Next Assault on 2nd Amendment: Mandatory Liability Insurance

[0121stockpicker]

I believe fully auto weapons are potentially much more lethal than non full auto especially in untrained hands.

I don't not believe we would have had the casualties at sandy hook if the assailant would have had a hammer, golf club and bat - do you??

Why do you think he left the swords behind and took the guns? Don't you think that was a rational move for someone looking to cause mass casualties?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

I believe fully auto weapons are potentially much more lethal than non full auto especially in untrained hands.

I don't not believe we would have had the casualties at sandy hook if the assailant would have had a hammer, golf club and bat - do you??

Do you think he would have taken a fully auto tommy with a drum or a six shooter? If he took the tommy don't you think their would be more casualties than a sic shooter or hunting rifle?

 

[Dano Sverige]

"INCOMING!"

 

[packerbacker]

Like I've stated before. A person with a Roy Roger's type six gun and 4 speed loaders could have killed the same number of non-threatening victims in very short order, I'd say under 2 minutes. Face it, this insurance thing is to ELIMINATE guns and gun users, it will do NOTHING to stop crime. Just like background checks, they won't stop anything. Most people in this country are killed due to gang violence. Gang members do not buy guns legally! They are a bunch of sub-humans in a sub-human environment bent on killing anyone stepping on their dumba$$ turf. Just a bunch of animals. Control them and you will have a handle on gun violence.

 

[packerbacker]

I'm saying that, even if semi-autos were suddenly non-existent as are full autos basically, he could have committed the same crime with a six gun. If he didn't have a six gun he would have used the sword. If you want to kill, you can kill. A non-threatening target, such as very young school children, can be killed like lambs in a pen. On the other hand, whether he used an AR, a six gun or the sword, it's possible he could have been STOPPED by an armed school employee.

 

[packerbacker]

Hi Dano!

 

[Chadeaux]

I'm saying that, even if semi-autos were suddenly non-existent as are full autos basically, he could have committed the same crime with a six gun. If he didn't have a six gun he would have used the sword. If you want to kill, you can kill. A non-threatening target, such as very young school children, can be killed like lambs in a pen. On the other hand, whether he used an AR, a six gun or the sword, it's possible he could have been STOPPED by an armed school employee.

You're gonna have to stop scaring these folks with LOGIC. They can't handle it.

You have to be able to THINK ON YOUR OWN instead of posting from a script/talking points, which would require being able to think. Otherwise such logic makes them bang their heads on the table.

You're so cruel!

 

[packerbacker]

Unless you have sword insurance, you cannot participate!

 

[-Taz-]

it's possible he could have been STOPPED by an armed school employee.

and then you got to ask your selves, when people start to talk about arming employees at schools, and are serious about it; Where are we? In a civil war ridden country in Africa, or in a civilised lawabiding country in the western hemisphere?

I know what my answer would be...

 

[0121stockpicker]

Like I've stated before. A person with a Roy Roger's type six gun and 4 speed loaders could have killed the same number of non-threatening victims in very short order, I'd say under 2 minutes. Face it, this insurance thing is to ELIMINATE guns and gun users, it will do NOTHING to stop crime. Just like background checks, they won't stop anything. Most people in this country are killed due to gang violence. Gang members do not buy guns legally! They are a bunch of sub-humans in a sub-human environment bent on killing anyone stepping on their dumba$$ turf. Just a bunch of animals. Control them and you will have a handle on gun violence.

Yes, there are a hand full of well trained people who can do that. If this was the case why does the military and law enforcement use full and semi auto? They obviously must believe they are more lethal correct?

 

[packerbacker]

Correct picker but the military does not usually have a non-lethal target. A killer in a school full of small children could use a knife to kill 20 small kids.

 

[packerbacker]

Taz, how come our elected officials send their children to schools with armed personnel?

 

[Native Floridian]

Once again, this is comparing apples to hockey sticks. No semblance of similarity.

Riding a motorcycle IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEGE (kinda like spandex, but I digress).

Owning a firearm IS A RIGHT, not a privilege. There is no comparison.

Accidents would be covered under insurance, but something like Columbine or Sandy Hood would not. If an insurance company cannot measure their risk, they will not insure against it. Willful action is not something that they will cover.

Chad, excellent job of missing the point!

The point isn't helmets or guns. The point is the ability to shoulder the finanacial consequences of your actions. Thus, the concept of writing a check you can't cash. Which, both Helmetless motorcycle riders as well as gun owners do.

While insurance would cover those responsible enough to carry it to a point, all insurance has limits. A million dollar limit, which most believe adequet, barely covers getting a seriously injured/wounded person out of intensive care, let alone providing for rehab or life long care. So, who picks up that tab?

Thus gun owners who seriously wound another person with their legally owned guns, via ownership, are writing checks they can't cash. The exact same way helmetless motorcycle riders do the same thing. Both groups justify their behavior with "it isn't going to happen to me"

if you had bothered to read my last paragraph you would have seen that i covered rights versus priviledge.

Lastly, define accident? Most of us define it as unintended action. Something we didn't intend or purposely do. But, that's not the definition. An accident is an unavoidable event. So when your gun discharges "Accidentally" was it by accident or just plain carelessness?

An just to cover the apples part of my post that makes no sense, short of getting hit by a metorite, there is no such thing as a motorcycle accident. Now, motorcycle crashes? They happen every day.

 

[packerbacker]

Actually, full auto is not a preferred weapon for most military action until you get into the 50 cal level and that's not something you can just walk around with.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Taz, how come our elected officials send their children to schools with armed personnel?

Because they believe there is one set of rules for the common folks and another set of rules for the politicians.....They consider their selves to be "the elite".

Their kids can have multiple armed guards at their school including on the roof of the school but Joe citizens kids don't need them.

They can have armed bodyguards for their selves and their families paid by taxpayers, but Joe Citizen can not be trusted with a firearm.

Here is my question, why is none of the liberal media asking them that?

It is because they are in their pockets, liberal media no longer cares about being the beacon of truth........

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Actually, full auto is not a preferred weapon for most military action until you get into the 50 cal level and that's not something you can just walk around with.

Not for shoulder fire bit for suppression fire. Believe me I know military arms and tactics quite well.

Again the point being that not all weapons are the same. Yes you can kill anyone with just about any object in the entire world. But some weapons are more lethal than others. Why do you want a gun and advocated guns for self protection. Why aren't you telling people to defend themselves with golf clubs and hammers?? The argument is a foolish one. I know you believe it's a slippery slope if you admit some gun are more dangerous than others. You fear that will lead to increased restrictions on some types of guns. I fully understand that. But lets use rational arguments. The gun is inanimate object, lets make hammers illegal or the guns don't kill people sound bites are just stupid and don't convince anyone. That's my only point.

If it is true than why are you arguing that people need guns for protection. Your new saying should be we all need hammers. Right?

 

[packerbacker]

So, I guess money is the answer to cure the world of all wrong doing so I think EVERYONE needs to purchase uninsured gun owner insurance just in case they are ever shot by a gun that is owned by an uninsured gun owner. That's it!! Problem solved!! I'm in!

 

[packerbacker]

Actually the government is telling me to use scissors or, if I'm being raped I should wet my pants to try and turn the rapist off. I prefer a gun. I admit a single shot 22 will make it much harder to kill people than a AR15 with a hundred round drum. I also believe that, even limited to 10-round magazines, I could do the same damage so what sense does the limit make? What good will insurance do? I believe I would pay the same for my gun insurance though or would it be less to insure the single shot?

 

[Chadeaux]

Chad, excellent job of missing the point!

The point isn't helmets or guns. The point is the ability to shoulder the finanacial consequences of your actions. Thus, the concept of writing a check you can't cash. Which, both Helmetless motorcycle riders as well as gun owners do.

While insurance would cover those responsible enough to carry it to a point, all insurance has limits. A million dollar limit, which most believe adequet, barely covers getting a seriously injured/wounded person out of intensive care, let alone providing for rehab or life long care. So, who picks up that tab?

Thus gun owners who seriously wound another person with their legally owned guns, via ownership, are writing checks they can't cash. The exact same way helmetless motorcycle riders do the same thing. Both groups justify their behavior with "it isn't going to happen to me"

if you had bothered to read my last paragraph you would have seen that i covered rights versus priviledge.

Lastly, define accident? Most of us define it as unintended action. Something we didn't intend or purposely do. But, that's not the definition. An accident is an unavoidable event. So when your gun discharges "Accidentally" was it by accident or just plain carelessness?

An just to cover the apples part of my post that makes no sense, short of getting hit by a metorite, there is no such thing as a motorcycle accident. Now, motorcycle crashes? They happen every day.

Let's try this:

Is a motorcycle crash the result of a deliberate action put in motion to kill the rider, or is it an accident?

Are mass shootings the result of someone dropping a rifle while climbing up their deer stand or the result of a deliberate action put in motion to kill people.

1. Insurance will cover the accidents, but there is no way in hell they will pay for deliberate action.
2. Some dipwad is going to think that having the insurance gives them permission to kill 50 kids . . . after all they do have insurance they bought and paid for.

When are you people going to even bother to TRY to THINK OUT your proposals before stating something so damned STUPID!!!

I guess, first you would have to think rather than parroting your talking points.

 

[Chadeaux]

BTW, why not consider whether you are able to handle the MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF BEING BLATANTLY STUPID OR FOLLOWING BLATANTLY STUPID PEOPLE?

When I did construction work, I was taught a very valuable lesson that seems to be lost on you anti-gun people:

YOU GOTTA BE SMARTER THAN THE TOOLS YOU USE!!!