Him or me

Daylen said:

But rights can be compelled. the often cited city that requires its residents to have arms is not the first govt body to do so. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm not only were people compelled to arm themselves, but to do so with military arms and bayonets.

Click to expand...

It's not a right being compelled. One time-honored power of a government (and one recognized by our Founders) was the power to compel participation in the militia.

HankT said:

I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Are you honestly suggesting that we pay additionally for the right provided by the constitution? Besides if it is proven that you killed or injured a "poor citizen" by a stray bullet you the weapon owner / the person that fired the weapon without checking your surroundings can do prison time, pay restitution, etc. Besides the cost of ownership is prohibitive these days to some as well ... standard CCW weapons cost $200 - $1000 or more, add on top of that the cost of ammunition, holsters, permits ....

Please can we find a few more things that we have to pay for?? After all we are already paying for the privelidge of many to not work, take care of children not ours, undocumented people to work our jobs, and soon to keep people we don't know healthy ...

newgenesis said:

Besides the cost of ownership is prohibitive these days to some as well ... standard CCW weapons cost $200 - $1000 or more, add on top of that the cost of ammunition, holsters, permits ....

Click to expand...

By the time I've finished purchasing everything that I need, I'll have easily spent over a thousand dollars. And of that, $220-$300 could have easily been saved and used for other things if it wasn't for that meddling government and their dog. I mean, the stupid licensing requirements for conceal carry.

HankT said:

I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

newgenesis said:

Are you honestly suggesting that we pay additionally for the right provided by the constitution?

Click to expand...

No. My suggestion is not to "pay additionally" for the RKBA. It's to pay "extra" for proper insurance to deal with the havoc created by stray shots and poor judgments. My suggestion is to allocate something "extra" for assurance of ethical and financial performance by a shooter in the aftermath of a gun firing incident.

newgenesis said:

Besides if it is proven that you killed or injured a "poor citizen" by a stray bullet you the weapon owner / the person that fired the weapon without checking your surroundings can do prison time, pay restitution, etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, rrrrrrrrright. Ever get hit by an uninsured/underinsured auto driver????????
Think of the average cost of that multiplied by a factor of 50 or more. Medical/funeral expenses for a bystander person ravaged by a couple of sloppily-aimed gunshots to the head is a LOT more than the average fender bender.

Why in heck should some poor bystander-slob shot by an excitable goof with a gun who's afraid of dark shadows have to wait years and years to get compensated by the current system? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Some kind of no-fault system would work pretty well. That's current technology that would likely work.

newgenesis said:

Besides the cost of ownership is prohibitive these days to some as well ... standard CCW weapons cost $200 - $1000 or more, add on top of that the cost of ammunition, holsters, permits

Click to expand...

You've got a right to bear arms. Not the right to (Les) Baer arms. . .

I'm sure that our national forefathers would have been satisfied with a modern Hi-Point. You should be too if that's all you can manage . . .

newgenesis said:

Please can we find a few more things that we have to pay for?? After all we are already paying for the privelidge of many to not work, take care of children not ours, undocumented people to work our jobs, and soon to keep people we don't know healthy ...

Click to expand...

Strawman. Called.

Bad Dogs

Working in my chosen profession for over 40 years I have run into many unfriendly dogs both in the street and in someone's yard. With a dog in their own yard, all I do is back off and contact the owner. With a dog in the street, if it is actually brave enough to convince me that it is going to attack, it is a dead dog. I am a large size person and quite capable of taking out most dogs without a weapon. If one will come after me, it is too dangerous to others to be allowed to live. If one of my own dogs got loose and attacked without provocation and I got to the dog before others, it would be DRT.

So far it has not been necessary for me to eliminate a bad dog. I hope it stays that way.

<rant>
I see many people trying to defend an indefensible dog and an indefensible dog owner. Would we defend a gun owner who left his firearms laying around the house where he invited his son's neighborhood friend to come in and play and then said friend shot himself?!?!

Owning a firearm involves responsibility. Owning a dog involves responsibility. These responsibilities include taking steps to ensure the dog doesn't charge at people legally using the property (sidewalk) or run out at someone that is not even on the property (say in the street or the opposing sidewalk). !!!This applies double if the dog is large enough to maul a person!!!

Why do you try to defend these dogs and dog owners? Can we surmise you let your animal run like this? If you do, I hate to tell you, but if your animal charges after me when I'm not even on your property -- you'll soon have a dead dog. If I'm on your sidewalk, I may cross the street to avoid it. If it pursues me and I feel it is about to catch up and it is threatening me -- I'll pull on it and it will be dead. I won't even have a hard time sleeping that night because I killed your pet. DOG OWNERS NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DOGS!!!

This story doesn't involve someone's miniature poodle charging a person. Any grown man that shoots a charging miniature poodle rather than kicking it deserves to be examined. This story involves a dog that sounds to be capable in size of mauling a grown person!

Just because your Pitt or Rot has a calm temperament and doesn't charge people doesn't mean that ALL of them are this way. Read the newspapers -- many of them aren't!

Personally, I'd wait until your dog bit me. That way I can sue your rear end for pain and suffering and punitive damages. You better hope you have home owners insurance because if you don't, I will soon have all the equity you have in your home! I'll take a bite so I can get $5-$25K out of you. I don't think everyone should have to wait before shooting, I just want the money.
</rant>

TO the OP, if your story is true, I commend you.

HankT said:

I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Liberals always want to impose rules, taxes, mandatory insurance on others. Please stay in NJ where you belong.

Jonesy said:

HankT said:

I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Liberals always want to impose rules, taxes, mandatory insurance on others. Please stay in NJ where you belong.

Click to expand...

So, you're calling me a "liberal" from New Jersey, eh? Wrong on both counts, Jonesy. Where do you get this stuff from, T-hawk?

Op,

Sounds to me you did just fine. Protected yourself from what appeared to be a threat. No one here was there...so all the grief they're giving you is just them talking out their asses, as usual.

1. Your stand on the government forcing folks to buy insurance to be able to exercise their right is a [strike]liberal[/strike] progressive idea.

2. Your stand on subsidizing the insurance for those who cannot afford it is a [strike]liberal[/strike] progressive idea.

3. The lack of a location in your profile leaves us guessing, so based on your [strike]liberal[/strike] progressive ideology, he incorrectly guessed NJ. Well, maybe incorrectly.

Thank god Mr. Postulate is back.

HankT said:

No. My suggestion is not to "pay additionally" for the RKBA. It's to pay "extra" for proper insurance to deal with the havoc created by stray shots and poor judgments. My suggestion is to allocate something "extra" for assurance of ethical and financial performance by a shooter in the aftermath of a gun firing incident.

Click to expand...

Simply silly. AND limits the Right by Class of citizen. It infringes.

"Extra" insurance isn't relevant. SD is the fault of the aggressor, not the fault of the defender.

OldCurlyWolf said:

Working in my chosen profession for over 40 years I have run into many unfriendly dogs both in the street and in someone's yard. With a dog in their own yard, all I do is back off and contact the owner. With a dog in the street, if it is actually brave enough to convince me that it is going to attack, it is a dead dog. I am a large size person and quite capable of taking out most dogs without a weapon. If one will come after me, it is too dangerous to others to be allowed to live. If one of my own dogs got loose and attacked without provocation and I got to the dog before others, it would be DRT.

So far it has not been necessary for me to eliminate a bad dog. I hope it stays that way.

Click to expand...

+1

When I walk my large dog, I carry.

One reason is for protection from other dogs.
The OTHER reason is just in case my dog becomes an unmanageable threat to other people.

wrightme said:

Simply silly. AND limits the Right by Class of citizen. It infringes.

"Extra" insurance isn't relevant. SD is the fault of the aggressor, not the fault of the defender.

Click to expand...

+1, in Arizona, if you are commiting a crime and someone adversly loses thier life due to the commission of your crime, you are charged with murder regardless of whether or not you pulled the trigger. I may be wrong in this statement but that was how I understood it. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood.

Sorry if I see mandatory "gun owner liability insurance" as a very very slippery slope to progressives goal of removing the guns from our hands. It is nothing more than a nudge through our wallets to disarming the citizenry.:cuss:

wrightme said:

+1

When I walk my large dog, I carry.

One reason is for protection from other dogs.
The OTHER reason is just in case my dog becomes an unmanageable threat to other people.

Click to expand...

What kind of dog to you have, wrightme?

HankT said:

What kind of dog to you have, wrightme?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Why do you feel it matters? Suffice it to say that it is NOT a breed pointed out as the one with the most attacks on humans. But, as he IS very strong, I take his training and demeanor as my responsibility. All dog owners should, no matter the breed of dog they own. Are YOU a dog owner?

newgenesis said:

Sorry if I see mandatory "gun owner liability insurance" as a very very slippery slope to progressives goal of removing the guns from our hands. It is nothing more than a nudge through our wallets to disarming the citizenry.:cuss:

Click to expand...

It's called, turning a right into a privilege, until that privilege can then be removed at some future time. I agree with your assessment.

SouthernBoy said:

It's called, turning a right into a privilege, until that privilege can then be removed at some future time. I agree with your assessment.

Click to expand...

1. Require insurance. (Camel's nose.)
2. Base the premiums on the type of gun, the degree of danger it presents.
3. Require owners to certify what kinds of guns they have to make sure they are not cheating on #2.
4. Require the insurance agent to inspect the guns because folks keep cheating.
5. Require the agents to record makes, models, and serial numbers to make sure they aren't cheating.
6. Require that the government keep this paperwork for a short period of time and not allow it to be used for anything else.
7. Increase the amount of time the records are kept.
8. Allow the use of the records to help investigate crimes against children. After all, it's for the chill'en.
9. Well, as long as we have the data, why not use it to solve other crimes.
10. Gun crime rises because of a cyclic downturn in the economy, and all crime goes up when the economy goes down. So guns are collected from "at risk" gun owners (unemployed, poor, otherwise unfortunate).
11. Gun crime goes up because those who need protection most have had their guns taken away "for their own good." So more gun owners need to be protected from their guns.
12. Well, heck, let's take 'em all. After all, we know where they are.
13. Well, heck, let's take other rights.
14. Well, heck, let's take 'em all. (Camel's ass.)

eye95 said:

1. Require insurance. (Camel's nose.)
2. Base the premiums on the type of gun, the degree of danger it presents.
3. Require owners to certify what kinds of guns they have to make sure they are not cheating on #2.
4. Require the insurance agent to inspect the guns because folks keep cheating.
5. Require the agents to record makes, models, and serial numbers to make sure they aren't cheating.
6. Require that the government keep this paperwork for a short period of time and not allow it to be used for anything else.
7. Increase the amount of time the records are kept.
8. Allow the use of the records to help investigate crimes against children. After all, it's for the chill'en.
9. Well, as long as we have the data, why not use it to solve other crimes.
10. Gun crime rises because of a cyclic downturn in the economy, and all crime goes up when the economy goes down. So guns are collected from "at risk" gun owners (unemployed, poor, otherwise unfortunate).
11. Gun crime goes up because those who need protection most have had their guns taken away "for their own good." So more gun owners need to be protected from their guns.
12. Well, heck, let's take 'em all. After all, we know where they are.
13. Well, heck, let's take other rights.
14. Well, heck, let's take 'em all. (Camel's ass.)

Click to expand...

Excellent timetable scenario!