“San Jose could set a precedent by requiring gun insurance”

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by archives, Jan 25, 2022.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep AND let's bring back the poll taxes and use them to pay for the schools as they used to do. Maybe fund some better civics and history courses!
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let's just have a license to vote that cost $25 and use that to fund the election and anything left over go to the schools. In fact make it so you have to pass a voting test like a fire arms safety test.
     
    Vote4Future and Doofenshmirtz like this.
  3. Get A Job

    Get A Job Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    63
    this is a joke, a money grab, if you choose not to participate, there are no penalties for not signing on. There's no fine and you keep your gun if you're in "violation". This is absolute silliness. The money is going to be collected by a not yet named non profit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about legitimate attempts to address the bad candidates that get elected, if you think $25 is going to solve gun violence I can sure think having people $25 to vote will improve elections.
     
    Vote4Future likes this.
  5. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is the person cannot pay the $25 which then infringes on their right to own a gun? What if no specific liability insurance is available and that restricts their right to own a gun? And I guess voting is not an absolute right either so let's start applying some qualifications to it since I think it important we have a better informed and more capable voter base.
     
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great idea. Also, require 3 forms of ID and make voters come back again in 10 days!
     
  7. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,665
    Likes Received:
    26,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Erroneous straw man.

    There's nothing absolutist about "you can regulate, but you cannot infringe".

    I'm obviously more familiar with the language and history of the 2A than you are, and unlike yourself I understand the difference between rights and privileges.

    And since the 2A is an affirmation of ancient rights, you should take the time to examine the origins and history of rights:

    [​IMG]

    The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150-1625
    https://www.amazon.com/Idea-Natural-Rights-University-Religion/dp/0802848540

    It's a great book - you'll learn a lot.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
  8. apexofpurple

    apexofpurple Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,552
    Likes Received:
    7,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well now they can all pay a fee to protest since rioting is a consequence of protesting. After all if we're going to tax one right to cover costs associated with the negative impacts of it then we need to do the same for all rights, yes?
     
    BleedingHeadKen likes this.
  9. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone already knows that no Right is unlimited. Every Right ends where a persons nose begins. Making laws/regulations affect a Right when that Right is not interfering with another persons Rights is infringing on that Right and is excessive and not needed.
     
  10. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a great way to ensure the poor and marginalized are going to be disarmed. Make them pay more for the means of self-defense or charge them with crimes if they fail to pay. Those have some marks on their record, which is more common with eh poor and marginalized, will not be uninsurable and will either face being without arms that they have a right to or being criminals because they don't satisfy the demands of progressive moralizers.
     
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agreed with your fact.

    Basic reading comprehension please.
     
  12. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lawsuit is all ready filed.

    National Association for Gun Rights Inc. v. City Of San Jose, 5:22-cv-00501, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
     
  13. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In reality, both sides want to prevent murder. One side works to impose laws on good people, and good people have to defend their rights. While good people are fighting among each other, bad people take advantage. This thread is just another example of that.

    The idea of gun insurance was the likely result of a conversation between a politician and a slip-and-fall lawyer. "Even though CA leads the nation in poverty, there has to be room to exploit the poor even more. Any ideas?"
     
  14. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For such lawyers, I use the term Shyster.
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  15. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The target is not just the poor since the required insurance may not be available. Rather the new law is intended as an attack on 2nd Amendment rights.
     
  16. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very true. Reasonable people already know that guns ARE insurance!
     
  17. PanMonarchist

    PanMonarchist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    640
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Implying I don't already do that.
     
  18. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CA leads the word in numerous things, environmental protections, wealth, wealth inequality, poverty, some of the best and some of the worst schools. They are the largest state in the nation by many metrics and are basically a small country so of course they are going to have faults.

    As to the insurance, I agree it isn’t the best way to combat the gun issue this nation has — I think registration and serious fines / prison time for straw purchases, failing to secure and failing to report would have a much greater impact.
     
  19. KnightoNi1894

    KnightoNi1894 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that every one of those statistics includes suicide shows how disingenuous your side of the argument is. Violent crime is the issue. If someone wants to kill themselves, they will do so. Doing so with a gun has nothing to do with this and people like you will never admit that the "gun crime" issue is an issue of gang violence within cities, not the general public's ownership of guns.
     
  20. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately, results show registration to be worthless. Not only are there no crimes being solved using registered serial numbers, if a gun is recovered at a crime scene, it is next to a dead criminal. You just can't control criminals by placing a burden on good people. Efforts need to be focused on those known to commit violence. If someone harms another human, they should lose their 2nd and 4th Amendment rights.
     

Share This Page