Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[KGB]

The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.

Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.

Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Ernie S.]

Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face.

Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.

Guess again, Joe. From where I sit, the kid has humiliated you. I suppose you could start a poll and ask your peers....

 

[Spoonman]

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."

No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.

how do you identify them if they've never been caught

 

[Spoonman]

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

would this be the same 94% you claimed supported background checks? but when the bill came before congress, congress after hearing from the people, found out the majority of the people were saying NO!

 

[Spoonman]

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.

well except for the fact that liberal myth has been debunked over and over and gun owners are on the rise.

 

[kaz]

Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?

They should just hand out daisies

What was your MOS? Oh, I guess your question answers that question.

If you're implying you were in the military, your MOS was making sure hundreds of people's potatoes didn't have skins on them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the naval ship yard killings proved yet another

myth in the liberal anti gun agenda

this time

the universal back ground check

the shooter bought a used shotgun

so instead of

private seller (no background check) to private buyer

private seller firearm went to FFL (needs background check) to private buyer shooter

 

[candycorn]

The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.

Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.

Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

 

[kaz]

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it. Of course you are...

 

[candycorn]

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it. Of course you are...

I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.

Disagree that the injured should be compensated? Of course you do.

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

 

[Edgetho]

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

Most people already have Insurance. Most Homeowners, Condo and Renters policies have a 'Comprehensive General Liability' coverage in them.

And yes, victims have recovered under them.

What you want is confiscation. What you're doing is constructing a road-block to gun ownership.

LEGAL ownership.

I'm sure that all the illegal gun owners and all the illegally-used gun-wielding idiots in this world will run out and buy your stupid Insurance the mintue you get your idiotic law passed.

BTW, after 25 years in the business, I've never seen a policy yet that covered intentionally illegal acts of the insured.

Good luck finding an Insurance Company that will cover someone taking their gun down to the local Middle School and shooting the place up.

I don't know what redeeming values you possess, but your feeble thought processes are certainly not among them...... If any exist at all.

I should charge for this shit

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

Hence liability insurance is needed

right anyone who maintains a gun free zone should be required to carry liability insurance

 

[candycorn]

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

Good luck finding an Insurance Company that will cover someone taking their gun down to the local Middle School and shooting the place up.

Did the guy that pulled the trigger at Sandy Hook own the gun?

 

[Ernie S.]

This liability insurance thing is bullshit. You are trying to assign liability to deep pockets, as if money will unshoot a kid.
I have, let's just say, "many" guns here. 2 of them are always loaded, one in plain site, unless unfamiliar children are around, or there is going to be a LOT of alcohol consumed.
So, when I leave the house and someone breaks in and steals a rifle and later uses it to kill, you want to shift blame to me?
How exactly would I be responsible for a break-in and theft of my own property? And how, pray tell, can I be held responsible for a murder beyond my control?

 

[Edgetho]

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

Good luck finding an Insurance Company that will cover someone taking their gun down to the local Middle School and shooting the place up.

Did the guy that pulled the trigger at Sandy Hook own the gun?

No, and if you can find negligence of the Insured under her Homeowners policy, you can collect.

Last I checked, she was negligently dead.

Again, with the lack of redeeming qualities.

 

[Edgetho]

This liability insurance thing is bullshit. You are trying to assign liability to deep pockets, as if money will unshoot a kid.
I have, let's just say, "many" guns here. 2 of them are always loaded, one in plain site, unless unfamiliar children are around, or there is going to be a LOT of alcohol consumed.
So, when I leave the house and someone breaks in and steals a rifle and later uses it to kill, you want to shift blame to me?
How exactly would I be responsible for a break-in and theft of my own property? And how, pray tell, can I be held responsible for a murder beyond my control?

They'd have to find negligence on your part.

If you lend the gun to somebody, you could, and probably would, be held negligent. Civil negligence, not criminal negligence. Civil.

They can, and would, sue you and probably win.

If someone steals your gun and commits a crime, you can not, by commission or omission, be held negligent unless you didn't take reasonable means to secure it.

Same as if someone steals your car and drives it into a Bus Stop full of children. You are not negligent unless you can be found to have committed or omitted reasonable means to secure you car..... Like take the keys out of it.

dimocraps are just stupid.

Mostly because they refuse to listen to their betters.... People like us.

 

[kaz]

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it. Of course you are...

I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.

I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.

Disagree that the injured should be compensated? Of course you do.

Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

 

[Edgetho]

So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it. Of course you are...

I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.

I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.

Disagree that the injured should be compensated? Of course you do.

Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?

Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?

Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?

Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?

And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.

dimocraps lie. About everything.

Everything.

They want confiscation. Just that simple

 

[kaz]

I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.

I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.


Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?

Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?

Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?

Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?

And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.

dimocraps lie. About everything.

Everything.

They want confiscation. Just that simple

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

 

[Bern80]

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

Again i think your mistaken about what liability insurance covers. Your auto liability policy isn't going to fork over any money if you intentionally decide to run someone over. Why should they? They shouldn't have to pay for your malicious actions any more than the victims.