Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns

[edpc]

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.

Red Dawn demonstrated this in 1984....


! No longer available

[LauraTXNM]

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.

Do you think the dealers' serial number-owner records are overreach?  Or ar you all ok with that kind of "registration"?

[LauraTXNM]

Red Dawn demonstrated this in 1984....


! No longer available

Looooove that movie!  Filmed in NM!!!

[LauraTXNM]

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.

A follow up: did you say that your guns were also insured against accidental injury, in the same way that your baseball bat is if it hits someone?  I wasn't sure if that meant homeowners insurance or something else.

[INVAR]

A follow up: did you say that your guns were also insured against accidental injury, in the same way that your baseball bat is if it hits someone?  I wasn't sure if that meant homeowners insurance or something else.

Oh yes, because LOTS of people carry liability insurance for their baseball bats.  One never knows when the baseball bat might just fling itself at someone's head out of the garage.

 

The idea to require that kind of insurance to own a gun is just as silly and stupid.

[Cyber Liberty]

A follow up: did you say that your guns were also insured against accidental injury, in the same way that your baseball bat is if it hits someone?  I wasn't sure if that meant homeowners insurance or something else.

The bats and guns are in a rider on my homeowner policy.  If I injure somebody with them accidentally (not as a result of any deliberate action) there is a claim to be made.

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh yes, because LOTS of people carry liability insurance for their baseball bats.  One never knows when the baseball bat might just fling itself at someone's head out of the garage.

 

The idea to require that kind of insurance to own a gun is just as silly and stupid.

The "insurance" the grabbers in this thread have been suggesting is nothing like the insurance I presently carry, in fact it isn't offered.  They want a pool of money (paid by me, held by the gummint, I assume) that can be tapped to pay off people who are hurt or killed as a result of a thief stealing one of my weapons.  Quite a different animal they call "insurance" to blur the lines of the discussion to cast gun owners in a bad light.  That they use children as pawns in their crusade is the least surprising aspect of all this.

The only reason my baseball bats are in the rider I carry is because they have value beyond what you'd pay by going down to Dick's and buying one off a shelf.  Accidental damage coverage is incidental, because it's highly unlikely I'd even take one out of it's display case, let alone stroke it across somebody's lip.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you think the dealers' serial number-owner records are overreach?  Or ar you all ok with that kind of "registration"?

Yes, I do, and I'm NOT OK with that.  The model and serial number of the firearm is irrelevant to my being qualified to purchase it.  I would be just as barred from owning a .357 revolver as I would be to own an AR-15 or .22.  I've never liked that I've had to put that information on the Federal forms to make a purchase.

The purpose is tracability in case a crime is committed down the road, and has been stated, the Police can already get that information, but they have to produce a warrant to get it.  I have yet had it adequately explained to me why they need to know who bought a weapon in the first place, unless there's a case to be made that person was complicit in the crime, and not merely a crime victim themselves when the weapon was stolen from them.

[Jazzhead]

The "insurance" the grabbers in this thread have been suggesting is nothing like the insurance I presently carry, in fact it isn't offered.  They want a pool of money (paid by me, held by the gummint, I assume) that can be tapped to pay off people who are hurt or killed as a result of a thief stealing one of my weapons.  Quite a different animal they call "insurance" to blur the lines of the discussion to cast gun owners in a bad light.  That they use children as pawns in their crusade is the least surprising aspect of all this.

@LauraTXNM , a rough analogy to the sort of insurance I have in mind is PIP (Personal Injury Protection) insurance, which is a mandatory extension of car insurance in many states.    It covers medical expenses and, in many cases, lost wages as the result of injuries suffered in a car accident.  It is sometimes called "no-fault" because it is agnostic of who is at fault in the accident.   

As applied to guns,  the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns,  with the insurance available to pay the medical bills and lost wages of a victim of violence committed while using an insured gun.   The insurance would pay off if the act of violence occurs while the gun is covered by the insurance - and such coverage would remain in force until such time as the gun's ownership is lawfully transferred, the gun is lawfully disposed of, or the gun is reported stolen to the police.    The incentive is therefore in place for a gun owner to keep weapons secured from unauthorized use, to effect only "official" and traceable dispositions of the guns he owns (that is, not selling the thing out of the back of a truck but rather using a broker that upon resale will run the requisite background checks),  and to promptly report stolen guns.   Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.   

The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves.  Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible,  to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons.    Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?         

[Frank Cannon]

   Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.   

Oh. The premiums on the insurance the owner didn't have in the first place will go up. That's well thought out.

Maybe you should focus on your job of squeegeeing windshields in rush hour traffic and leave the thinking to people with brains.

[INVAR]

Oh. The premiums on the insurance the owner didn't have in the first place will go up. That's well thought out.

Maybe you should focus on your job of squeegeeing windshields in rush hour traffic and leave the thinking to people with brains.

You're awful generous this morning Frank.

I think we should impose insurance mandates on squeegees to cover the costs of brainless dolt road pizzas.

[WingNot]

You're awful generous this morning Frank.

I think we should impose insurance mandates on squeegees to cover the costs of brainless dolt road pizzas.

I think they are unionized.  The Squeegee lobby will oppose it.

[Jazzhead]

Oh. The premiums on the insurance the owner didn't have in the first place will go up. That's well thought out.

If you choose to own a useful but dangerous implement,  then take legal responsibility for the harm it may cause.   Just like with your car.   Register it, insure it, keep it secure, and dispose of it lawfully.   Why is that such a terrible imposition?   

[INVAR]

As applied to guns,  the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns...

Never going to happen.

There will be massive non-compliance on such a mandate on a scale the world has never before witnessed.

Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?       

Does anyone here really think you are anything but a Leftist advocate for tyranny?

[Cyber Liberty]

The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves.  Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible,  to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons.    Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?       

The declared intent is never the outcome.  The end result will be to enact defacto registration (which seems to be the goal of every one of these schemes) and denial of firearms to people below the threshold of affordability.  I am of the belief it's immoral to do anything to deny people the right to defend themselves, and this artificial creation of cost and registration is part of that.

Jazz, you have sacrificed your position of authority when you admitted yesterday you think the guns are the evil, and not the minds behind the trigger.  You are no better than the propagandists at CNN who set up the booby-trapped "town hall" the other day.

[edpc]

Looooove that movie!  Filmed in NM!!!

@LauraTXNM

Yes - last summer, I drove through the back roads of western KS and OK to get over to Raton.  I wanted to see Johnson Mesa, then continue north on I-25 into Colorado.  Had to stop off the freeway due to one of the most intense thunder storms I've ever been in while driving.  The lightning was incredible. 

[Frank Cannon]

"I think guns should be insured or confiscated by the govt'. I also think people should get a living wage for squeegee work."

[WingNot]

"I think guns should be insured or confiscated by the govt'. I also think people should get a living wage for squeegee work."

That guy scratched my windshield with his worn out Squeegee.  I told him he better have Insurance for that thin.

[INVAR]

If you choose to own a useful but dangerous implement,  then take legal responsibility for the harm it may cause.   Just like with your car.   Register it, insure it, keep it secure, and dispose of it lawfully.   Why is that such a terrible imposition?

After you personally register and acquire specialty liability insurance for your cutlery, flatware, cast iron skillets, sewing needles, scissors, lawn equipment, insecticides, fertilizers, prescription medicines, pencils, rope, string, wire, pencils......... - er actually EVERYTHING you own that can be used to harm another life form or cause mayhem to an individual - and provide proof publicly that you have complied with your own suggestion - THEN, and only then

... will we all stop laughing long enough to consider that wha you have said and done is truly a dedication to lunacy.

[Jazzhead]

The declared intent is never the outcome.  The end result will be to enact defacto registration (which seems to be the goal of every one of these schemes) and denial of firearms to people below the threshold of affordability.  I am of the belief it's immoral to do anything to deny people the right to defend themselves, and this artificial creation of cost and registration is part of that.

Jazz, you have sacrificed your position of authority when you admitted yesterday you think the guns are the evil, and not the minds behind the trigger.  You are no better than the propagandists at CNN who set up the booby-trapped "town hall" the other day.

Oh stop it with the idiotic paranoia.  No one's come to confiscate your cars.   Cars aren't evil, guns aren't evil.  Cars are potentially dangerous, and the community demands you register and insure them.   Why not the same for guns?   The focus of the insurance is different to be sure, but conceptually the intent is to encourage responsible ownership and lawful transfers/dispositions.  NOT confiscation.   Why is it illegitimate in your eyes for the community to demand that gun owners act responsibly?   This is why I keep coming back to the charge that, fundamentally, this is about selfishness.   

[Cyber Liberty]

After you personally register and acquire specialty liability insurance for your cutlery, flatware, cast iron skillets, sewing needles, scissors, lawn equipment, insecticides, fertilizers, prescription medicines, pencils, rope, string, wire, pencils......... - er actually EVERYTHING you own that can be used to harm another life form or cause mayhem to an individual - and provide proof publicly that you have complied with your own suggestion - THEN, and only then

... will we all stop laughing long enough to consider that what you have said and done is truly a dedication to lunacy.

Hey, I want serial numbers on all those implements so we can trace them back to the purchaser in case some injury occurs...

[roamer_1]

If you choose to own a useful but dangerous implement,  then take legal responsibility for the harm it may cause.   Just like with your car.   Register it, insure it, keep it secure, and dispose of it lawfully.   Why is that such a terrible imposition?

IT can't cause any harm.
IT is an inanimate  object.

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh stop it with the idiotic paranoia.  No one's come to confiscate your cars.   Cars aren't evil, guns aren't evil.  Cars are potentially dangerous, and the community demands you register and insure them.   Why not the same for guns?   The focus of the insurance is different to be sure, but conceptually the intent is to encourage responsible ownership and lawful transfers/dispositions.  NOT confiscation.   Why is it illegitimate in your eyes for the community to demand that gun owners act responsibly?   This is why I keep coming back to the charge that, fundamentally, this is about selfishness.

No one's come to confiscate your cars. [sic] 

Another sunrise, another repetition of The Big Lie.

[Jazzhead]

After you personally register and acquire specialty liability insurance for your cutlery, flatware, cast iron skillets, sewing needles, scissors, lawn equipment, insecticides, fertilizers, prescription medicines, pencils, rope, string, wire, pencils......... - er actually EVERYTHING you own that can be used to harm another life form or cause mayhem to an individual -

Guns are uniquely dangerous.  Their purpose is to kill.   

Enjoy your hobby.  Just be responsible.   

[Jazzhead]

IT can't cause any harm.
IT is an inanimate  object.

Neither can a car.  But the community still insists you register and insure your car, if you want to use it for its intended purpose.   The same should be required of guns.