• 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!

San Jose to consider gun insurance ordinance

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,570
Reaction score
6,361
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The San Jose mayor says he believes a proposed gun ordinance will become controversial – The council will take up the measure at its meeting on Tuesday.

That measure includes a requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo spoke at a news conference on Monday about the gun harm reduction ordinance before the council Tuesday. At issue is requiring every household with a gun owner to have liability insurance coverage for each firearm and to pay an annual fee of $25.

Liccardo says taxpayers subsidize gun ownership paying out about 40 million a year to deal with medical, police and fire services due to gun violence.

He says they are prepared for a legal fight. Already, the council has received several letters in opposition to the ordinance, such as this one that says in part:

“Your attempt at gun registration seems to be a way to begin a gun registry… that is not a good idea, since it endangers the legal gun owners.”
“Please don’t tax a constitutional right.”
Click to expand...

www.kron4.com

San Jose to consider gun insurance ordinance

The San Jose mayor says he believes a proposed gun ordinance will become controversial – The council will take up the measure at its meeting on Tuesday.
www.kron4.com www.kron4.com

The mayor hit it out of the park when he said taxpayers ALREADY subsidize gun ownership by paying for the damage caused by gun violence. It is the same argument made for those that say we shouldn't offer universal healthcare. We ALREADY subsidize healthcare when people wo any money or income go to the ER needing life-saving surgery or procedures.

This makes too much sense. If gun owners want the right to own a firearm, they should be paying their due instead of putting it on the taxpayers who are being forced to pay due to idealogues making our streets so dangerous!
 
Crovax said:
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who don't legally own guns. This law is only aimed to supresss legal gun ownership
Click to expand...

Wrong. Who is paying for the damage caused by mass shootings - the medical bills, and the funeral bills?

The shooter?

The company that made the gun?

The store that sold the gun?
 
Crovax said:
Wrong this constitutes an undue burden on exercising a right, akin to a poll tax
Click to expand...

Answer the question. Who pays for the damage caused by a mass shooting.
 
Bucky said:
www.kron4.com

San Jose to consider gun insurance ordinance

The San Jose mayor says he believes a proposed gun ordinance will become controversial – The council will take up the measure at its meeting on Tuesday.
www.kron4.com www.kron4.com

The mayor hit it out of the park when he said taxpayers ALREADY subsidize gun ownership by paying for the damage caused by gun violence. It is the same argument made for those that say we shouldn't offer universal healthcare. We ALREADY subsidize healthcare when people wo any money or income go to the ER needing life-saving surgery or procedures.

This makes too much sense. If gun owners want the right to own a firearm, they should be paying their due instead of putting it on the taxpayers who are being forced to pay due to idealogues making our streets so dangerous!
Click to expand...

With the hack right wing court, it won't matter, nothing will stick regarding gun control
 
Bucky said:
www.kron4.com

San Jose to consider gun insurance ordinance

The San Jose mayor says he believes a proposed gun ordinance will become controversial – The council will take up the measure at its meeting on Tuesday.
www.kron4.com www.kron4.com

The mayor hit it out of the park when he said taxpayers ALREADY subsidize gun ownership by paying for the damage caused by gun violence. It is the same argument made for those that say we shouldn't offer universal healthcare. We ALREADY subsidize healthcare when people wo any money or income go to the ER needing life-saving surgery or procedures.

This makes too much sense. If gun owners want the right to own a firearm, they should be paying their due instead of putting it on the taxpayers who are being forced to pay due to idealogues making our streets so dangerous!
Click to expand...
it is a moronic idea because of the following

1) the people most likely to have to pay for this insurance are the least likely to cause harm with the firearms they own. Since criminals can neither own firearms legally (and thus a fifth amendment bar) nor will they buy insurance, the honest gun owners are essentially being taxed to pay for the crimes of others

2) no insurance policy I know of will pay off for intentionally criminal behavior

3) it is unconstitutional
 
Crovax said:
Unconstitutional laws rarely stick no matter the makeup of the SCOTUS
Click to expand...
lawmakers who pass stuff that is clearly unconstitutional, should be personally liable for the costs caused by such unconstitutional measures.
 
TurtleDude said:
it is a moronic idea because of the following

1) the people most likely to have to pay for this insurance are the least likely to cause harm with the firearms they own. Since criminals can neither own firearms legally (and thus a fifth amendment bar) nor will they buy insurance, the honest gun owners are essentially being taxed to pay for the crimes of others

2) no insurance policy I know of will pay off for intentionally criminal behavior

3) it is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

You drive on roads you didn't pay for....

You use services that you didn't pay for....

You act like taxes are a bad thing.

You do realize car insurance is required to drive? And that insurance likely pays for mistakes caused by other people.
 
TurtleDude said:
lawmakers who pass stuff that is clearly unconstitutional, should be personally liable for the costs caused by such unconstitutional measures.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, it would cause a chilling effect on creating some new laws
 
Bucky said:
You drive on roads you didn't pay for....

You use services that you didn't pay for....

You act like taxes are a bad thing.

You do realize car insurance is required to drive? And that insurance likely pays for mistakes caused by other people.
Click to expand...
you are confused as usual. The taxes that pay for the roads are usually gas taxes. the more you drive, the more gas you buy, the more you pay. Car insurance is based on risk. A kid with three accidents in 2 years is going to pay far more than say what my late father did-he had one accident in 64 years of driving and one traffic offense. Your scheme is the exact opposite-making people who don't do anything wrong pay for those who do. btw, most homeowners insurance cover against accidents
 
TurtleDude said:
good, I want people who pass crap that is obviously unconstitutional to be in the poor house permanently.
Click to expand...

Of course the irony here is that a federal law to hold state legislators liable for unconstitutional laws would be itself unconstitutional
 
Crovax said:
Of course the irony here is that a federal law to hold state legislators liable for unconstitutional laws would be itself unconstitutional
Click to expand...
we could pass an amendment! the constitution does not prevent a state from passing such a law or the federal government from passing such a law as to federal law makers. (Yeah I know, congress would never do that)
 
Crovax said:
Wrong this constitutes an undue burden on exercising a right, akin to a poll tax
Click to expand...
You don't vote with your gun. Not yet anyway. Although some tried.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are confused as usual. The taxes that pay for the roads are usually gas taxes. the more you drive, the more gas you buy, the more you pay. Car insurance is based on risk. A kid with three accidents in 2 years is going to pay far more than say what my late father did-he had one accident in 64 years of driving and one traffic offense. Your scheme is the exact opposite-making people who don't do anything wrong pay for those who do. btw, most homeowners insurance cover against accidents
Click to expand...
" ... most homeowners insurance cover against accidents"

Horseshit. See State Farm. Deny, deny, deny. You know about that stuff don't you mr "attorney"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom