San Jose Will Force Gun Owners to Cover Costs of Gun Violence After Mass Shooting

Watch it to be tossed. Are they going to force insurance companies to provide this liability insurance? How do they do that? If they were "subsidizing" gun ownership they would be paying part of the cost of the gun itself and ammunition.

There is no requirement by the government that I carry insurance on my house. The liability requirements for cars only if I operate it on a public street not simply because I own it. The Constitution does not say the the government shall not pass a law restricting my right to won a house or a car.

 

And this is why most US citizens fight these laws tooth and nail!

 

Insurance requirements have already been deemed constitutional just for existing…

What is the third word in the second amendment?

 

Because they don’t want illegal weapons seized?

Or are you saying you are scared the government is going to go door to door and seize everyone's guns?

 

Sounds like the first positive step to make the gun worshippers pay for their manic obsession with firearms at the expense of countless American lives over many decades. Let those who created the magnitude of our firearms predicament start paying for it.

 

Guns don't cause massive damage, people do. A person can kill with TV set or mattress but it doesn't happen very often. Any gun purchased from a dealer is registered both with the dealer and the ATF. Everyone should have liability insurance. I do agree with that. It covers everything from guns to mattresses.

 

Not really. Most just want privacy and freedom from government intervention in their lives.

It has happened in other countries. But, of course, other countries don't have a second amendment.

 

How are you going to get this gun registered?



How is San Jose going to get their tax from someone that has a gun but has not registered it or insured it? This law supposedly only targets gun owners. In order for that to work they're going to have to prove that you have a gun. How are they going to do that?

 

Because the definition of illegal changes with progressive laws, i.e. if you chose not to pay a tax, the left will consider you in possession of an illegal firearm. That's how confiscations work.

 

Ok, let's put every illegal alien we catch in prison and make him/her do hard labor to pay for border security and the costs of Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

 

Please explain to me why, if this tax on our rights is acceptable that a poll tax is not.

 

I guess we will see how law-abiding all of the people that y’all claim are law-abiding actually are.

As to the others, their weapon will be seized and whatever legal penalties applied.

 

Well damn that’s crazy I lost all of my guns in a boating accident a couple weeks ago. In the ocean.

crazy stuff I tell ya

 

Oh hell yeah since I lost all of my guns in a tear fix boating accident can I also collect insurance on them???

 

Poll taxes have been deemed unconstitutional. I have already said I mostly disagree with a tax but I 100% agree with liability insurance and registration.

 

Do you frequently only follow the law when it suits you?

 

Nah I’m good. I don’t care if you do have a law that say I have to walk into the gas chamber. You better be ready to fight me to get me in there.

 

No I don’t think you understand. The law and the constitution didn’t give me my rights. God did and nothing you or anyone else will ever do short of murdering me is going to take them away from me.

 

There are already laws surrounding firearms which allow immediate confiscation if violated. All you have to do is obey the law.

 

You are far from correct. An item no one has any knowledge of cannot be seized and there is no way to prevent anything from entering the black market. (Thus the name)

Registration doesn't solve crimes. If a gun is left at the scene of a crime, its because the gunman was killed.

If there is going to be a dead body at a crime scene, would you prefer it was the criminals?

 

See I don’t trust you and let me illustrate to you why. And by you I don’t mean you specifically, but those who hold your position.

My concern is that if I give you your “common sense gun restrictions” today that you’re asking for. You’re simply going to come back after the next tragedy and demand more and after the next and after the next and the next until we have no second amendment left.

So let’s see how honest you are being.

I will concede and give you your registration and even insurance, but I want an ironclad constitutional amendment guaranteeing that there will be no further regulations placed on firearms after our deal is sealed. Forever. No matter how many gun violence tragedies or school shootings or whatever. No more restrictions on firearms or ammunition or anything related to them (such as mags) ever going forward from that point.

Deal?

 

LOL

Ok, good luck with that

 

I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise on what many seek to do with these laws ultimately but I don’t believe that could ever happen through a gun confiscation program. The bloodshed would be significant and very very few people would want to be involved in that.

I own a few weapons myself, nothing crazy (except one) but I too would prefer to keep them. We just have an issue in this nation and the “pro-gun” side really doesn’t want to come to the table to discuss solutions.

I don’t even know if registration will do anything, or insurance. Normally I would say let’s let the states try different proposals but gun trafficking is more complex than any one state can tackle.

A 2019 survey conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that some 43 percent of criminals had bought their firearms on the black market, 6 percent acquired them via theft, and 10 percent made a retail purchase – 0.8 percent purchased a weapon from a gun show.

In 11 percent of cases, the criminal had someone else buy a gun for them – known as a straw purchase – while an additional 15 percent got guns from a friend or relative.

www.foxnews.com/us/where-do-criminals-get-guns.amp​

It looks like straw purchases and family members giving away guns make up almost a quarter of guns used by criminals. In my opinion the family member or purchaser is just as guilty as the criminal.

Registration and insurance would allow this to be found and would likely reduce these rates.

Throw mandatory licensing (can be free provided by the state and teaches gun safety, legal requirements and storage) and I would easily agree with your amendment.

 

I would agree with that. I think most gun owners would as well. Though I don’t know about the insurance. You might get some pushback. But I think as long as it wasn’t unreasonable. I think you’d have to put something into the amendment addressing an unreasonable increase in insurance rates to price people out of their right to own a firearm. But other than that I think it’d be fine.

But I think you and I both know the liberals wouldn’t tolerate it.

 

Some probably wouldn't but I bet you would see a large enough consensus to pass it.

Most liberals are not crazy — just like most conservatives. The insane ones are just paraded around by people wanting to divide the nation