General Discussion

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

104. And some of those same guys wanted to add "for the common defence' after RKBA to

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:03 PM

Feb 2013

which would have made it even more obvious what their intent was.

I don't assume a need to be explicit, I think the article is quite clear - the intent is right there in the amendment itself. (as explained previously)

You are right, the right did not need to be secured by enumeration. There are also those who say the government only has the powers that are granted to them. And yet the Congress is charged with the general welfare, charged with securing our liberties; it is the responsibility of government, especially one that gets its powers from the people, to provide for their common good. The people were/are expected to give up a bit of personal liberty so that those that remain, especially thier natural rights, can be better protected.

And when you find an absolutist who thinks that no regulation is appropriate, you feel free to take that up with him or her.

Hmph - so what are we arguing about?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

211 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance [View all] Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 OP

NOW we're talking Skittles Feb 2013 #1

+1 ellisonz Feb 2013 #67

LOL Skittles!! CatWoman Feb 2013 #119

HAAAAAAAAAAY BABY Skittles Feb 2013 #143

Yes!! Control-Z Feb 2013 #2

Thing is, liability insurance wouldn't have covered Sandy Hook.. X_Digger Feb 2013 #3

Like anything in life, we must begin somewhere... Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #6

You don't get it do you.... pkdu Feb 2013 #7

That is an excuse to do noting. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #8

Note use of... /sarc off. (sarcasm mode off) pkdu Feb 2013 #10

So that is what passes for the missing sarcassm smilie. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #37

For middle-aged computer nerds like me , yes. pkdu Feb 2013 #179

This will do nothing... 0%... Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #63

It will make owners of devices designed to kill Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #64

Again... Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #97

Now we are going after home brewers? Riftaxe Feb 2013 #178

Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing derby378 Feb 2013 #83

Three hundred million plus firearms out there Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #25

It's a sure bet that the people who are most likely to cause harm with a firearm would be the least slackmaster Feb 2013 #101

I agree. nt Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #165

Yes we must do something, anything. Then we will feel better. nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #9

Great ideas that don't do what folks think they will isn't a beginning, it's theater. X_Digger Feb 2013 #11

and that is bad because? Do you think having auto insurance is a poll tax? robinlynne Feb 2013 #20

No insurance is required for simple automobile ownership. beevul Feb 2013 #35

I've heard this before...why own a car you can't drive in public? libdem4life Feb 2013 #127

Race cars and farm vehicles are the largest examples. n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #128

So, no insurance? Probably a small minority are going to have a huge investment in libdem4life Feb 2013 #131

Nope, no insurance in most cases. X_Digger Feb 2013 #136

Just plain silly in a gun liability conversation. No one I knew farmed with a beat up pick up truck libdem4life Feb 2013 #138

*sigh* Liability for patrons, not drivers / cars. X_Digger Feb 2013 #141

This is about weapon liability. Motor vehicles are a false equivalent...responding as such. libdem4life Feb 2013 #184

I didn't bring up the analogy, I just pointed out it's not quite the way people think it is. n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #185

I was a major gift fundraiser and as I recall, the very rich are really well insured. CTyankee Feb 2013 #153

This isn't about insuring your belongings or being rich or fundraising. libdem4life Feb 2013 #183

not per se, but I am interested in why people do/do not insure themselves. I was just CTyankee Feb 2013 #194

It's bad because the right tries to do the same thing with abortion and we cry foul davidn3600 Feb 2013 #38

Is it not correct to regulate abortion, i.e. have it performed by a doctor? robinlynne Feb 2013 #65

It's not 'bad', it's illegal- deprivation of rights under color of law. 18 USC � 242 n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #45

requiring insurance and responsiblity is not deprivation of rights. robinlynne Feb 2013 #66

Intentionally suppressing a right is. X_Digger Feb 2013 #72

for starters, I dont think anyone has the right to own a semi-automatic, period. We disagree about w robinlynne Feb 2013 #76

*sigh* X_Digger Feb 2013 #80

You clearly show that when 'bear arms' means 'self defense', that the use is specifically jmg257 Feb 2013 #89

Because it was implicit X_Digger Feb 2013 #92

And some of those same guys wanted to add "for the common defence' after RKBA to jmg257 Feb 2013 #104

'General Welfare' is not a blank check for legislators to do whatever they wish. X_Digger Feb 2013 #106

whatever they wish? The American people overwhelmngly want semi automatics banned. Legislators robinlynne Feb 2013 #159

Majority rules? How about we apply that to other social justice causes, eh? X_Digger Feb 2013 #161

and the right to kill? robinlynne Feb 2013 #118

The right to use force up to and including lethal force in defense of self or others? X_Digger Feb 2013 #121

in defense of self and others. only. robinlynne Feb 2013 #158

Care to expand that into a complete sentence? X_Digger Feb 2013 #160

Then why the "right" to semi-automatic weapons? The right to purchase firearms without a background robinlynne Feb 2013 #168

Because they are "in common use for traditionally lawful purposes" X_Digger Feb 2013 #170

i.e: robinlynne Feb 2013 #169

That is the reason was protected, yes. It in no way limits the right to that purpose. X_Digger Feb 2013 #173

thousands of dead very compelling reasons. More than 90% of Americans are quite compelled. robinlynne Feb 2013 #199

Argumentum ad populum? *sigh* X_Digger Feb 2013 #200

That is only because the law allows them to BlueStreak Feb 2013 #13

Lol, no insurance company would write such a policy, and you can't force them to. X_Digger Feb 2013 #15

Nonsense. ANYTHING can be written into a liability policy. BlueStreak Feb 2013 #27

Please go talk to an insurance agent. You're embarrassing yourself. n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #43

What does an agent have to do with it? BlueStreak Feb 2013 #47

An agent will explain about mens rea, and how insurance companies.. X_Digger Feb 2013 #50

You're wasting your breath; that lot regard ignorance as strength... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #115

Gah, I need mind palette cleanser. n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #122

Insurance companies can't be forced to do anything. They alwways have the option BlueStreak Feb 2013 #125

Thank you for making my point for me- namely that.. X_Digger Feb 2013 #126

You are the one that brought up criminal acts. I talked about all consequences of BlueStreak Feb 2013 #130

The OP article 'brought it up' X_Digger Feb 2013 #135

Once again, you are going back to the way existing laws are written. BlueStreak Feb 2013 #139

It's the laws of insurance, not guns. X_Digger Feb 2013 #146

Thank you. I'm glad to see you have come to the point BlueStreak Feb 2013 #148

My hypothetical ends with a constitutional challenge, but okay. X_Digger Feb 2013 #150

That's not entirely true... TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #193

Right, but they have the option to not offer insurance in the state. BlueStreak Feb 2013 #197

I don't think it's legal for an insurance company to insure against a policyholder's crime Recursion Feb 2013 #94

It is only "illegal" to offer that because that is how today's laws are written. BlueStreak Feb 2013 #142

The fact that one has to ahve liability isnsurance, and that therer are consequences, makes one thin robinlynne Feb 2013 #21

yes they are dsc Feb 2013 #23

No, your insurance would cover damage to your car, it would not cover claims by the victim's family. X_Digger Feb 2013 #41

not. Liability insurance for victims is the only insurance required by law. It is not required to robinlynne Feb 2013 #68

Right, I meant CC. The poster said 'insurance'.. comprehensive collision would cover your car, but.. X_Digger Feb 2013 #70

if you hand your car over to an unlicensed driver, you are responsible for the consequences. robinlynne Feb 2013 #73

What part of 'car thief' did you miss? What you describe would be an authorized user. X_Digger Feb 2013 #75

Your auto liability policy would not pay kudzu22 Feb 2013 #81

I think the point would be to make the insurance cost give one pause before the purchase. WinkyDink Feb 2013 #105

Ahh, generally discourage gun ownership, k n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #109

You realize this HELPS groups like the NRA, right? Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #4

I said it was a beginning... Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #5

Yes, but do you understand my point? I assume you do, but if not... Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #12

Not for 30 bucks a year, they don't BlueStreak Feb 2013 #14

An 'infinite' insurance policy? Why not just require all bullets be made out of jell-o? X_Digger Feb 2013 #17

Don't confuse liability with life insurance BlueStreak Feb 2013 #24

And coverage limits are well-defined. X dollars of coverage. No intentional acts. n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #42

There is no law of the universe that says intentional acts must be excluded BlueStreak Feb 2013 #48

Common law dating back to England. X_Digger Feb 2013 #51

Actually yes there is Recursion Feb 2013 #96

exactly. someone is going to havae to check out the people are to write isnurance.Let the NRA pay fo robinlynne Feb 2013 #22

They don't get free liability insurance drmeow Feb 2013 #16

think auto insurance. robinlynne Feb 2013 #19

And specifically, third party liability coverage. BlueStreak Feb 2013 #26

Different situation davidn3600 Feb 2013 #28

I think you are mistaken Tumbulu Feb 2013 #31

And maybe it means you cannot purchase any weapons or ammunition BlueStreak Feb 2013 #34

"well-regulated" does not equal bans davidn3600 Feb 2013 #36

Good, no one should have guns anyway, I want it priced so high Tumbulu Feb 2013 #144

Only if they take the firearm. jeff47 Feb 2013 #32

If you don't have auto insurance you can not own a car. Because it can hurt others. Of course this r robinlynne Feb 2013 #71

No, you can own a car, you just can't drive it on the public streets. X_Digger Feb 2013 #74

Actually race cars are often insured BlueStreak Feb 2013 #145

I was thinking dirt track.. X_Digger Feb 2013 #154

A friend of mind was a partner on an Indy 500 car BlueStreak Feb 2013 #157

My farm liability policy covers my tractor Tumbulu Feb 2013 #147

Is it a requirement to own the tractor, though? That's the equivalent to the proposed bill.. n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #156

No but who buys tractors anyway? Tumbulu Feb 2013 #180

So it's comparing an apple to a tractor, hehe. X_Digger Feb 2013 #181

It sure is a great way to learn to drive Tumbulu Feb 2013 #187

Absolutely.. you learn quick on a rough road :) n/t X_Digger Feb 2013 #189

And great to learn as a kid, too Tumbulu Feb 2013 #190

Well, it was mostly, "Slower! Push the brake harder, son!" (as the rest pitched square bales) X_Digger Feb 2013 #191

Thanks, I've enjoyed imagining the scenes Tumbulu Feb 2013 #205

Any gun owner with a lick of sense already has liability insurance. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2013 #58

The convicted felons with guns get wrist slaps Tumbulu Feb 2013 #149

A beginning of what? nt Deep13 Feb 2013 #163

Is that why they've been trying to block it for years? /nt Marr Feb 2013 #39

YES! just like cars. get caught without proof pof insurance? ticket or jail. robinlynne Feb 2013 #18

Only on public roads hack89 Feb 2013 #88

still much better than what we have now. I'm sure there is a way to resolve robinlynne Feb 2013 #116

Okay. For all of you who weep and moan and wring your hands and SheilaT Feb 2013 #29

I'm with you on this. nt Tumbulu Feb 2013 #33

Well-Stated. (nt) Paladin Feb 2013 #46

Yup. Shadowflash Feb 2013 #55

you go SheilaT! robinlynne Feb 2013 #77

Another voted to destroy the Second Amendment. Got it. (n/t) derby378 Feb 2013 #82

Right. Just like being required to register our cars SheilaT Feb 2013 #133

Maybe, but... TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #30

No, that's not correct. My homeowner's policy doesn't mention firearms at all. slackmaster Feb 2013 #52

I make everything up-- it's the thing to do here. But... TreasonousBastard Feb 2013 #192

If I shoot someone who I incorrectly perceive as a threat, I will have committed a crime slackmaster Feb 2013 #195

Excellent... (We have personal liability insurance $1M) just in case SoCalDem Feb 2013 #40

Another profit center for the NRA hack89 Feb 2013 #44

If NRA gets into insurance, you can bet they'll start supporting things that reduce their risk. Hoyt Feb 2013 #53

You certainly have an active fantasy life. nt hack89 Feb 2013 #54

I just paid the annual premium on my homeowner's policy, which includes personal liability coverage slackmaster Feb 2013 #49

I also have $10,000 of property coverage on my firearms, it's about $100 a year. madville Feb 2013 #59

So insurance will stop criminals, suicides and mass killers? hack89 Feb 2013 #56

It would require that you take responsibility for your weapon. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #57

Actually the opposite could be true madville Feb 2013 #61

But it would only apply to accidents hack89 Feb 2013 #62

I love this idea! MrScorpio Feb 2013 #60

I like it! ananda Feb 2013 #69

Bingo!!!! goclark Feb 2013 #78

In order to have liability insurance, there first has to be a liability kudzu22 Feb 2013 #79

But negligence and accidents make one liable. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #84

Has anyone ever been held financially liable due to negligence kudzu22 Feb 2013 #85

That's the problem, it needs to change. People are held financially responsible when they have pool Hoyt Feb 2013 #90

Well then why limit it to guns? kudzu22 Feb 2013 #93

Right now we are talking guns. Does being held responsible for your irresponsible behavior, Hoyt Feb 2013 #99

Actually we're talking about insurance kudzu22 Feb 2013 #103

Let's see, you sell gun to a guy for a fistful of cash without background check, they shoot someone? Hoyt Feb 2013 #108

I'm sensing some thread creep kudzu22 Feb 2013 #114

But you are allowed -- and should -- complete the transfer through an FFL. Hoyt Feb 2013 #120

Well I've had the opposite experience kudzu22 Feb 2013 #123

"Most" -- that's not reassuring. You ever met any like this? Hoyt Feb 2013 #124

You can tell from a picture that they don't lock up their guns at night? kudzu22 Feb 2013 #129

And if guns were habitually kept in people's yards, they would be like that too Recursion Feb 2013 #100

There are attractive nuisance cases Recursion Feb 2013 #98

Or you could walk around with a gun, have S&W sticker on car, fly a confederate or tbagger flag, etc Hoyt Feb 2013 #111

No, a visible indoor pool or trampoline is not an A.N. Recursion Feb 2013 #113

NRA vs insurance companies! On HBO? aquart Feb 2013 #86

Make the premium $1000 per month per weapon. Bankrupt the gun nuts. mwrguy Feb 2013 #87

That my feeling too. Make the "carrying" cost to great, especially for certain weapons and over a Hoyt Feb 2013 #91

Your motivation is ignoble; your idea would create obvious unintended consequences. slackmaster Feb 2013 #95

Ah, advocating deprivation of rights under color of law. How unprogressive! friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #110

which MIGHT begin to pay for the damages that these weapons cause (nt) Tumbulu Feb 2013 #151

I want to see them responsible for harm their guns do EVEN IF STOLEN, unless kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #102

Guilty until proven innocent kudzu22 Feb 2013 #117

me too! nt Tumbulu Feb 2013 #152

Maintaining Insurance Is A Grown-Up Activity. Paladin Feb 2013 #107

Well, well, well- You lot have certainly changed your tune! friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #112

Actually, this isn't the same idea as insurance for shootings in self defense. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #140

An impressive list of state names. And the taxpayer cost is $175 billion. libdem4life Feb 2013 #132

Insurance should be required Progressive dog Feb 2013 #134

Pa. Lawmakers Introduce Gun Safety Bills, Including Assault Weapons Ban farminator3000 Feb 2013 #137

How is that supposed to help? HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #155

First step to what? Deep13 Feb 2013 #162

Why do you think poor people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms? Taitertots Feb 2013 #164

You have zero ability to read my mind.... Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #166

You have zero ability to understand the unavoidable consequences of your policy recommendations Taitertots Feb 2013 #167

If they can't afford the insurance or responsibility... Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #171

The only people who can't afford arbitrary and capricious fines are poor people Taitertots Feb 2013 #203

It isn't a fine...Calling it a fine is a Conservative NRA buzz word. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #204

Claiming it isn't a fine is just being intentionally misleading Taitertots Feb 2013 #206

You insure your car in case you loan it to someone and they drive through a house. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #207

You can try to re-frame your scheme however you want, but at the end of the day... Taitertots Feb 2013 #208

it insists that people be responsible and deters no one from gun ownership Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #209

Every gun owner is already criminally and civilly responsible for their actions Taitertots Feb 2013 #210

Wrong. Car owners and house owners are regularly taken to court if they have no insurance. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #211

People can own cars WITHOUT insuring them. beevul Feb 2013 #174

Intersting information on cars in california. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #175

If a californian owns a car, are they required to have it in CA? beevul Feb 2013 #177

I live in California. It is not necessary to register a car here in order to legally own it. slackmaster Feb 2013 #196

It must be registered as a Non-Op...when last this occured to me. libdem4life Feb 2013 #198

You only have to do that with a vehicle that was previously registered to be driven on the street slackmaster Feb 2013 #201

OK. Well, never having had a tractor or a race car...what can I say? Good to know. libdem4life Feb 2013 #202

EXCELLENT!! Insurance is required to drive a car, which is required in most parts of the country madinmaryland Feb 2013 #172

Lawmakers propose liability insurance for U.S. gun owners - CA, MA, MD, CT - hmm. blue states... farminator3000 Feb 2013 #176

Owning a car is "economically discriminatory" as well. libdem4life Feb 2013 #186

Kick & Rec. n/t. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #182

Great idea robertkdem1965_h89 Feb 2013 #188