“Confiscation could be an option”

[emptystep]

The 2nd amendment gives us this right .. Next

Duh, only if you're in a militia... Are you in a militia...? Actually, no one is - because we have a standing socialist army.

No militia - no guns!

You are spewing your nonsense just to get a rise out of people.
FAIL...ASS

Can't raise the dead.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No militia - no guns!

Aren't you one of the idiots that argued that the militia mandate proves that congress can mandate I buy health insurance? According to that, everyone over 18 is in the militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Best option

Insure the suckers for any damage they do. Buy as many guns as you wish, just carry insurance

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it won't pass constitutional muster.

Requiring insurance discriminates against the poor...just like a poll tax.

And the Voter I.D. argument blows up in your collective faces on this proposal.

Out of one side of liberal mouths, they claim it denies the poor the right to vote to require an inexpensive (or free) picture identification while out of the other side they support an insurance requirement to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment right.

Ignoring this won't make it go away.

True, but remember that voting is a fundamental right, owning a gun is not; laws restricting voting rights are thus subject to a higher level of judicial review than laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

That doesn’t necessarily mean an insurance requirement will be upheld, but the courts will show greater deference to the government.

And remember the sword of consistency cuts both ways; if conservatives are going to oppose insurance requirements for gun ownership, they’ll also need to oppose voter ID laws.

 

[blackhawk]

To those who feel the 2nd amendment does not give people the right to own a gun I have a suggestion for you push your representatives in Congress to repeal it otherwise please stop bitching about it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Best option

Insure the suckers for any damage they do. Buy as many guns as you wish, just carry insurance

Homeowners policies already have blanket liability coverage.

Some people are just plain ignorant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it won't pass constitutional muster.

Requiring insurance discriminates against the poor...just like a poll tax.

And the Voter I.D. argument blows up in your collective faces on this proposal.

Out of one side of liberal mouths, they claim it denies the poor the right to vote to require an inexpensive (or free) picture identification while out of the other side they support an insurance requirement to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment right.

Ignoring this won't make it go away.

True, but remember that voting is a fundamental right, owning a gun is not; laws restricting voting rights are thus subject to a higher level of judicial review than laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

That doesn’t necessarily mean an insurance requirement will be upheld, but the courts will show greater deference to the government.

And remember the sword of consistency cuts both ways; if conservatives are going to oppose insurance requirements for gun ownership, they’ll also need to oppose voter ID laws.

Excuse me, how is owning a fire arm for self defense not a fundamental right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Shows that Cuomo just does not grasp the concept of America.

Cuomo is exhibiting a trait typical of liberals. Knee jerk emotional reaction.

 

[Darkwind]

If you aren't in a militia, what right do you have to keep and bear arms?

there is no militia requirement.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it won't pass constitutional muster.

Requiring insurance discriminates against the poor...just like a poll tax.

And the Voter I.D. argument blows up in your collective faces on this proposal.

Out of one side of liberal mouths, they claim it denies the poor the right to vote to require an inexpensive (or free) picture identification while out of the other side they support an insurance requirement to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment right.

Ignoring this won't make it go away.

True, but remember that voting is a fundamental right, owning a gun is not; laws restricting voting rights are thus subject to a higher level of judicial review than laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

That doesn’t necessarily mean an insurance requirement will be upheld, but the courts will show greater deference to the government.

And remember the sword of consistency cuts both ways; if conservatives are going to oppose insurance requirements for gun ownership, they’ll also need to oppose voter ID laws.

LOL

owning a gun IS a fundamental right.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Best option

Insure the suckers for any damage they do. Buy as many guns as you wish, just carry insurance

Homeowners policies already have blanket liability coverage.

If someone uses your gun to kill someone?

Yes. now go ahead and throw out another unusual, unpredictable scenario..
Here's one....A guy crashes his car into my house. IN his stupor from a severe head injury he gets out of his car and grabs a golf club and swings it at me. He stumbles as he swings and hits his head on the corner of a table, during the swing as he falls I have already fired a bullet which strikes him just as his head hits the table. He is taken to the hospital. The guy dies. They do an autopsy. The ME cannot determine whether the injury from the crash, the head hitting the table or the bullet cause the guy to die.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What "well regulated militia"...? We have a standing socialist army.

Then you need to get the second amendment repealed, Good luck with that.

SCOTUS or Congress will eventually change the 2nd Amendment. Just a matter of time...

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Doc91678]

We have intpstituted thousands of safety regulations on cars, roads, drivers and insurance

What have we done to reduce gun killings?

I take it you have not read the the gun regulations currently on the books both Federal, and State

Apparently you are IGNORANT of the fact that there are more Federal, State and City gun laws and restrictions throughout our 50 United States than we have tax laws.

 

[asterism]

Best option

Insure the suckers for any damage they do. Buy as many guns as you wish, just carry insurance

Homeowners policies already have blanket liability coverage.

If someone uses your gun to kill someone?

For example, we were able to recover damages from the homeowners' insurance of a gun owner who accidentally shot a woman that he testified he was merely trying to scare by waving a gun around at her.

Homeowners Liability Insurance Covers Accidents | Orlando Accident Attorney | Law Offices of Kim Michael Cullen, P.A.

As with any insurance claim, "it depends."

If I shoot an intruder, will my home insurance cover me?

So the short answer is yes. Reality is subject to individual circumstances.

 

[asterism]

Somebody is dead

Who should be held responsible? Your gun.....your responsibility

Not true, it's the shooter who is at fault, unless the one who had been shot was in the process of a crime.

Doesn't matter

Same with a car....somebody takes your car and kills someone it is your responsibility

Your kid takes your gun and shoots up a school, it is your responsibility

That's not true.

The driver of the car is liable, not the owner nor the insurance company.

Owner liability does not ordinarily extend to non-permissive uses of a car, although an owner's negligence may sometimes cause liability to follow even where a car is stolen. For example, some jurisdictions will hold an owner liable if they leave the keys in the ignition of the car, and their car is stolen and subsequently invovled in an accident.

Owner Liability in Car Accident Litigation

IF MY CAR WAS STOLEN AND INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN SHOULD I BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO THE OTHER PERSONS CAR

Slavik Leydiker
Redwood City Personal Injury

You would not be liable. If your car was in fact stolen and involved in an accident, you're insurance will not cover the damage. You could only be held responsible if you allowed the individual to drive you car.

IF MY CAR WAS STOLEN AND INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN SHOULD I BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO THE OTHER PERSONS CAR? - Avvo.com

 

[asterism]

Same with a car....somebody takes your car and kills someone it is your responsibility

As long as you are doing the gun car comparisons, tell me if some old idiot in their Chrysler minivan runs their car up a sidewalk and hits a bus bench killing 12 people does the government try to ban all Chrysler minivans? or do they prosecute the driver?

We have intpstituted thousands of safety regulations on cars, roads, drivers and insurance

What have we done to reduce gun killings?

Modern rifles are MUCH more accurate than muskets.

 

[Politico]

Doesn't matter

Same with a car....somebody takes your car and kills someone it is your responsibility

Wrong, asshole. You really don't know a thing about the law, do you?

Your kid takes your gun and shoots up a school, it is your responsibility

Not even close to being the same thing. Parents are often legally responsible for what their kids do. Of course, that point is academic in the Lanza case, don't you think?

You are responsible for insuring your car regardless of who is driving it....even if it is stolen

We should demand the same for guns

You need to change your username. You are as Leftytoon as it gets.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The floor is all yours

Tell us how we comply with a 1793 definition of regulated

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.
Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

Our gun owners do not meet any of them

Horse shit I meet it and the members of my group meet it, why do you think I go to the range monthly and shoot so much ammo?

 

[jtpr312]

December 22, 2012
by Jazz Shaw

In a radio interview on Thursday with Albany’s WGDJ-AM, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to work with state legislators next month to submit a proposal for new gun-control laws; in particular, Cuomo said, “our focus is assault weapons,” because current state laws regulating the weapons “have more holes that Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

Cuomo continued, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Read more at:
“Confiscation could be an option” « Hot Air

I suggest that before Gov. Cuomo call upon the citizens of NY state to control firearms more, or confiscate them,. He and his political cronies representing the the people of NY, in both Cities, State and Federal government surrender their weapons first. (emphasis mine)

THIS is the number one reason Patriots are against any and all gun "registration". Whom exactly would they be confiscating these weapons from? Certainly not the Bloods, Crips, MS-13 or the Latin Kings, all of whom the State and City has been trying to "disarm" for decades, but rather they would try to confiscate them from the law abiding citizens who were dumb enough to purchase their weapons in a way that makes it possible for the govt to pinpoint them, leaving the only ones in the state well armed the criminals and the govt, neither of which I have any faith in. Out of the two history has proven to us that governments murder more of their own citizens than all the gangs of thugs and criminals combined. A law allowing confiscation may be a good thing though seeing as how it would being this whole issue to a head, because I know out of the 80,000,000+ legal gun owners in this nation, the percentage that would tell the govt to kiss their ass come take my guns would be high enough to cause a blood bath not seen in this nation since the War of Northern Aggression and would put an end to all the Socialists gun grabbing ideas for decades to come.

 

[martybegan]

Somebody is dead

Who should be held responsible? Your gun.....your responsibility

Not true, it's the shooter who is at fault, unless the one who had been shot was in the process of a crime.

Doesn't matter

Same with a car....somebody takes your car and kills someone it is your responsibility

Your kid takes your gun and shoots up a school, it is your responsibility

If someone steals your car you are not liable, why should it be the case with guns?

Oh, i forgot, because you don't like them. Insurance requirements are weasel ways around the 2nd amendment, and would impact poor people far more than those well off.

Why does rightwinger hate poor people????

 

[Harry Dresden]

Confiscation could become an issue if deranged NaziCons keep pushing and refusing to give an inch.

Speaking of deranged and mentally impaired. The first name to pop up will be Lakhota's.

the guy is a lying sack of shit....his posts in the beginning of these threads are different then what they are now.....the Anti-Gunners told him you cant be for gun rights or reasonable restrictions.....so change your tune......and of course LaKota doesn't question....he just does....