Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns

[XenaLee]

Your facepalm is well placed, sir.  Your argument has jumped off the cliff again.  You know, if you ignore the arguments placed for you by people you are arguing with, they're going to simply ignore you.

I don't know... but.... to me.... his argument makes absolutely NO sense, logically or otherwise.  Nice that he's outting himself as part of the "shall/should definitely BE infringed upon" camp re: mandatory 'gun insurance', though.

[Jazzhead]

Once  they are stolen from me, my responsibility for how they are used is terminated.

Once they are REPORTED by you as stolen.   If you were strictly liable for the medical bills and lost earnings of folks injured by your guns,  you'd have the incentive to swiftly report a theft.   That's a key benefit, I think, of a registration/insurance regime.   

[GrouchoTex]

Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings.  Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs.  It can't be incompetence.  Nobody is 'that' incompetent.  If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs?  No.... something else is afoot here.   Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".

Exactly.
I used to think this was all tin-foil hat stuff.
However, there are Federal laws and that are not being enforced.
In this case, and in the Suderland Springs case (the last 2 large mass shootings), neither one of the individuals should have been able to legally purchase a gun.
In both cases, both did.
How?
Or better yet, why?
An internal type of "fast and furious" going on?

Some people may say, "So what, they could have used anything, and if they still wanted to use guns, they would have obtained them illegally".
Perhaps, but they didn't need to. They just went to local retailers and bought them.

My point is, like our current immigration laws, the current gun laws aren't being enforced.
Also, like our immigration laws, I think our guns laws aren't being enforced for  political reasons.

[Jazzhead]

I don't know... but.... to me.... his argument makes absolutely NO sense, logically or otherwise.  Nice that he's outting himself as part of the "shall/should definitely BE infringed upon" camp re: mandatory 'gun insurance', though.

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

[Oceander]

I don't know... but.... to me.... his argument makes absolutely NO sense, logically or otherwise.  Nice that he's outting himself as part of the "shall/should definitely BE infringed upon" camp re: mandatory 'gun insurance', though.

Nice that you’re outing yourself as an accessory to murder. 

[truth_seeker]

So why shouldn’t liability insurance be mandatory for every firearm?  And given that the per firearm cost is likely to be quite low, it would be simple enough to have an uninsured firearm rider that would go into a fund to cover damages caused by illegal firearms or when used by uninsured shooters.

There are said to be 300 million firearms in the US..

If it is insurance, registration, or something else, only some will observe the laws and regulations.

You can be certain the lawless  will not. Certainly the lovely gangsters of Chicago, St. Louis etc. will not, so thousands of murders will go on without a hesitation.

Can't you picture Jamal: "Mom, can I borrow $100 to get insurance on my stolen gun?"

[Oceander]

There are said to be 300 million firearms in the US..

If it is insurance, registration, or something else, only some will observe the laws and regulations.

You can be certain the lawless  will not. Certainly the lovely gangsters of Chicago, St. Louis etc. will not, so thousands of murders will go on without a hesitation.

Can't you picture Jamal: "Mom, can I borrow $100 to get insurance on my stolen gun?"

Which is why your auto insurance policy carries an uninsured/underinsured motorist rider, which is not that expensive.  A similar rider on mandatory firearm insurance would work just as well. 

[INVAR]

Intransigence simply leaves the field open to the leftists, and you will end up losing your guns to them.   

They are going to have to kill an awful lot of American gun owners to achieve that.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

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.

[Oceander]

They are going to have to kill an awful lot of American gun owners to achieve that.

So you say.  You’ll be one of the first to chicken out and hand em over if it comes to it.

[Oceander]

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.

You recall nothing of the sort. 

You can maintain all you want, but I don’t recall mandatory auto insurance driving premiums up so high that only a few rich people can afford to own a car.  In fact, I own a car myself, and I’m hardly rich.

[XenaLee]

Exactly.
I used to think this was all tin-foil hat stuff.
However, there are Federal laws and that are not being enforced.
In this case, and in the Suderland Springs case (the last 2 large mass shootings), neither one of the individuals should have been able to legally purchase a gun.
In both cases, both did.
How?
Or better yet, why?
An internal type of "fast and furious" going on?

Some people may say, "So what, they could have used anything, and if they still wanted to use guns, they would have obtained them illegally".
Perhaps, but they didn't need to. They just went to local retailers and bought them.

My point is, like our current immigration laws, the current gun laws aren't being enforced.
Also, like our immigration laws, I think our guns laws aren't being enforced for  political reasons.

And in both cases.... ie refusal to enforce immigration laws and refusal to enforce gun laws already on the books (to get MORE gun laws on the books)...... the entity behind these refusals is the same..... the radical left in America ....America's enemy within (Democrats).

[XenaLee]

Nice that you’re outing yourself as an accessory to murder.

I have no idea what the hell you're blathering about.... not that that is an unusual scenario, mind you.  Suffice to say.... it's typical of one of your posts.   

[truth_seeker]

Which is why your auto insurance policy carries an uninsured/underinsured motorist rider, which is not that expensive.  A similar rider on mandatory firearm insurance would work just as well.

What purpose does insurance provide? Does it prevent bad people from taking bad actions?

Or are you merely interested in more money to go through the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, etc?

[INVAR]

So you say.  You’ll be one of the first to chicken out and hand em over if it comes to it.

You go think that.

[XenaLee]

They are going to have to kill an awful lot of American gun owners to achieve that.

Funny how he uses that word...."them".   Especially since he's the one (not them) that is arguing for mandatory insurance for gun ownership. 

 

[XenaLee]

What purpose does insurance provide? Does it prevent bad people from taking bad actions?

Or are you merely interested in more money to go through the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, etc?

In this case (gun ownership) I posit that his interest is more along the lines of being for penalizing gun owners with yet more "government infringement upon that 2nd Amendment".

[XenaLee]

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

Why are you so obtuse?  (Rhetorical question, of course)

[Cyber Liberty]

You recall nothing of the sort. 

You can maintain all you want, but I don’t recall mandatory auto insurance driving premiums up so high that only a few rich people can afford to own a car.  In fact, I own a car myself, and I’m hardly rich.

You missed my point, so I'll give it another go:

Auto Insurance premiums are priced in an actuarially sound manner to keep pace with the competition.  Obamacare is collapsing because it is not, it has subsidies based upon income level, and competition is screwed out of the marketplace leading to most areas of the country now having only one carrier on the O'care exchanges.

I maintain if government is put in charge of setting gun insurance premiums, the exact same, non actuarial system will be used to set premiums, and the outcome is likely to be a defacto ban on peoples right to keep and bear arms.  Which is the lefts final goal.

[roamer_1]

Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck.   How do you trace ownership of such guns?

You don't.

I also buy power tools, knives, kitchen accessories, camping supplies, and dang near everything else off the back of a truck. I'm sitting here trying to think of what the last thing was that I actually walked into a store to buy... Other than groceries and hardware sundries, I can't come up with it...

You make it sound so nefarious , but 80% of it is me not being a big enough sucker to pay full retail for any damn thing. Heck, even most of my food never hit a shelf in it's life, and much of that which has, was still bought off the back a truck (Azure, etc).


But along with that, conveniently, comes anonymity.
It's a feature.

[Cyber Liberty]

What purpose does insurance provide? Does it prevent bad people from taking bad actions?

Or are you merely interested in more money to go through the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, etc?

I think his goal is to make insurance premiums a defacto ban on some people owning firearms.  I've heard this floated by more liberal people without the savvy to keep that on the QT.

[roamer_1]

How about a courtesy ping for @roamer_1, you little popcorn fart?  If you're going to badmouth my friend, have the guts to do it to his face.

 

Thanks for the ping.

[roamer_1]

LOL.  Roam will be on him like vaseline on Heath Ledger's chaps.

@Wingnut

Um... Thanks, sorta... I think.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

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

You know, you just gave up a very important part of your entire stance on gun control with that one sentence, right?

Look at the part I underlined.  You still blame inanimate guns, not the evil minds controlling the trigger finger.  You should put that in your sig line so people will know better than to argue with you on the subject.  You're hopeless.

[roamer_1]

My point is that this IS a loophole, and guns bought off the back of trucks are essentially untraceable.

So are the ones I could make in the shop outback.