Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns

[XenaLee]

Anymore? Heck I don't comply NOW. Haven't complied in decades, but for the sake of TWO guns that I actually bought over a counter.

Register and insure? Fat damn chance on that one.

Good for you.   The only reason they want to "register" guns is for confiscation, obviously.  Hell no to that.  But we know they won't stop trying to foist their tyrannical stupidity upon law-abiding citizens....

until they are no longer "law-abiding".

[INVAR]

Good for you.   The only reason they want to "register" guns is for confiscation, obviously.  Hell no to that.  But we know they won't stop trying to foist their tyrannical stupidity upon law-abiding citizens....

until they are no longer "law-abiding".

Government and its Alphabets have been proven to be no longer "Law-abiding".

Why should we little people abide by their "laws"?

Making everyone a criminal is the job of Government, exempting Illegal Mexican squatters, Muslim refugees and Leftist politicians.  They are exempt from the laws our government imposes.

[mountaineer]

Making everyone a criminal is the job of Government, exempting Illegal Mexican squatters, Muslim refugees and Leftist politicians.  They are exempt from the laws our government imposes.

There are so many local, state and federal laws and regulations, we all probably violate a dozen a day without knowing it.

[Cyber Liberty]

There are so many local, state and federal laws and regulations, we all probably violate a dozen a day without knowing it.

There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.

[Frank Cannon]

Who was the first non-British artist to sign with Apple?

I thought is was something weird like Sanatra or Sammy Davis, but I could be wrong.

[WingNot]

I thought is was something weird like Sanatra or Sammy Davis, but I could be wrong.

The Jacksons 5 minus 4.

[Frank Cannon]

The Jacksons 5 minus 4.

Looks like it was either Billy Preston or James Taylor. Considering Billy played back up on some Beatles stuff, I would guess he was #1 gringo on their list.

[WingNot]

Looks like it was either Billy Preston or James Taylor. Considering Billy played back up on some Beatles stuff, I would guess he was #1 gringo on their list.

Don't see Mr Carly Simon as an Apple artist.

Maybe @EasyAce would know. 

[XenaLee]

Government and its Alphabets have been proven to be no longer "Law-abiding".

Why should we little people abide by their "laws"?

Making everyone a criminal is the job of Government, exempting Illegal Mexican squatters, Muslim refugees and Leftist politicians.  They are exempt from the laws our government imposes.

Oh yes.  Every Democrat is exempt from having to follow the same laws they expect us to follow.  Cause they're such "special" people.  We, on the other hand, are not (apparently) special.

[XenaLee]

There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.

Zactly.

Note that currently, government is only enforcing laws against anyone on the right.... apparently excluding school shooters, illegals, Democrats, anarchists, BLMs, and other selective "groups" that the left reveres and holds above the law.

[INVAR]

Oh yes.  Every Democrat is exempt from having to follow the same laws they expect us to follow.  Cause they're such "special" people.  We, on the other hand, are not (apparently) special.

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Bigun]

There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.

@Cyber Liberty

"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- p.411,
Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

That's the one!  Thanks!

[jmyrlefuller]

Now, come on.

Most of the time, school shooters have one reason, and one alone, for choosing the school they shoot up: it's the one they attend(ed).

[Frank Cannon]

Don't see Mr Carly Simon as an Apple artist.

Maybe @EasyAce would know.

Welp, you'd be wrong.

[Smokin Joe]

On what basis do I assume the premium would be low if every firearm had to be insured?  The cost would be a lot lower than it might be now, where insurance isn’t mandatory.

How would this insurance stop even one shooting, restore one dead person to life, or undo the damage done by criminals and why should law abiding people have to pay for it? You are advocating penalizing those who have done no wrong for the criminal actions of those who have. Unlike drivers who have "accidents" pretty frequently, few gun owners do. There are two separate groups involved: those with criminal intent who do the vast majority of damage with firearms and who will not comply anyway, and those who observe the law and are careful not to injure others (something that is far easier than it seems by simply following a few common sense rules).
Treat all firearms as loaded, at all times.
Check/clear/open the action of every firearm you are handed or pick up and make sure it is not loaded. Still observe the other rules.
Never point the muzzle in the direction of anything you do not wish to shoot.
Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
Be aware of what is in the background, behind your target.
While firearms safeties are a wonderful additional device to prevent discharging a firearm without intent, never trust them to keep a firearm from being discharged. Only following the above rules will prevent injury.

These rules were ingrained in us at an early age, and habit by the time we hunted, which for most of us was before our tenth birthday.

[WingNot]

Welp, you'd be wrong.

Ah Geez.   Rotten to the apple core

[Frank Cannon]

Ah Geez.   Rotten to the apple core

My research shows that The Beatles are the ones who found Jimmy and gave him his first contract. Based on that information, I don't feel so bad that two of them were eventually killed. Karma is a bitch.

[Smokin Joe]

Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for the potential mayhem your guns could cause?

Because my guns, in my hands and ownership/control will not cause any. I am definitely not willing to be punished in any shape or form for the criminal behaviour of other people. In fact, I have a Right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

That doesn't mean the legislature just gets to keep passing laws until they have one I am in violation of in order to take my stuff, either.

Or maybe we should insure water. Because, as everyone knows, water is dangerous stuff. People drown in it every year. People even drink too much, and as for mayhem, how do you know it wasn't one of your water molecules that contributed to the Mayhem in South Texas and other places this past year? I think we' d better insure water, because it has created mayhem since the Deluge.

[Smokin Joe]

I maintain if the premium level is set by some other mechanism than Insurers normally used, IOW "government," that level will be set high enough to serve as a means of pricing lower income people who wish to follow the law out of the ability to own a firearm.  Obamacare is a good example of this, it's collapsing because the government is attempting to control the premium structure for healthcare insurance.  I seem to recall you were in favor of Obamacare, no?

A backdoor ban is still a ban.  You'll have to find another gimmick to fool people, we're on to your "insurance" scheme.

Especially after the last insurance scheme that was foisted on America.

[mountaineer]

There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.

I think that was in the back of my mind as I was making the comment. Thanks for clarifying my muddled thoughts!

[LauraTXNM]

Legally owned guns are already traceable through their serial number by the ATF (and only through the ATF). Therefore your suggestion to register firearms serves no purpose other than to make it easier for eventual confiscation.

I'm way behind you all in this discussion, but I don't want to forget to ask this question.

Can the ATF trace a gun to its owner?  Or just to the store that sold it?  Ok, I found the answer further down.

But doesn't this actually qualify as a type of "registration"?

[LauraTXNM]

If somebody loses an eye because of my negligence with my firearm, they are of course covered under the policy that I carry, same as if I accidentally hit them with my 1968 Tigers World Series autographed baseball bat.  As for what happens if somebody does damage after stealing one of my weapons, I encourage you to go back and re-read the last sentence of the post you quoted.

I'm still trying to catch up.  But since your guns are insured, would you say the cost was outrageously expensive?  Do you think you pay a fair price for your insurance? 

And why wouldn't guns be insured by insurance companies using actuarial tables, just like cars and homes are?

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm still trying to catch up.  But since your guns are insured, would you say the cost was outrageously expensive?  Do you think you pay a fair price for your insurance? 

And why wouldn't guns be insured by insurance companies using actuarial tables, just like cars and homes are?

They are.  It's insurance to cover loss if stolen or destroyed (like in a fire).  Premiums are based on cash value in case of a loss.  The firearms are actually easier to insure than the tons of Baseball collectables we have, because the value of autographed baseball bats is more difficult to assess.  What the gun-grabbers are talking about when it comes to "insurance" is insuring for future "societal damage" caused by future misuse of the article after the theft...like paying off a grieving family because the doper that ransacked my house made off with a 9mm handgun and shot somebody.  There is no correlation between the cash value of the gun and the money they'd like to collect from an insurance company.  The doper may steal a $300 gun and cause the same deaths as if he had stolen a $3,000 gun.

But, grabbers want to stop people from spotting that and tripping up their attempt to socialize a crime, so they pretend it's the same thing as why I pay to protect my firearms.  What they mean by "insurance" and what the rest of us mean ain't the same thing.  Instead they say, "That mean Cyber Liberty will insure his own weapons, but doesn't care if others do too."  I can only insure to cover my loss, and that responsibility stops the moment the doper gets clear of my house with my property.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm way behind you all in this discussion, but I don't want to forget to ask this question.

Can the ATF trace a gun to its owner?  Or just to the store that sold it?  Ok, I found the answer further down.

But doesn't this actually qualify as a type of "registration"?

You are very observant:  They claim they want registration to track weapons used in crimes, but the dirty little fact of the matter is they can already do that.  They want a list of who has what so they know where to look when the time comes to round them up,without have to deal with silly little niceties like warrants.