Cory Booker proposes national license for all gun owners

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

So, not A implies maybe B.  Therefore, A implies B.

Um, no.  Not even close.  No points for even trying.

[verga]

If I were a democrat?

You are one, you just don't have the courage to admit it.

[thackney]

Really?  What part?

Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.

While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah - He goes up to Kingston(?) for vacation a couple times a year and brings stuff home. Look! No registration, no serialization... Well, how'd that happen?

Kingman.  Down the road a piece from me now.

[Bill Cipher]

You are one, you just don't have the courage to admit it.

Actually, I’m not. 

[roamer_1]

Kingman.  Down the road a piece from me now.

Yep. That's it, I'd bet.
 

[roamer_1]

Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.

While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well.

Not to mention that the entire idea is not only ineffective, but also unwarranted.

Take away suicides (which would find a way anyway), and crime (which would find a way anyway), and the American gun-owning population is reliably responsible.

[Bill Cipher]

Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.

While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well. 

Not really.  The libel laws, truth in advertising laws, heck, the securities laws, all limit, sometimes substantially, what someone can say, but they aren’t for that reason unconstitutional as being laws respecting freedom of speech. 

Except for a very small number of licensed individuals, most of us cannot own a fully automatic machine gun (even though we could have back in the early 1980s), and yet that is very unlikely to be held to be an unconstitutional infringement. 

As a result, an insurance requirement would almost certainly pass muster, even if it resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of privately owned guns. 

[Bill Cipher]

Not to mention that the entire idea is not only ineffective, but also unwarranted.

Take away suicides (which would find a way anyway), and crime (which would find a way anyway), and the American gun-owning population is reliably responsible.

Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.   

[thackney]

Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.

An expense exceeding the cost of the firearm would be an infringement.  And a few years of such insurance would certainly be such a cost.

[roamer_1]

Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.

Sure it is, when the cost of insurance prevents ownership, or even reduces the amount of guns I can own.

When my defense and even subsistence requires a monthly fee, that necessarily omits those who cannot afford the insurance - Making defense of self a privilege rather than a right, disaffecting those too poor to participate.

It is a pity that you are so eager to reduce the number of legally used guns in the US - That use, in defense, far outstrips your cause.   

[XenaLee]

Arbitrary requirements for "ownership" set by state legislatures that are anti 2A for starters.  Slow rolling the "registration" process to the point where it goes past the required sign up date making the guns now "illegal" to own and subject to confiscation.

Registration itself will deter many people from purchasing a gun because they don't want to go through the hassle and they don't want their personal info in yet another government data base that's subject to hacking and/or being used to monitor and control the individual.

I know a couple of people that were 'deterred' from completing their concealed carry permit process during the Obama administration when a liberal governor (I think) released the personal info of that state's concealed carry permit holders.  Not trusting either the leftists in power or the hacking issues ongoing, they decided not to put their info 'out there'.

Other examples of "breaches"...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/concealed-weapons-permit-holders-exposed-data-brea/

https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/02/26/local-sheriff-releases-names-ccw-permit-holders-media/

[Cyber Liberty]

Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.

It is to someone who properly understands that to be back-door registration. 

In addition, I'm sure the premiums will be jacked up to where only the wealthy can own guns.  This is the true goal of the Rats.

[Bill Cipher]

An expense exceeding the cost of the firearm would be an infringement.  And a few years of such insurance would certainly be such a cost.

Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It is to someone who properly understands that to be back-door registration. 

In addition, I'm sure the premiums will be jacked up to where only the wealthy can own guns.  This is the true goal of the Rats.

Maybe we could amend the "health care" laws and require ALL policies to cover guns.  Only fair, right?

[roamer_1]

Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.

Really? How much per gun in the house would you expect? And then also the truck, four-wheeler, car, camper, and etc used for transport? and use on public and private lands?

What do YOU regard as a reasonable tax (because that's what it is)?

[txradioguy]

Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.

You’re dreaming if you think your Progressive brethren will allow that to happen.   They’ll mandate via the state insurance Commissioner what the minimum rate will be and it won’t be cheap.

It’s a back door gun ban plain and simple. Not to mention racist. 

[txradioguy]

I’m curious how many weapons our resident gun grabbers actually own?

 

[roamer_1]

I’m curious how many weapons our resident gun grabbers actually own?

And how man they think we should be able to own. How many guns are 'enough'?

[Cyber Liberty]

Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.

Probably so.  I don't think the private companies will be allowed to set the prices.  Government will never be able to resist sticking their noses under this new tent.  If they mandate it, they will price it.

[Bill Cipher]

Really? How much per gun in the house would you expect? And then also the truck, four-wheeler, car, camper, and etc used for transport? and use on public and private lands?

What do YOU regard as a reasonable tax (because that's what it is)?

It’s not a tax.  And calling it one doesn’t advance the discussion one whit. 

[Bill Cipher]

Sure it is, when the cost of insurance prevents ownership, or even reduces the amount of guns I can own.

When my defense and even subsistence requires a monthly fee, that necessarily omits those who cannot afford the insurance - Making defense of self a privilege rather than a right, disaffecting those too poor to participate.

It is a pity that you are so eager to reduce the number of legally used guns in the US - That use, in defense, far outstrips your cause.   

If you can’t afford the insurance, you’re not a responsible gun owner. 

[roamer_1]

It’s not a tax.  And calling it one doesn’t advance the discussion one whit.

Riiiiight. Just like Obamacare was not a tax...

[XenaLee]

Riiiiight. Just like Obamacare was not a tax...

Who is he fooling.  Nobody here.   The left couldn't care less what it's called as long as their leftist agenda is furthered and/or fulfilled.  They have a lot in common with Muslims re: that.  Taqiyya, DemocRat style.

[Bill Cipher]

Riiiiight. Just like Obamacare was not a tax...

If you say so.