Him or me

[newgenesis]

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.)

+1 ... Agree with this fully

 

[sultan62]

1. Require insurance. (Camel's nose.)
2. Base the premiums on the type of gun, the degree of danger it presents. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
3. Require owners to certify what kinds of guns they have to make sure they are not cheating on #2. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
4. Require the insurance agent to inspect the guns because folks keep cheating. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
5. Require the agents to record makes, models, and serial numbers to make sure they aren't cheating. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
6. Require that the government keep this paperwork for a short period of time and not allow it to be used for anything else. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
7. Increase the amount of time the records are kept. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
8. Allow the use of the records to help investigate crimes against children. After all, it's for the chill'en. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
9. Well, as long as we have the data, why not use it to solve other crimes. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
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). Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
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. Due to additional administrative costs, premiums rise.
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.)

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[sultan62]

SNIP
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.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that day in English class. What was the difference between 'additionally', and 'extra' again?

 

[vt800c]

What????

"pay additionally" -- pay "extra"

What is the difference? it's still paying!

Yeah, rrrrrrrrright. Ever get hit by an uninsured/underinsured auto driver???????? .

Yes, I have. we both lived. I bet there are alot more uninsured drivers out there than bystanders who get shot at. Risk mitigation involves the equation of the amount of damage a loss incurrs times the probability of it happening over a given time period. Using conservative estimates: Loss caused by wrongful death: $5.0 million. Odds of it happening in a given period of time: one in 5 million. Amount of money that should be invested by any individual to ofset the cost $0.01 per year. That is the math. care to check my work? .[/QUOTE]

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.

Why should I pay for the actions of "an excitable goof with a gun"? how about holding me responsible for my actions and holding him responsible for his? Remember, it takes a village to raise an idiot.

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 . . . .

I know George Washington used to raise marijuana and brew whiskey. I bet if he had a modern Hi-Point He'd pee his pants with excitement. If he could have outfitted the revolutionary army with Bushmasters and AR-15's, it would have been a damn short war! I'd bet the National Forefathers would have a GREAT TIME at a modern range, shooting all sorts of fun things. And then we'd go to a bar afterwords and have a few drinks!

Strawman. Called.

Liberal Idiot. Recognized.

 

[eye95]

I was with you.

Right up until your name-calling.

 

[wrightme]

I was with you.

Right up until your name-calling.

I am with you.

 

[HankT]

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.

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

What does it "infringe?"

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

And a gunshot hole in the head of an uninvolved but unluckily nearby and innocent citizen who is shot by a round from the gun of a defender who cannot or wil not abide by one or more of the standard rules of gun safety . . . is the fault of the defender.

Insurance is a common modern technology to assure financial responsibility of the person who inadvertantly or incompetently causes harm to another. It's a capitalist concept that works reasonably well. Certainly better than letting society or the injured unfairly pick up the tab. You may well have used it--with your home, car, etc. . . .

 

[eye95]

Ed Furillo: Shut up! Just shut up! He doesn't get it! He'll never get it! It's been 4 hours! The cows can tape something by now! Forget about it please!

..

 

[sultan62]

This has become an argument based on principle. HankT's is very clearly different from most of ours, or at the very least mine. I see no benefit to continuing the argument.

 

[wrightme]

What does it "infringe?"

Cost increase to exercise a Right. You DO understand that insurance costs money, correct?

And a gunshot hole in the head of an uninvolved but unluckily nearby and innocent citizen who is shot by a round from the gun of a defender who cannot or wil not abide by one or more of the standard rules of gun safety . . . is the fault of the defender.

No, it is the fault of the criminal who the citizen is defending against.

Insurance is a common modern technology to assure financial responsibility of the person who inadvertantly or incompetently causes harm to another. It's a capitalist concept that works reasonably well. Certainly better than letting society or the injured unfairly pick up the tab. You may well have used it--with your home, car, etc. . . .

And plenty of persons already carry such insurance. There is no need to create an extra cost as a requirement to exercise a Right. But I am sure you can find an audience for your viewpoint......over with the VPC.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Mr. Hank T is on a board that is incompatible with his political view. It is my suggestion the he go somewhere else. It is also my suggestion that from this time forward all others on this board ignore his posts. I know I will do so.:cuss:

 

[sultan62]

Mr. Hank T is on a board that is incompatible with his political view. It is my suggestion the he go somewhere else. It is also my suggestion that from this time forward all others on this board ignore his posts. I know I will do so.:cuss:

Same here.

 

[MamaLiberty]

Just my 2 cents...

Insurance is viable, available and a good idea. It doesn't "prevent" anything, however, merely giving an additional avenue for people to work out differences and compensate those who are due restitution after a problem occurs. That works for all kinds of things and doesn't require government involvement at all.

There are hundreds of thousands of people now carrying in almost every part of the country. Very, VERY few random or negligent shootings occur anywhere. Criminal activity is completely unrelated.

Government involvement is a stupid idea. Google "war on drugs," etc.

Involving government with some sort of "mandatory" insurance would screw up all of our lives in ways we can't even imagine. "Mandatory" auto insurance has not eliminated auto accidents... nor has it provided a panacea for those who are hit by uninsured drivers. Currently, only the government collects any funds from those uninsured and the taxpayers are often forced to pay the expenses.

Aren't we adult enough to run our own lives and accept the risks that abound in everyday life? Utopia and perfect security are not an option.

 

[HankT]

Mr. Hank T is on a board that is incompatible with his political view. It is my suggestion the he go somewhere else.

No, OCW, my political view is quite compatible with this board. I believe in the right protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I own guns, I buy guns, I carry guns, I read about guns, I collect guns, I learn about guns, I shoot guns, I appreciate gun technologies, I talk guns and I encourage others to do the same ....

Basically, I'm somewhat of a gun guy. And a strong 2A guy.

What in tarnation makes you think this board is incompatible with my views?

This is a discussion forum, OCW. One of the best discussion forums I've ever had the privilege to participate in .

OCW, I LIKE OCDO. I learn a lot here . . .

If you disagree with anything I say, OCW, feel free to discuss the points of disagreement.

 

[eye95]

No, OCW, my political view is quite compatible with this board. I believe in the right protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I own guns, I buy guns, I carry guns, I read about guns, I collect guns, I learn about guns, I shoot guns, I appreciate gun technologies, I talk guns and I encourage others to do the same ....

Basically, I'm somewhat of a gun guy. And a strong 2A guy.

What in tarnation makes you think this board is incompatible with my views?

This is a discussion forum, OCW. One of the best discussion forums I've ever had the privilege to participate in .

OCW, I LIKE OCDO. I learn a lot here . . .

If you disagree with anything I say, OCW, feel free to discuss the points of disagreement.

I find your opinion on the government being able to require us to buy insurance to be incompatible with the 2A. Also, I perceive OCDO to generally be a pro-Liberty site, and your opinions, IMO, run counter-Liberty.

I do wonder why you bother posting here, but don't question whether you should or shouldn't. If I held your views, I wouldn't.

You are generally civil in your postings, so, while I may disagree with almost everything you post, I don't feel the need to ignore you.

We should hold out hope that we can adjust your axioms, although I am pessimistic.

Just my 2 cents on your posting on OCDO.

 

[Ruger95]

I see only one way to resolve this dispute and thats break out the dueling pistols. Come on guys...:monkey

 

[Coded-Dude]

 

[eye95]

One of those two smileys needs to say, "Moving on."

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

I see only one way to resolve this dispute and thats break out the dueling pistols. Come on guys...:monkey

SA. I don't Think So!!:cuss:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

a rapid approach in itself is not enough.

The approach may not be, but the attitude of the approach definitely would be enough. A dog that I am not familiar with is coming towards me...you can tell when it is an act of friend or foe.