THE Gun Thread

[Rev. Rye]

I’m not questioning either your right to own guns or you right to carry them in a concealed manner. I just think it’s a little disingenuous of you to bring up the issue of taxing your legal rights in the first place when you’ve paid that tax.

So, you against taxing your Second Amendment right, but only until it comes to something you want. That’s quite the moral position of convenience.

Boru

It' s better than your favored plan -chanting, carrying signs,  tying up traffic, throwing gasoline bombs at police and looting neighborhood businesses....... "CHANGE!!"

I think the preferred position is for the government to listen to their constituents before they affect traffic or get to the point where they feel throwing bombs is the only way they can be heard.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m not questioning either your right to own guns or you right to carry them in a concealed manner. I just think it’s a little disingenuous of you to bring up the issue of taxing your legal rights in the first place when you’ve paid that tax.

So, you against taxing your Second Amendment right, but only until it comes to something you want. That’s quite the moral position of convenience.

Boru

It' s better than your favored plan -chanting, carrying signs,  tying up traffic, throwing gasoline bombs at police and looting neighborhood businesses....... "CHANGE!!"

Yeah, because that’s the same.

 Look, mate, no one’s looking to punish you for owning/carrying guns. All that’s been proposed is that you carry some level of liability insurance. People insure homes, cars, boats, trade tools, their businesses, their health, etc. I’m not convinced that insuring your guns is any different. If you’re too cheap to pay for insurance, just say so. But this rubbish about ‘taxing rights’ just won’t wash.

In response to one of your earlier comments, I would have no problem at all with rally organizers being required to purchase liability insurance in case things get out of hand. It may be the equivalent of taxing free speech, but I’m ok with that.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

It' s better than your favored plan -chanting, carrying signs,  tying up traffic, throwing gasoline bombs at police and looting neighborhood businesses....... "CHANGE!!"

In other words the civil rights movement and the women's rights movement and pretty much every meaningful civil rights movement ever. And none of those movements had a huge corporate lobby pushing them. So the two things don't even compare.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It' s better than your favored plan -chanting, carrying signs,  tying up traffic, throwing gasoline bombs at police and looting neighborhood businesses....... "CHANGE!!"

I think the preferred position is for the government to listen to their constituents before they affect traffic or get to the point where they feel throwing bombs is the only way they can be heard.

Considering the gun rights movement was a fraudulent astroturf movement of course it didn't have to resort to violence because it's sucess was never against the interests of corporate power.

[onlinebiker]

It' s better than your favored plan -chanting, carrying signs,  tying up traffic, throwing gasoline bombs at police and looting neighborhood businesses....... "CHANGE!!"

Yeah, because that’s the same.

 Look, mate, no one’s looking to punish you for owning/carrying guns. All that’s been proposed is that you carry some level of liability insurance. People insure homes, cars, boats, trade tools, their businesses, their health, etc. I’m not convinced that insuring your guns is any different. If you’re too cheap to pay for insurance, just say so. But this rubbish about ‘taxing rights’ just won’t wash.

In response to one of your earlier comments, I would have no problem at all with rally organizers being required to purchase liability insurance in case things get out of hand. It may be the equivalent of taxing free speech, but I’m ok with that.

Boru

It' s rare I agree with GN - but he is right....

You want to make freedom beyond the means of the poor.......

[The Architect Of Fate]

It' s rare I agree with GN - but he is right....

You want to make freedom beyond the means of the poor.......

Lol Freedom 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, because that’s the same.

 Look, mate, no one’s looking to punish you for owning/carrying guns. All that’s been proposed is that you carry some level of liability insurance. People insure homes, cars, boats, trade tools, their businesses, their health, etc. I’m not convinced that insuring your guns is any different. If you’re too cheap to pay for insurance, just say so. But this rubbish about ‘taxing rights’ just won’t wash.

In response to one of your earlier comments, I would have no problem at all with rally organizers being required to purchase liability insurance in case things get out of hand. It may be the equivalent of taxing free speech, but I’m ok with that.

Boru

It' s rare I agree with GN - but he is right....

You want to make freedom beyond the means of the poor.......

So, the poor can afford guns, ammo, gun accessories, carry permits - but $14 a month for liability insurance (from the NRA, no less) is a deal breaker?

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

I suspect the Second Amendment might already be beyond the dreams of the poor. How do I know this? Because earlier in the month, some jackass tried to spoof my email to pay for one of these:

Fortunately, I cancelled the invoice before I could have paid the $215.14 down payment. The total cost would have been $1758. And while it looks like this is expensive for a 9mm pistol, I still suspect that, especially with a majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, the cost of a firearm is still out of reach for many Americans.

And, frankly, if the $14/month liability insurance is going to price the poor out of the market, I suspect that the $150 for the cheapest Semi-Automatic handgun I could find on Academy Sports and Outdoors would be even worse.

[The Grand Nudger]

Almist any recurring cost seen to be a corporate favor…which it would certainly be regardless of the intent in crafting the law, will be a dealbreaker for some.

That said, it being a dealbreaker for some isn’t a reason to scrap the idea entirely. If the argument for compulsory liability in public operation holds in the case of cars or anything else - and peoples opinions aside….it absolutely and certainly does so far as courts are concerned- then it holds for guns.

So maybe you don’t need to carry liability for simply owning a gun- but you do need it if you intend to carry…open or concealed…on a city street or through the aisles of a grocery store. Places…simply put, where any accident that might occur is capable of harming more than just yourself and dependents.

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as rights…taxed or otherwise…and people knowing what they’re doing. Let’s recall one batshit objection to no guns signs…from earlier had to do with concealed carry.

Concealed carry permits do not supersede the property rights of who ever put that sign up. If you think it’s ridiculous to de-arm before entering such a place…you do not know what you’re doing, and should not have that permit.

Ofc, if you think it’s fun to troll the libs by suggesting you’re a loon with a gun…carry on.