2019 at 11:05 AM..
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,242 posts, read 7,970,422 times
Reputation: 7080
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
Hey, I like this idea. Something to ruminate on, discuss, etc. But I won't hold my breath.
Sure. The rabid "shall not be infringed" group are against anything whatsoever that curtails anybody from purchasing a gun. Federal Gun control bills never pass unless they're watered down to a meaningless level of actual control by republicans and the NRA.
Plus the fact that almost as many democrats and lefties own guns as the right does.

Responsible gun ownership is the key. Purchasing liability insurance is being a responsible gun owner. AS IN: being legally responsible for the weapons you own.

Only law needing to get passed is 1. "All firearms purchases shall be required to have 250,000.00 liability insurance policy in order to possess."

That way you don't fight the meaning of the 2nd amendment and the question of "Shall not be infringed" and the meaning of "Reasonable restrictions" will be settled once and for all and we can move on from this endless fight.

Democrats will never win the fight to ban guns or large caliber semi auto weapons. That ship has already sailed and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
but requiring responsible gun ownership by all gun owners through liability insurance is a very doable action and it would mitigate the access to weapons by marginal individuals.

Nothing will eliminate the crazy person going on a killing rampage. But this solution will dramatically alter the firearms playing field.
Let's try something new for a change instead of doing the same failed thing over and over.

FYI: I am a collector and trader in exotic firearms for over 40 years. I believe that the SCOTUS Heller decision of A. Scalia got it right. The 2nd is an individual right meant for each American by the founding fathers. It is also subject to reasonable restrictions as is every other amendment in the BOR.

Requiring insurance for a firearm is a reasonable restriction and it is a benchmark for responsible gun ownership.

Right wing rabid "shall not be infringed" advocates will be outraged by the proposition because they will immediately recognise it as a threat they can't squash.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Caribou, Me.
5,738 posts, read 4,086,845 times
Reputation: 4280
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small View Post
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.
The leaderships of those companies were all co-opted by the Nazis. They became quasi-branches of the Super State.
But then, you knew that already....
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Caribou, Me.
5,738 posts, read 4,086,845 times
Reputation: 4280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
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..
Not at all true. They hated the German "internationalist Communists" as rivals, who had very similar beliefs but who wanted the worldwide revolution to be directed out of Moscow.
Come on, guys.........this is basic history stuff.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,242 posts, read 7,970,422 times
Reputation: 7080
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888 View Post
Not at all true. They hated the German "internationalist Communists" as rivals, who had very similar beliefs but who wanted the worldwide revolution to be directed out of Moscow.
Come on, guys.........this is basic history stuff.
Well, you're right about that part. But I believe that was their cover story for purging them from the political landscape. I believe it was all about consolidating power under one man and not have multiple political doctrines to deal with.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:52 AM
 
1,935 posts, read 477,442 times
Reputation: 600
In the aftermath of El Paso and Dayton shootings, some demands for more censorship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWllK66hgGo
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:55 AM
 
401 posts, read 79,451 times
Reputation: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888 View Post
Not at all true. They hated the German "internationalist Communists" as rivals, who had very similar beliefs but who wanted the worldwide revolution to be directed out of Moscow.
Come on, guys.........this is basic history stuff.
Well, looks like you missed all those history lessons.
There is nothing more polarizing than Nazi and Communists.

Communists were internationalists. Nazi put one nation above all.
Communists declared that no state govt should ever exist, since this is an oppression. Nazi put govt as the 'uniting' core of the nation.
Communists declared that means of production should be property of people who work with them. Nazi worshiped private property.
Etc, etc.

In fact, Hitler took quite a lot of his ideas from ... USA. Yeap, you hear it right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugeni..._United_States

Even concentration camps were not invented by Nazi. They simply copied ... USA & UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Caribou, Me.
5,738 posts, read 4,086,845 times
Reputation: 4280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
Of course he knew that. The numbers 8888 after his screen name tells you everything you need to know.
I guess you didn't believe me in the other thread, but unless you actually saw Lynn Swann in action through the 1970s and early 80s, then you simply can't believe what an impression he could make on a sports-fanatic teenaged boy.......
88 all the way, baby.....lol

Here you go this will get you started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GRs5nrzqlY

(John Stallworth was awesome, but even he couldn't touch Lynn Swann...)
 
Old 08-05-2019, 12:00 PM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,975,023 times
Reputation: 2528
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
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.
Not everyone is buying a $1,000 AR-15. Some are buying $150 Hi-Points. There are all types of guns of every price range out in the market place, both new and used.

Having to pay for a gun is not an infringement. You can't expect a manufacturer to give out their products for free. How could they possibly stay in business? How would they pay their employee's? Who would even want to work for free? Even if the government were to hand out guns for free somebody's got to pay for that through taxation. Obviously that wouldn't be fair to force those who have no interest in owning a gun to pay for those that do. Exercising a Constitutional right is voluntary, no one can force anybody to own a gun or express their opinions. But you are free to do so.

Forcing people to pay over and above the initial price of any gun for an insurance policy would indeed be an infringement. As it could be used as a method to deny people of their Constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" based on their income. Now you've put the decision of who can own a gun or not in the hands of unelected insurance company executives. Who could then arbitrarily decide who's eligible? I don't think so. For that matter should everyone be required to have liability insurance on every object or substance that can be use to cause harm or death to others? Either accidentally or intentionally. Baseball bats, golf clubs, knives, electrical cords, power tools, flammable liquids, matches and lighters, alcoholic beverages, EVERYTHING.

Again how can you determine whether someone is qualified to own a gun if they have no record of reckless or irresponsible behavior? Especially if it's the first time they've ever owned a gun? Unlike a vehicle where there are vehicle and traffic records on individual motorists.

The NICS system and Federal Form 4473 are two different things. When you go to buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer you have to fill out Form 4473. Willfully lying on that form is a federal crime punishable by 10 years in prison and or a $250,000 fine. The dealer also has to perform the FBI NICS background check where they call into the system to find out whether a potential buyer has been convicted of a crime or has been adjudicated to be mentally unfit to lawfully possess a firearm.

All of that information is required by law to be entered into a national data base. I don't see how an insurance company could do a better job of vetting a potential gun buyer than that? Although there have been instances where that information was never entered into the system. In which case those who withheld that information should be held accountable both criminally and civilly.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top