Solution to Gun Violence (Page 2): The Supreme Court has held in other cases relating to the Bill of Rights, that one can't be charged financially for carrying out a Constitutional...

pendennis

The Supreme Court has held in other cases relating to the Bill of Rights, that one can't be charged financially for carrying out a Constitutional right. Ever hear of poll taxes, or nonpayment of property taxes? Both are unconstitutional on their faces.

Keeping and bearing arms is a right. Driver's license fees and road taxes are for the privilege of driving on those commonly funded roads and streets. The courts have ruled on this issue a number of times.

And the $1 billion settlement was reached through liability and other funding.

pendennis

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Well, a $1 Billion settlement is moving forward for the building collapse in Florida. Seems over 200 lives in one year so far is worth that.

If nothing more, it would cut down on the number of weapons one individual would own. That, in itself, would be worth considering. No one needs 100 guns in their possession.

Who made you the arbiter of the number of guns one can own? I know a number of folks who have more than 100 guns in their possession.

Typical Progressive thinking. Project you own fears on others. What the matter. boo-boo? Are you afraid you couldn't contain yourself?

btbg

BooIsMyCat wrote:

See.... told you that you don't care about children being mass murdered. You are more interested in it being cost prohibitive.

Tell that to the families of the 22 who just died in Uvlade.

Just another hypochristian!

That doesn't say anything about how I do or do not value human life. It says that I value the Constitution and your proposal won't work.

There are two different things involved with gun violence. For some reason the left only seems to care about one issue, which is mass shootings. Everyday shootings don't seem to make any difference. Mass shootings are about 1 percent of gun deaths, yet they drive the narrative. That makes no sense.

There are several things that would reduce gun deaths in schools that wouldn't infringe on gun rights. For example in Uvalde a teacher propped the door open just minutes before the shooter entered the building. She saw him approaching and went back to get her phone, but never shut the door.

Locked doors and limited entry would prevent a lot of school shootings. But, school shootings are such a small percentage of the whole problem that only addressing them makes no sense. Major city gun violence k**ls a lot more people. The vast majority of those cases involve guns that are illegally owned, so if you confiscate illegal guns and prosecute individuals caught with them you could reduce deaths dramatically without taking away anyone's gun rights. There are already plenty of gun laws on the books as well as restrictions. There is zero reason to restrict someone who has not committed any crimes from legally owning a gun. Deal with criminals rather than law abiding citizens and the current situation will get better.

Instead the left wants to limit my access to guns when I am no danger to commit a crime with a gun, while failing to prosecute individuals in cities like New Orleans, Houston, Chicago, Baltimore and others where the gun deaths are committed using guns that are not even legal in those cities. Address that and you will have my full support.

btbg

Bill 45 wrote:

Hit them in the wallet, great idea. You want to own a firearm, you are going to have to pay for it.

Why should law abiding citizens have to pay to own firearms? They aren't causing the problems. Address the real problems instead of trying to control people who have never committed a crime.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

btbg wrote:

Why should law abiding citizens have to pay to own firearms? They aren't causing the problems. Address the real problems instead of trying to control people who have never committed a crime.

Actually, liability insurance on guns is not a particularly horrible idea if the left would not use it to make gun ownership cost prohibitive. You would only be exposed to liability if you were negligent or actually used the gun in the commission of a crime. If the gun were stolen you would absolve further responsibility by reporting it stolen, however if you left your guns unsecured or loaned them to a person who did not properly employ gun safety and a person were k**led or hurt because of it, well then you would be liable. Guns have become so prolific that there are a lot of people out there who own them or have access to them that are possibly irresponsible in their use.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to... (show quote)

So dumb, so having insurance is going to stop or limit mass shootings? 😆 It's obvious you are not an expert on this issue. Besides, that law has already started in at least one area.

https://kesq.com/news/2022/03/06/the-nations-first-law-requiring-gun-owners-to-have-liability-insurance-may-affect-less-than-you-think/

SteveS Loc: The US is my home.

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to... (show quote)

Wow, what about illegally? I bet the criminals will be lining up to insure all those non registered firearms. Let me guess, you would propose uninsured policies for all law abiding citizens for coverage when they are injured by those who are not insured.
You must be an insurance salesman.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Pretty Amazing!
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 h****rs this season in the state of Wisconsin ..
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!
Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's h****rs became the eighth largest army in the world.
(That’s more men under arms than in Iran . More than France and Germany combined. )
These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms,
and NO ONE WAS K**LED.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods ofPennsylvania and
Michigan 's 700,000 h****rs, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.
Toss in a quarter million h****rs in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
h****rs of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of h****rs in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.
________ The point? _______________________________________
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!
Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer.
It's a matter of national security.
***************************************
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought, when next we consider gun control, whether you agree with it or not.
Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that h****rs
don't possess the same sk**ls as soldiers, the question would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens???
For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.
(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT
THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Marv Grandstaff

--Bob

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to... (show quote)

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Allowing people in the gallery of the congress and senate with AR-15 with extended clips would change their minds quickly.

Of course, that could not happen but it did in 1954:
https://history.house.gov/Oral-History/Events/1954-Shooting/

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

dpullum wrote:

Allowing people in the gallery of the congress and senate with AR-15 with extended clips would change their minds quickly.

Of course, that could not happen but it did in 1954:
https://history.house.gov/Oral-History/Events/1954-Shooting/

From the caption under the photo in the article you referenced: "These stories serve as important reminders of the need to ensure the safety of the House...."

Perhaps school kids should apply to the government for a comparable level of protection?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

btbg wrote:

That doesn't say anything about how I do or do not... (show quote)

The constitution is not supposed to be a suicide pact.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

Sounds very much like turning a Constitutional Right into a Privilege, the latter being something the government can give and take away.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

After watching a detail of the timeline of the "unfortunate" incident, it appears the delay of the police intervention can be blamed on the "custodian/janitor" who could not find the Key sooner or he was on a coffee break. Certainly, not the fault of the police. Of course, to damage, the door or lock on the room was not covered in the police budget which had been reduced by democrats as will be claimed by the rightwing. Finally, after an hour the "custodian" unlocked the door for the police who ceremoniously k**led the gunman rather than wounding and apprehending him. K*****g was cleaner, there are things such as how he was motivated or how he got the guns without or with little background check which may have embarrassed the sacred second amendment and the NRA national meeting. The murderer of the children would have been a great keynote speaker at the NRA meeting.

If this were a bumbling serious/comedy movie like "Docter Strangelove" where the cola machine could not be damaged to make a call to prevent a nuclear disaster... then we could laugh at the ironic bickering. Irony is a message lubricant tool, the "big, however" as everyone blames everyone else, is that the lives of children were probably lost because of the excessive "who-is-in-charge" "whats-the-policy" delay... as in many standoff movies, the chain of command is perhaps sensible on paper, but tragic in real life and inflated egos are at stake.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

btbg wrote:

Of course I know the insurance would be cost prohibitive. Look at how much value courts put on human life. If a gun is used to k**l someone and insurance were to cover that it would cost the insurance company millions of dollars each time there was a gun death. They would have to charge enough to cover that cost and still make a profit, thus insurance premiums would be high.

Not true!

The area I live in just had a hail store where the hail was golf ball size. Cars damaged, roofs and siding damaged. The insurance companies have their own insurance on things like this so, replacing and repairing hail damage costs little to nothing.

The very same thing would happen with gun premiums.

Besides that, aren't YOUR children, and grandchildren worth that?

Hypochristian!

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

SteveS wrote:

Wow, what about illegally? I bet the criminals will be lining up to insure all those non registered firearms. Let me guess, you would propose uninsured policies for all law abiding citizens for coverage when they are injured by those who are not insured.
You must be an insurance salesman.

Why do you, if you are law-abiding, have to pay for auto coverage when they are injured by those for are not insured?
What's different?

I have always been and always will be supportive of enforcing the laws we have now. I am a believer of an eye for an eye when it comes to harming others. That should answer your question about illegally.

Problem is... even those in government who TALK big about crime, don't put their money where their mouth is.