Topix Chitown Regulars

[RedheadwGlasses]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but I believe it does. That's the difference between a "privilege" (like driving a car) and a "right." The government can make you jump through all kinds of hoops in order to drive a car, but not when it comes to exercising your rights.

No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment doesn't mention insurance.

Reading Is Fundamental.

[RACE]

Ummmm. When I am not rooting for my Giants, I root for the fish...


Just sayin.

j_m_w wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, the only explanation I have for any of his behavior and comments anymore is that he's a douchy nutjob.
I'm waiting to talk to my friend L about this weekend - and I don't mind waiting for her because she doesn't d1ck me around - but then I have to RSVP to two Christmas parties, one on Friday night and one on Saturday afternoon.
Dolphins game on Sunday! This weekend AND next, the first is a company outing and the second is extra tickets that my boss's boss gave me.:)

[Ferrerman]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but I believe it does. That's the difference between a "privilege" (like driving a car) and a "right." The government can make you jump through all kinds of hoops in order to drive a car, but not when it comes to exercising your rights.

Perhaps the Supreme's would see it as a tax...

[Sublime1]

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment doesn't mention insurance.
Reading Is Fundamental.

I don't have the faintest clue how that would play out, in terms of constitutionality.

[PEllen]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a terrible idea. Requiring insurance is a violation of the second amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it say anything about insurance?

[edogxxx]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>Perhaps the Supreme's would see it as a tax...

I predict the lawmakers will do everything in their power to prevent or discourage people from carrying, likely through high taxes and/or fees. Which will be challenged and dragged through the courts. The liberals will not give up without a fight.

[RedheadwGlasses]

Sublime1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have the faintest clue how that would play out, in terms of constitutionality.

Doesn't the constitution cover the government when it comes to issues of safety of the citizens? I think someone told me that when he was lamenting public schools (b/c they're not in the constitution, so we shouldn't have them) and then got onto the topic of fire departments.

[RedheadwGlasses]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
I predict the lawmakers will do everything in their power to prevent or discourage people from carrying, likely through high taxes and/or fees. Which will be challenged and dragged through the courts. The liberals will not give up without a fight.

Minnesota is a liberal state and we have conceal-carry. THe only thing you have to do is take a special course on how to use your gun and gun safety. Any fee you pay is the application fee for the government to do a background check and make sure you're not a felon.

[Ferrerman]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
I predict the lawmakers will do everything in their power to prevent or discourage people from carrying, likely through high taxes and/or fees. Which will be challenged and dragged through the courts. The liberals will not give up without a fight.

Many of the 49 states that have concealed carry are "blue" or (yikes!) "liberal" states. How'd THAT happen?

[Sublime1]

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

<quoted text>
Doesn't the constitution cover the government when it comes to issues of safety of the citizens? I think someone told me that when he was lamenting public schools (b/c they're not in the constitution, so we shouldn't have them) and then got onto the topic of fire departments.

Yes, but there is a specific provision in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms. So that provision will trump.

As far as I know, the only limits courts have allowed to be imposed, were traditional limitations that were customary when the constitution was written limits on concealed guns and locations where you can carry and limits on felons and the mentally ill to carry or minimal waiting periods so that one's back ground can be checked to see if they are a felon.

A requirement to carry insurance has no historical basis. What if you are very poor and live in a poor dangerous area and can't afford this insurance, but need a gun for protection? Upon consideration, I am inclined to think it would most likely be unconstitutional.

[RedheadwGlasses]

Oh, I don't think the insurance thing would pass the constitutional test, either. And the NRA would fight it tooth and nail.

[Sublime1]

The shooter was actually only 22 years old and used a gun that he had stolen. There isn't much you can do to stop someone like that.

At that age, he likely didn't even have a criminal record that would have even prevented him from buying a gun.

IMO, the best way to limit damage is to have law abiding citizens armed. The crazies and criminals will always find guns. Gun laws only work for folks who by nature follow the law and aren't criminals. They don't work for criminals.

OH, and get ready cause 3D printed guns (that is a very exciting technology that will revolutionize things) are going to be on their way VERY SOON. When the price of 3D printers come down, you will be able to make your own gun at home. Even nations that outlaw guns won't be able to stop folks from making them.

[edogxxx]

PEllen wrote:

<quoted text>
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does it say anything about insurance?

Exactly. So requiring it IS infringement.

[edogxxx]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>Many of the 49 states that have concealed carry are "blue" or (yikes!) "liberal" states. How'd THAT happen?

We've got a unique breed of liberals here.

[RedheadwGlasses]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
We've got a unique breed of liberals here.

Yeah, Illinois is a pretty unique state.

I am not joking when I say that.

[Ferrerman]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
We've got a unique breed of liberals here.

<blush>

[RedheadwGlasses]

I got a new cell phone. Samsung, pay as you go sort of thing. I hate it. It doesn't work in a logical, common sense manner, things seem to take several more steps than necessary (my flip phone was so much easier). I complained to Nick. His response: "What do you expect for getting a phone that the rest of us were using 10 years ago?"

[RACE]

being required to carry a 1 billion dollar insurance effectively prevents you from having a weapon. Didnt they do something similar to blacks who wanted to vote?

PEllen wrote:

<quoted text>
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does it say anything about insurance?

[j_m_w]

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

I got a new cell phone. Samsung, pay as you go sort of thing. I hate it. It doesn't work in a logical, common sense manner, things seem to take several more steps than necessary (my flip phone was so much easier). I complained to Nick. His response: "What do you expect for getting a phone that the rest of us were using 10 years ago?"

Heh. Suck it up, get a smart phone! ;)

[PEllen]

RACE wrote:

being required to carry a 1 billion dollar insurance effectively prevents you from having a weapon. Didnt they do something similar to blacks who wanted to vote?
<quoted text>

Requiring a 20/40 auto policy to get your license plate.(I know driving is a privilege and not a right but that was a 1920's concept, not one for th 2000's)
Showing some sort of identification upon voter registration.

Those are reasonable and not unduly burdensome. Insurance issued paid for and maintained by the manufacturer and commercial seller is another alternative.