'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[Cyber Liberty]

Advocates and pushers for government tyranny like you, are the very reason we have a Second Amendment to begin with.

It seems he scurried off to see what Rachel tells him to do.  I feel successful tonight.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It seems he scurried off to see what Rachel tells him to do.  I feel successful tonight.

May he RIP

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I'll state my opinion the same as you do, little man.   I'm no gun-grabber, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand at our epidemic of gun violence, either. 

 The use of insurance is a time-honored and traditional way to allocate and mitigate risk.   I offered my proposal for purposes of discussion, and have entered into this conversation in good faith.   The Second Amendment - by its plain language - does not support your extreme and selfish position. It has been held by Justice Scalia himself to be subject to reasonable regulation.  The gun-grabbers don't want what's reasonable,  but I do.   I only support regulation that is efficacious and does not unduly burden the right to self-defense cited by Justice Scalia.   

Epidemic of Gun Violence is Politicized CDC Speak.
From the same CDC which has included in its Children Killed by Firearms numbers, ALL youth up to age 25.

Translation?

When was Gun Violence discovered to be transmitted by a contagious virus or bacteria?
You're Medicalizing something which is None of any Doctor's business.

That's called Scientism to push a Political Agenda. It is NOT science but the Opposite of Science.

CDC sticks inner-city gang members who kill each other over street drug profits into the numbers to lie to the American people.
Let the uneducated/undecided schlubs think the numbers of 'Children' killed by 'Preventable, Needless' Gun Violence were all innocent toddlers and grade school kids.


Justice Scalia was a Supreme Court Judge who enjoyed the dinner company of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He was not God.
Let's not get into SCOTUS being infallible, shall we?
Or we'll veer off into another 60 pages of Dred Scott.

You only support regulation that is 'Reasonable'.
Who the hell appointed You the arbiter of Reasonable?

As for Efficacious you've blithely glossed over, flat out ignored, and sailed right past every take down of efficacious for numerous pages already.
So why would it be Reasonable or Efficacious to burden people who've already proven they're not going to commit murder with yet More gun laws that Anyone can circumvent if they want to?

[Cyber Liberty]

Epidemic of Gun Violence is Politicized CDC Speak.
From the same CDC which has included in its Children Killed by Firearms numbers, ALL youth up to age 25.

Translation?

When was Gun Violence discovered to be transmitted by a contagious virus or bacteria?
You're Medicalizing something which is None of any Doctor's business.

That's called Scientism to push a Political Agenda. It is NOT science but the Opposite of Science.

CDC sticks inner-city gang members who kill each other over street drug profits into the numbers to lie to the American people.
Let the uneducated/undecided schlubs think the numbers of 'Children' killed by 'Preventable, Needless' Gun Violence were all innocent toddlers and grade school kids.


Justice Scalia was a Supreme Court Judge who enjoyed the dinner company of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He was not God.
Let's not get into SCOTUS being infallible, shall we?
Or we'll veer off into another 60 pages of Dred Scott.

You only support regulation that is 'Reasonable'.
Who the hell appointed You the arbiter of Reasonable?

As for Efficacious you've blithely glossed over, flat out ignored, and sailed right past every take down of efficacious for numerous pages already.
So why would it be Reasonable or Efficacious to burden people who've already proven they're not going to commit murder with yet More gun laws that Anyone can circumvent if they want to?

He's a gun-grabber.  He lies every time he claims he is not.  Everything becomes clear when one sees that fact.  This entire argument has been an exercise in hiding it, but in the end he exposed himself, and failed.  He's back to ask his leftist Masters what to do.

[Hoodat]

What I propose is reasonable, efficacious and consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller.

Not even close to the truth.  Heller ruled that trigger-lock mandates were unconstitutional.  Yet you propose insurance mandates.  Both require a gun owner to purchase a secondary product as a condition for owning a gun.  Both are unconstitutional.  (See:  District of Columbia v. Heller)

I seriously doubt you have even read Heller.  You are as ignorant of that decision as you are of Everson.

[INVAR]

He's a gun-grabber.  He lies every time he claims he is not.  Everything becomes clear when one sees that fact.  This entire argument has been an exercise in hiding it, but in the end he exposed himself, and failed.  He's back to ask his leftist Masters what to do.

Pretty much nailed it.

He's a warmed-over DU troll that thinks he can deceive enough people here into listening to him due to his insistence he is not what his own words reveal him to be.

[bigheadfred]

Sometimes when you wear yourself thin you become invisible.

[Jazzhead]

There are already over 20k firearm laws on the books across this country.  Most, if not all, are intended to prevent the events of the past couple of months and not one has succeeded in preventing them.  I think there's more than enough "reasonable regulations" on the books already.

Well, if that's the case, why isn't that a call to action?   Are you OK with mass shootings?   Are we just to throw our hands in the air and bury the dead? 

If the problem is the laws don't work,  then maybe we need to scrap 'em and come up with new ones.   Ones that that are both less onerous for the law abiding, and more effective in assisting the victims of gun violence and keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys. 

That's what I'm trying to get at with a proposal of registration and insurance.   It works with motor vehicles -  there are no restrictions on the number and type of cars and trucks one can own,  and every driver who has insurance is able to provide compensation to the victims of injuries sustained on the road.   And transfers of motor vehicles take place out of the shadows,  so cars can be easily traced to their rightful owners and liability assigned in a way that is just and fair. 

With a regime of regulation and insurance, there'd be no need to ban assault rifles as the Dems keep wanting to do.   You want one gun or a hundred?  That's your right and your choice.   Just register and insure the lot.   As I've said before, the Second Amendment gives you the right to own the guns you want,  but it does not give you the right to expose others to deadly risk without compensation.   You need to be responsible.   But gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people,  still runs the risk of causing harm to others.   Since most gun owners can't afford to compensate the victims and their families for their losses,  the solution is insurance to allocate and mitigate the risk.   Insurance that will pay medical bills and compensate for lost earnings. 

Moreover,  the obligation to insure your guns provides a positive incentive to sell or transfer your gun legally, with a visible transfer of ownership just as is routinely done with cars.  That's not inconsistent with the Second Amendment,  and  it will reduce the number of "dark" guns out there, in the hands of the wrong sort of people.   And the obligation to insure will also encourage both safe storage practices and the speedy reporting of stolen or missing guns in order to lift the liability from the gunowner.

 What I propose is the essence of simplicity and reasonableness - own whatever guns your heart desires, but take responsibility for them.   That's how it's done with cars, and that's how it ought to be done with guns.   

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Just abut every poster here has told you to shove that insurance crap up your fanny, and most have explained in great detail why (I even showed where you got the idea), yet you persist in pretending you never heard a word of it.  Typical Jazzy.  Go troll another thread.

[Jazzhead]

He's a gun-grabber.  He lies every time he claims he is not.  Everything becomes clear when one sees that fact.  This entire argument has been an exercise in hiding it, but in the end he exposed himself, and failed.  He's back to ask his leftist Masters what to do.

  You'd rather assign a label than address an argument on the merits. 

The purpose of insurance is to allocate and mitigate risk.   Tens of thousands of deaths each year are caused by motor vehicles, and our community's insurance regime offers victims the knowledge that they'll be compensated for random injuries no matter who hits them.    Tens of thousands of deaths each year are caused by people wielding firearms, and their victims are just as random and deserving of compensation. 

Resistance to the idea of taking responsibility is the height of selfishness, and certainly not my idea of conservatism.   Own as many guns as you want,  just register and insure them.   It's so basic and so simple.     

[Jazzhead]

Just abut every poster here has told you to shove that insurance crap up your fanny, and most have explained in great detail why (I even showed where you got the idea), yet you persist in pretending you never heard a word of it.  Typical Jazzy.  Go troll another thread.

  I work with insurance for a living, that's where I got the idea.   Insurance is used in a variety of contexts because it allows random transactions between strangers to occur with acceptable, measurable risk.   Why not apply insurance principles to the social costs of gun violence?   

You say the current laws aren't working?   I agree - but that means we need new thinking about just what WILL work, consistent of course with the law and the Constitution.    You want to address my insurance proposal on the merits?   I'd welcome your input.   But if all you've got is labels and insults, then you add nothing to the discussion.   And no, I won't shut up on the demand of the likes of schoolmarms like you.     

[Jazzhead]

So why would it be Reasonable or Efficacious to burden people who've already proven they're not going to commit murder with yet More gun laws that Anyone can circumvent if they want to?

Insurance works in the motor vehicle context -  even the safest drivers need to take responsibility for the social costs of the dangerous implements they choose to own.  And the safest drivers are rewarded with better rates.

No reason it can't work to address the social costs of gun ownership.   Take responsibility, sir, and you can own all the guns you want.   Why are you so resistant to the concept of responsibility?   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Insurance works in the motor vehicle context -  even the safest drivers need to take responsibility for the social costs of the dangerous implements theyTh choose to own.  And the safest drivers are rewarded with better rates.

No reason it can't work to address the social costs of gun ownership.   Take responsibility, sir, and you can own all the guns you want.   Why are you so resistant to the concept of responsibility?   

Those who choose to defend themselves are the responsible party, not people like you who just wish to strip away our defenses.

Forcing people to shell out more money is once again taking away liberties.

And what is this 'social costs of gun ownership' nonsense?  That is a laughable term to call the 2nd Amendment, one of the principles of freedom in this country.

Keep talking please.  We conservatives need to know how the lib's methods to undermine this country in more details.

[Cyber Liberty]

You say the current laws aren't working?     

I said no such thing, I said the current laws are not being enforced.  You are sticking words in my mouth, then speaking untruthfully about it.

[Jazzhead]

I said no such thing, I said the current laws are not being enforced.  You are sticking words in my mouth, then speaking untruthfully about it.

Pot, meet kettle.   

[Jazzhead]

Those who choose to defend themselves are the responsible party, not people like you who just wish to strip away our defenses.

You can own all the guns you want.  Big ones, little ones, you name it.   Just take responsibility.   

Forcing people to shell out more money is once again taking away liberties.

Stop being selfish.  Gun ownership imposes social costs, and requires responsibility.  Your right to own guns is not your right to impose deadly risks on others without compensation.       

[driftdiver]

You can own all the guns you want.  Big ones, little ones, you name it.   Just take responsibility.   

Stop being selfish.  Gun ownership imposes social costs, and requires responsibility.  Your right to own guns is not your right to impose deadly risks on others without compensation.     

@Jazzhead

My owning a firearm does not impose deadly risks on other law abiding people.  False premise which is demonstrably false.

[Restored]

Stop being selfish.  Gun ownership imposes social costs, and requires responsibility.  Your right to own guns is not your right to impose deadly risks on others without compensation.     

I don't think you understand risk. Owning a car increases the risk that you will kill someone while driving drunk. But that doesn't mean that a car owner imposes deadly risks on others by owning a car.

If you are poor and possess a gun, you are more likely to shoot someone. Does that mean that poverty imposes deadly risks on others?

[Axeslinger]

You can own all the guns you want.  Big ones, little ones, you name it.   Just take responsibility.   

Stop being selfish.  Gun ownership imposes social costs, and requires responsibility.  Your right to own guns is not your right to impose deadly risks on others without compensation.     

@Jazzhead

Here, I’ll cut to the chase for you (And please know that in the interest of decorum I’m not telling you what I really think of you):

If you want mine or any other patriot’s gun (or want us to pay insurance on them), just make sure you have the balls to volunteer to be on the team that starts knocking on doors, don’t let someone else do your dirty work.   Screw you, you anti-liberty statist.

[RetBobbyMI]

In the context of this particular crime,  I agree that there was already a law in place and the lack of enforcement of that law (i.e., the Air Force's failure to provide the information to fill the data base) is the issue.   

But the larger issue,  as you and roamer have cited,  is ease at which bad guys can illegally obtain guns.  I've heard the response that no new laws are needed because criminals can "always" get the guns they need.   In a nation where the number of guns far outstrips the number of people, illegal transfers of firearms are simply a fact of life, and the carnage caused by illegal guns is the price we pay for living in this country. 

I can't agree with that.  That is why I continue to advocate a similar regime as we require for motor vehicle ownership - registration and insurance.    Own as many guns as you want, so long as they are registered and insured.   

The insurance I'd propose is similar to PIP insurance that most states require of car owners.   Simple no-fault insurance that will pay the medical bills and restore lost income to the victims of injury caused by an insured gun.   The way I'd work it is to require insurance up until the time when a gun is legally sold, transferred or reported lost to the police.   That will provide a monetary incentive to report sales, transfers and losses, and to keep guns safely stored so as to prevent losses.   It would help address the abuse where sellers don't have your sense of moral obligation not to conduct a private sale when the buyer is "sketchy".   Conduct a private sale or swap,  but only upon such conditions that permit your obligation to continue to insure that gun to be lifted.   

We live with such requirements routinely with our cars - useful but potentially deadly implements just as guns are.   The burden of insurance causes us to make sure unauthorized use is monitored, and that transactions take place with proper transfer of title and registration.   

Gun registration doesn’t solve any problems, only creates more. Do you trust the feral government?  Besides, how many criminals have legally purchased or registered guns in the commission of their crimes. Very few. In this and Vegas crimes, yes. Although they lied to get them.  In ordinary city street crimes, most guns are illegal in the first place.

[Cyber Liberty]

Pot, meet kettle.   

 

I point out you are using a Straw Man to make the argument you want to have, rather than the one I'm making, and that somehow equates my pointing out your constant repetitive demand for gun registration outs you as a gun-grabber?

You have been told by virtually everybody on this thread WHY registration equal confiscation, and given multiple examples to prove the point, and do you argue that point?  No!  You ignore them and call people names.  Very leftist of you.  Very troll-like.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Insurance works in the motor vehicle context -  even the safest drivers need to take responsibility for the social costs of the dangerous implements they choose to own.  And the safest drivers are rewarded with better rates.

No reason it can't work to address the social costs of gun ownership.   Take responsibility, sir, and you can own all the guns you want.   Why are you so resistant to the concept of responsibility? 

You quoted me. You said you worked with Insurance.

The safest drivers are rewarded. BULLS%%T!

The last Car Insurance Bill I got jacked my rates up 24%

My record has NO tickets and No Accidents on it.

I called my Agent.

Jackwagon handed me a spiel about 'Shared Risk' and how Everybody has to Chip In to pay for the Unsafe Drivers out there.

No more 'Safe Driver' discounts, at least not from his co.

What I told HIM, i will not print because I've grown to like TBR and I'm not getting myself Banned and my IP blocked by the site Owner for it.

Why am I, why am 'I' as in me myself and 'I' so resistant to the concept of Responsibility?

You first.

Why are YOU so Resistant to MY being responsible enough to know that surrendering MY responsibility to Schumer, Feinstein and Holder, and YOU, through Govt TO GOVT is surrender, period.

What stake have You got in forcing Everyone to just hand over their own Individual Responsibility to a Govt that proves itself day in and day out is

1: Incapable of Handling that responsibility.
2: Doesn't care to begin with because all it wants to do is Destroy what it inherits/steals/regulates from us all.

[Cyber Liberty]

What stake have You got in forcing Everyone to just hand over their own Individual Responsibility to a Govt that proves itself day in and day out is

When you realize he wants gun confiscation and is using every dodge in the book to avoid telling us that, everything falls neatly into place.  I think @INVAR is being a little too kind to him in his characterizations of him.

This the very definition of "arguing in bad faith."

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

When you realize he wants gun confiscation and is using every dodge in the book to avoid telling us that, everything falls neatly into place.  I think @INVAR is being a little too kind to him in his characterizations of him.

This the very definition of "arguing in bad faith."

Agreed.

But despite the wisdom of "Don't Feed the Trolls."

I sometimes find it amusing to ask them to make sense of their own words.

And then watch them back up, pull the trigger on their bullhorn again, and try to shout you down, again, with the same untenable SLOGANS that comprise their entire argument.

[austingirl]

Just abut every poster here has told you to shove that insurance crap up your fanny, and most have explained in great detail why (I even showed where you got the idea), yet you persist in pretending you never heard a word of it.  Typical Jazzy.  Go troll another thread.

@Cyber Liberty
Yes, he persisted...(and persists)..just like another liberal. Sigh.