• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Owners Insurance

Should gun owners be forced to carry insurance?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 26.3%
  • No

    Votes: 27 71.1%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    38
No idea should be opposed, because you don't like the politics or the agenda of a person who likes it and writes favorably about it. That's just silly. It should be opposed if its a bad idea. But it does explain the mentality of the NRA, doesn't it.
I oppose any scheme that is advanced by someone who is clearly and blatantly a gun banner. because when they propose a scheme involving guns, the ultimate goal is to ban guns.
 
I oppose any scheme that is advanced by someone who is clearly and blatantly a gun banner. because when they propose a scheme involving guns, the ultimate goal is to ban guns.
It does not even matter what their 'next goal' is, unless they have the power unilaterally to achieve it, and if they do, your opposition is utterly irrelevant this time as well. This writer either has a good idea here or he does not, but it is not just his idea.

This is exactly why we end up with nothing but 'thoughts and prayers' every single time these senseless deaths occur. That, and of course people like you have zero incentive to give a crap about these tragedies. Gun lovers just don't care. You have to have something to lose, if you don't come up with something more than 'thoughts and prayers'

Those toys of yours are all over the place, and they are destroying way too many lives and the rest of us have to live with the consequences.
 
It does not even matter what their 'next goal' is, unless they have the power unilaterally to achieve it, and if they do, your opposition is utterly irrelevant this time as well. This writer either has a good idea here or he does not, but it is not just his idea.

This is exactly why we end up with nothing but 'thoughts and prayers' every single time these senseless deaths occur. That, and of course people like you have zero incentive to give a crap about these tragedies. Gun lovers just don't care. You have to have something to lose, if you don't come up with something more than 'thoughts and prayers.
why would ANYONE who opposes gun bans support anything gun banners see as a step closer to a gun ban. And stop your moronic and sanctimonious bullshit that we don't give a crap about these tragedies. Gun banners seem to LOVE reading about tragedies in order to use them to bash gun ownership. This complete dishonest nonsense that if we don't support gun banning schemes that are at best, pretend efforts to stop crime-we don't care about the victims is horse shit. Liberals always want someone else to pay the price for their pandering and feel good schemes
 
why would ANYONE who opposes gun bans support anything gun banners see as a step closer to a gun ban. And stop your moronic and sanctimonious bullshit that we don't give a crap about these tragedies. Gun banners seem to LOVE reading about tragedies in order to use them to bash gun ownership. This complete dishonest nonsense that if we don't support gun banning schemes that are at best, pretend efforts to stop crime-we don't care about the victims is horse shit. Liberals always want someone else to pay the price for their pandering and feel good schemes
But you don't. I have seen no evidence that the gun huggers care who gets killed, how many get killed, where they are dying, or why they are dying.

This idea isn't even close to a gun 'ban'. It just means you have to pull out your wallet and decide what its actually worth to you to live in the Wild West you are creating.

I see a lot of gun huggers who want the rest of us to pay the medical bills while you to put your toys in everyone's hands, let them do anything they want with your toys. Weapons of mass destruction everywhere we turn,
 
Last edited:
But you don't. I have seen no evidence that the gun huggers care who gets killed, how many get killed, where they are dying, or why they are dying.

This idea isn't even close to a gun 'ban'. It just means you have to pull out your wallet and decide what its actually worth to you to live in the Wild West you are creating.
Except the idea is not practical, likely not constitutional, and supported by fascist rhetoric...yeah. Great idea.
 
Except the idea is not practical, likely not constitutional, and supported by fascist rhetoric...yeah. Great idea.
they always want someone else to pay the price for their idiotic schemes
 
But you don't. I have seen no evidence that the gun huggers care who gets killed, how many get killed, where they are dying, or why they are dying.

This idea isn't even close to a gun 'ban'. It just means you have to pull out your wallet and decide what its actually worth to you to live in the Wild West you are creating.

I see a lot of gun huggers who want the rest of us to pay the medical bills while you to put your toys in everyone's hands, let them do anything they want with your toys. Weapons of mass destruction everywhere we turn,
I want people who cause unlawful harm to others to pay. When you call guns toys or "weapons of mass destruction" you prove you have an irrational hatred of gun ownership and based on that, we'd be idiots to support any gun scheme someone like you wants
 
I want people who cause unlawful harm to others to pay. When you call guns toys or "weapons of mass destruction" you prove you have an irrational hatred of gun ownership and based on that, we'd be idiots to support any gun scheme someone like you wants
You have an irrational fear of anything that inhibits anyone's bonding time with their weapons. Everything you see you see through that lense. If a teacher were to take a pistol out of the hands of a ten year old kid sitting at his desk showing it around while they were reading Pippi Longstocking. , You'd call it a 'govt gun grab' and file a lawsuit. If you found out that the teacher voted for Obama, you'd want her fired because its just the first step!!.
 
You have an irrational fear of anything that inhibits anyone's bonding time with their weapons. Everything you see you see through that lense. If a teacher were to take a pistol out of the hands of a ten year old kid sitting at his desk showing it around while they were reading Pippi Longstocking. , You'd call it a 'govt gun grab' and file a lawsuit. If you found out that the teacher voted for Obama, you'd want her fired because its just the first step!!.
Friday night. I'm with ya, Bro.
 
You have an irrational fear of anything that inhibits anyone's bonding time with their weapons. Everything you see you see through that lense. If a teacher were to take a pistol out of the hands of a ten year old kid sitting at his desk showing it around while they were reading Pippi Longstocking. , You'd call it a 'govt gun grab' and file a lawsuit. If you found out that the teacher voted for Obama, you'd want her fired because its just the first step!!.
Just stop with that stupid psychobabble. You hate gun owners and you hate the fact that the gun issue-which Democrats adopted in order to pretend they were doing something about crime while not wanting to upset major constituencies (who saw a real crack down on crime as "racist")-has caused many gun owners to vote against Democrats. Your claims about me are blatant lies
 
Just stop with that stupid psychobabble. You hate gun owners and you hate the fact that the gun issue-which Democrats adopted in order to pretend they were doing something about crime while not wanting to upset major constituencies (who saw a real crack down on crime as "racist")-has caused many gun owners to vote against Democrats. Your claims about me are blatant lies
Your claims about me are blatant lies. Gun owners are not the problem. Radical gun hugger zealots are the problem. Gun owners often see common sense gun regulation as logical, even vital to curb violence. They don't object to gun registration, back ground checks, and some limits on what kinds of weapons are tolerable. and they don't necessarily want guns in schools, in courtrooms, in the city council meetings, in movie theaters, etc. There are gun owners who think the NRA has gone way too far. They think compromise on these issues is a good thing..
 
Your claims about me are blatant lies. Gun owners are not the problem. Radical gun hugger zealots are the problem. Gun owners often see common sense gun regulation as logical, even vital to curb violence. They don't object to gun registration, back ground checks, and some limits on what kinds of weapons are tolerable. and they don't necessarily want guns in schools, in courtrooms, in the city council meetings, in movie theaters, etc. There are gun owners who think the NRA has gone way too far. They think compromise on these issues is a good thing..
Yawn. you want complacent sheep to help you get to gun bans. We know what you are about and what you want
 
Yawn. you want complacent sheep to help you get to gun bans. We know what you are about and what you want
We all know what you want You want your toys, and you want to play with them whenever and wherever you want and you don't give a shit about how many people die, so you can have them. You just don't care if they bleed, or how many holes they bleed from as long as you get to stock up.
 
We all know what you want You want your toys, and you want to play with them whenever and wherever you want and you don't give a shit about how many people die, so you can have them. You just don't care if they bleed, or how many holes they bleed from as long as you get to stock up.
I guess you just cannot figure it out: when you call guns toys and claim gun owners want to play with them, and then you wonder why gun owners don't support any scheme you advance that involves harassing gun owners. You love reading about mass shootings so you can blame gun owners for the carnage and then pretend your schemes designed to harass lawful gun ownership, will actually stop premeditated murder.

Suggestion-if want to actually sound convincing that your ideas are something other than designed to harass lawful gun ownership, don't make stupid comments such as calling guns toys or calling gun advocates "gun huggers". Such actions prove what you really hate, and it is not criminals
 
I guess you just cannot figure it out: when you call guns toys and claim gun owners want to play with them, and then you wonder why gun owners don't support any scheme you advance that involves harassing gun owners. You love reading about mass shootings so you can blame gun owners for the carnage and then pretend your schemes designed to harass lawful gun ownership, will actually stop premeditated murder.

Suggestion-if want to actually sound convincing that your ideas are something other than designed to harass lawful gun ownership, don't make stupid comments such as calling guns toys or calling gun advocates "gun huggers". Such actions prove what you really hate, and it is not criminals
You love to read about gore and blood behind every single death, as proof that your fetish is biggest baddest fetish. Suggestion, if you want to sound like you actually care about the lives lost to gun violence, don't make stupid comments about 'gun haters' unless you know what you are talking about. Such actions prove that you really do not care about those lives lost every day to one bullet or twenty bullets.

See I can do this too.
 
You love to read about gore and blood behind every single death, as proof that your fetish is biggest baddest fetish. Suggestion, if you want to sound like you actually care about the lives lost to gun violence, don't make stupid comments about 'gun haters' unless you know what you are talking about. Such actions prove that you really do not care about those lives lost every day to one bullet or twenty bullets.

See I can do this too.
that doesn't even make sense. You call gun owners gun huggers, "fetishists" and call guns- toys. I am not trying to get you to go along with some scheme I pretend will make the world better -you are, yet you brilliantly think the way to get those of us who own guns, to agree with your scheme-is to insult us and call us "fetishists?

Secondly your claim is moronic because gun ownership is not helped by criminal actions involving guns. Your side loves having such incidents available because without them, there would be absolutely no support for the faux crime control schemes people like you push
 
I oppose any scheme that is advanced by someone who is clearly and blatantly a gun banner. because when they propose a scheme involving guns, the ultimate goal is to ban guns.

Yes (privately owned guns that is)

(though as discussed, I would allow exemptions).
 
How is it you don't understand that 'tort law' is nothing but a series of statutes. It is legislators that created that 'law' and legislators who can change that law. If a legislature decides to require insurance companies to cover losses in order to sell their product, then they have two choices, they can cover those losses or they cannot sell their product. Hell they can require insurance companies to cover the loss, AND prohibit them from raising rates on any individual policy holder secondary to such a claim, if they feel like it. then its about absorbing those loss risks in the actual policy which raise the costs on consumers.
None of this is correct.
I have been 'setting aside' the constitutional question all thread long, because we do have to avoid the very problem you describe. I am not sure how to structure this, myself, to pass constitutional muster post Heller. Its going to be very tricky. I still have to do more reading to find a persuasive constitutional argument with in the current. Your constitutional 'case' is a lot better than what I want it to be.
There is no constitutional argument to be made. You would be required to amend the constitution in order to implement mandatory insurance. Good luck.
 
Here's an idea. There is NO Constitutionally guaranteed right to SELL arms, so why don't we simply ask gun sellers (at all levels, gun shows included) to pay a fee for the right to sell arms. Sure they would pass that fee onto the customer, but the fee is not on the OWNERSHIP (the right to "keep and bear") so the fee cannot be Constitutionally barred.

Meanwhile it generates a source of revenue for the larger society to offset the bad effects seen from massive gun ownership (higher rates of gun homicide, suicide, mass-shootings that the US enjoys compared to any other developed nation on earth and correlative with the higher than average gun ownership rates we also enjoy).

Seems like a win-win. The society is benefitted and the folks who have a serious gun hobby are still guaranteed their rights to ownership.
 
Here's an idea. There is NO Constitutionally guaranteed right to SELL arms, so why don't we simply ask gun sellers (at all levels, gun shows included) to pay a fee for the right to sell arms. Sure they would pass that fee onto the customer, but the fee is not on the OWNERSHIP (the right to "keep and bear") so the fee cannot be Constitutionally barred.

Meanwhile it generates a source of revenue for the larger society to offset the bad effects seen from massive gun ownership (higher rates of gun homicide, suicide, mass-shootings that the US enjoys compared to any other developed nation on earth and correlative with the higher than average gun ownership rates we also enjoy).

Seems like a win-win. The society is benefitted and the folks who have a serious gun hobby are still guaranteed their rights to ownership.

A tax on gun sales...I think that would fail a legal challenge
 
A tax on gun sales...I think that would fail a legal challenge

It's not a tax on the owner.

Gun owners already FREE PAY the cost of the gun + PROFIT to the gun manufacturer and seller and state and federal sales taxes.

There is literally nothing that would violate the Constitutional standing as currently interpretted for the second amendment.
 
Here's an idea. There is NO Constitutionally guaranteed right to SELL arms, so why don't we simply ask gun sellers (at all levels, gun shows included) to pay a fee for the right to sell arms. Sure they would pass that fee onto the customer, but the fee is not on the OWNERSHIP (the right to "keep and bear") so the fee cannot be Constitutionally barred.

Meanwhile it generates a source of revenue for the larger society to offset the bad effects seen from massive gun ownership (higher rates of gun homicide, suicide, mass-shootings that the US enjoys compared to any other developed nation on earth and correlative with the higher than average gun ownership rates we also enjoy).

Seems like a win-win. The society is benefitted and the folks who have a serious gun hobby are still guaranteed their rights to ownership.
you're on record wanting to ban firearms ownership or severely restrict it. thus your scheme is designed to get closer to your goal. and you are wrong about the constitutionality of the nonsense your peddle. So NO.
 
It's not a tax on the owner.

Gun owners already FREE PAY the cost of the gun + PROFIT to the gun manufacturer and seller and state and federal sales taxes.

There is literally nothing that would violate the Constitutional standing as currently interpretted for the second amendment.
You're wrong. restricting people from being able to obtain firearms violates the second amendment where exactly would congress get this power anyway?
 
Here's an idea. There is NO Constitutionally guaranteed right to SELL arms, so why don't we simply ask gun sellers (at all levels, gun shows included) to pay a fee for the right to sell arms. Sure they would pass that fee onto the customer, but the fee is not on the OWNERSHIP (the right to "keep and bear") so the fee cannot be Constitutionally barred.

Meanwhile it generates a source of revenue for the larger society to offset the bad effects seen from massive gun ownership (higher rates of gun homicide, suicide, mass-shootings that the US enjoys compared to any other developed nation on earth and correlative with the higher than average gun ownership rates we also enjoy).

Seems like a win-win. The society is benefitted and the folks who have a serious gun hobby are still guaranteed their rights to ownership.
Unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd amendment. And the fee is no different than a poll tax, which is unconstitutional as well.
 
Unconstitutional as it violates the 2nd amendment. And the fee is no different than a poll tax, which is unconstitutional as well.
the gun banners think that these proposals are new and unheard of. In reality, I have seen these schemes for decades.
 
Back
Top Bottom