San Jose to consider gun insurance ordinance

[H B Lowrey]

Who is Kyle and what does he have to do with a San Jose city law?

He has as much to do with it as you and Turtle here.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

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

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!

I support this plan, sounds fine!
(for starters)

 

[TurtleDude]

" ... most homeowners insurance cover against accidents"

Horseshit. See State Farm. Deny, deny, deny. You know about that stuff don't you mr "attorney"?

Your stupid rantings are just that. Others will school you on your lack of knowledge

 

[H B Lowrey]

the butt hurt that verdict imposed on some is going to be heard for years

Like Don's loss?

 

[TurtleDude]

I support this plan, sounds fine!
(for starters)

you support any scheme that harasses lawful gun ownership

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who don't legally own guns.

Disagree.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Your stupid rantings are just that. Others will school you on your lack of knowledge

You certainly cannot. Go fondle your gun.

 

[Chomsky]

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

Same argument applies to vehicle insurance though, and we still have that.

(yeah, I know driving is a 'privilege' rather than a right. But it was the main thrust of your argument I was addressing, not the technicalities)

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

True. Again, including driving illegally. Which goes to my earlier point, above.

3) it is unconstitutional

You know, this was my first reaction. I suspect it would be un-Constitutional due to gun ownership being a right. But, I defer to your expertise on this. This is not my venue, despite my interest in Constitutional argument.

 

[H B Lowrey]

you support any scheme that harasses lawful gun ownership

No one's harassing you, grow up and stop with the incessant whining.

 

[Crovax]

Disagree.

Do illegal gun owners commit most gun crime?

U.S. Rep. John Faso says he opposes some gun-control measures because they target the wrong people. Laws that limit the

www.politifact.com

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Do illegal gun owners commit most gun crime?

U.S. Rep. John Faso says he opposes some gun-control measures because they target the wrong people. Laws that limit the

www.politifact.com

Ethan Crumbley and his parents disagree Crovax.
As does James Holmes.
As does Stephen Paddock.

Now what bruh?

 

[OrphanSlug]

We will have to see how this plays out against likely challenge if passed.

The idea of gun owners and/or concealed carry insurance is not new but what is a bit untested is legislating a requirement to have the such insurance. Given the current political leanings of the Supreme Court I would not put up some anti-gun slam-dunk 'I am right all of you are wrong' argument as this coming up spring is likely to see some very interesting rulings from the court I doubt everyone is really prepared for. Including a few things already decided a very different way.

 

[RF667799]

Ethan Crumbley and his parents disagree Crovax.
As does James Holmes.
As does Stephen Paddock.

Now what bruh?

I suppose those were people who were not prohibited from owning a gun, who nevertheless used one in a crime?

That's an amazing rebuttal to whoever claimed that all gun crimes are committed by previously prohibited persons.

Who made that claim?

@Rich2018 come here and see a good example of a strawman.

 

[Rich2018]

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

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!

I've heard this raised before

It's an interesting idea.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I suppose those were people who were not prohibited from owning a gun, who nevertheless used one in a crime?

That's an amazing rebuttal to whoever claimed that all gun crimes are committed by previously prohibited persons.

Who made that claim?

@Rich2018 come here and see a good example of a strawman.

Clearly, a policy of "every idiot gets all the guns they want" is not real bright RF, its not the proper course for our nation IMO.

We have to stop pretending that its still 1700, it just isnt working out in modern reality. 1700 was a simpler time when there was only 100,000 people in the nation living in the woods, plus fighting Indians and Redcoats.
We cant stay in 1700 anymore, we have to move forward. Its time RF.

 

[Crovax]

Ethan Crumbley and his parents disagree Crovax.
As does James Holmes.
As does Stephen Paddock.

Now what bruh?

Now what? You have yet to disprove my statement

"The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who don't legally own guns"

 

[RF667799]

Clearly, a policy of "every idiot gets all the guns they want" is not real bright RF, its not the proper course for our nation IMO.

We have to stop pretending that its still 1700, it just isnt working out in modern reality. 1700 was a simpler time when there was only 100,000 people in the nation living in the woods, plus fighting Indians and Redcoats.
We cant stay in 1700 anymore, we have to move forward. Its time RF.

Your first example of a strawman was sufficient.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Now what? You have yet to disprove my statement

"The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who don't legally own guns"

Your link says that in different states its anywhere from 40% of guns to 60% of guns were "illegal". So thats only half, not "the vast majority". So you're wrong #1.
#2) Out of all those "illegal" guns, they all started as "legal guns" that then were not properly secured by our fabulous irresponsible Gun Nuts.
Thats a problem Crovax...a big fat problem.
Clearly, people shouldn't have a "right" to guns. It was never intended, you aren't in a "militia" anyway.

They ALL started out as "legal", then some become "illegal", I'd like to see some comprehensive and VERY stringent Gun Control.

 

[Crovax]

Clearly, people shouldn't have a "right" to guns. It was never intended, you aren't in a "militia" anyway.

The only thing that is clear, is that you don't seem to have a grasp on the constitution or constitutional law

 

[RF667799]

Now what? You have yet to disprove my statement

"The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who don't legally own guns"

Politifact, though forced to admit that the statement is "mostly true", does try to spin though.

New York state also prohibits people convicted of several violent misdemeanors from buying or owning a gun. Many other states do not, Webster said.

"What people don’t really appreciate is that the standards for gun ownership are so that you can be a legal gun owner but not so much law abiding," Webster said.

Federal law prohibits people convicted of serious misdemeanors from buying guns. A prohibited person does not become a legal gun owner just because they were able to purchase a gun without a background check.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The only thing that is clear, is that you don't seem to have a grasp on the constitution or constitutional law

No Crovax, I am a Second Amendment Puritan.

I believe in a strict interpretation: people in a "well regulated militia" (ie: Police, military, national guard, etc) may have a "right" to firearms in the performance of their duties.

Nancy and Adam Lanza: NOT SO MUCH.

See?

 

[Crovax]

No Crovax, I am a Second Amendment Puritan.

I believe in a strict interpretation: people in a "well regulated militia" (ie: Police, military, national guard, etc) may have a "right" to firearms in the performance of their duties.

Nancy and Adam Lanza: NOT SO MUCH.

See?

So the 1st amendment only applies to congressional laws then?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

So the 1st amendment only applies to congressional laws then?

Deflection : dee - N I E D ! ! !

Poster is : dis - M I S S E D ! ! !

*slams gavel*

 

[RF667799]

No Crovax, I am a Second Amendment Puritan.

I believe in a strict interpretation: people in a "well regulated militia" (ie: Police, military, national guard, etc) may have a "right" to firearms in the performance of their duties.

Nancy and Adam Lanza: NOT SO MUCH.

See?

I believe I have a right to have a gun, despite not being in a militia of any sort. So your belief is irrelevant.

 

[Crovax]

Deflection : dee - N I E D ! ! !

Poster is : dis - M I S S E D ! ! !

*slams gavel*

Dodging the question. You apply an arcane standard to one adment that you hate, do you apply it to those you like as well?