Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've advocated several of your suggestions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeamSarah4Choice

    and you left out a biggie, perhaps THE biggie (unless I'm reading crosseyed and missed it): ending undocumented transfers between private individuals.

    But liability coverage? Rly? This is a constitutional right, and you would impose means testing on its exercise.

    So would you also require people who vote for Republicans to take out liability insurance or pay a penalty to help offset the cost of unnecessary wars and war profiteering by government contractors? God knows the people who voted Bush into office have cost our nation untold thousands of deaths and injuries, and well north of $1 T since 2001.

    Would you force a person under criminal indictment and who has been sued in civil court to buy insurance that will pay the state's prosecution costs if the person is convicted?

    Would you compel someone who intends to plead the Fifth, in hopes of evading conviction, to pay a penalty to a victims' fund?

    Should political commentarists with more than [pick a number] thousands of listeners/readers/viewers be required to buy liability insurance that will pay out if a preponderance of the evidence shows their incautious or inflammatory speech is linked directly or indirectly to violence against person or property?

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:07:29 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Gun enthusiasts will say anything II (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeamSarah4Choice, Crazycab214

      I agree with you on the undocumented transfers.  I think all gun sales should be registered with county/state authorities.  I should have included that idea in my list, but forgot.

      Liability coverage is not means testing.  It is liability coverage: it is putting the "responsible" in the phrase responsible gun owners.

      Civil court costs are applied to the person bringing the suit.  State prosecuters prosecute criminal cases, not civil suits, and the state prosecutors incur no state costs in civil court matters.

      Currently, all tax-apyers pay for the injuries, investigations, prosecutions, and incarcerations that result from gun use/misuse.  Including those people who take the Fifth.  I am suggesting the gun industry and those consumers who support the gun industry be asked to pay more than those people who are not gun owners, and are not the cause of gun use/misuse.  You are still allowed to buy and carry a gun.  You can easily avoid these extra fees by choosing to not use/purchase a gun (or ask the gun industry to sponser you).  The right, and the choice, is yours.

       

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:30:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it is means testing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow

        Unless the liability insurance is free.

        •  Guns and ammo are not free! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TeamSarah4Choice, raincrow

          You pay the gun industry for purchase of the gun and ammo.  So it gun industry is infringing on your RKBA.

          And while you complain that any additional fees (licensing, insurance or liability ocverage, safety training and certification, etc) are infringing on your RKBA, and are therefore unconstitutional, by the same argument, it is unconstitutional for the gun manufacturer or seller to charge you for purcahse of the guns and ammo.

          Yet strangely, I have NEVER heard a gun enthusiast tell me the gun industry is unconstitutionally blocking the RKBA.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:34:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It has always been the voter's burden (0+ / 0-)

            to get to and from voter registration and to and from the polls. Those have been judged to be reasonable costs of exercising a right. I would argue that buying a gun (or receiving one as a gift) and ammunition is analogous to the voter's burden. Not all guns are fancy or expensive, and .22 and .38 rounds are reasonably affordable.

            Given that a citizen has shouldered her/his reasonable costs of exercising a right, it is left to the state to impose as little as possible on that exercise, i.e., by providing a reasonable geographical distribution and number of voting machines, reasonable hours for registration, reasonable polling hours, no intimidation, no poll taxes, no literacy tests, etc.

            The argument is almost always about what constitutes "reasonable."

            YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

            by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:17:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are gored on the horns of a dilemma (0+ / 0-)

              You HAVE to acknowledge one of two mutually contradictory things:

              1 - A fee imposes a restriction your free exercise of a right, and therefore it is unconstitutional for the gun and ammo makers to charge you for your gun and ammo.

              2 - Or citizens are required to bear the costs of exercising their rights, in which case fees for licensing, insurance, safety certifications, etc., are all part of what you have to pay to own and carry a gun.

              You started out arguing 1, but now you seemed to have switched to 2.

              Or you could try and take the conservatives' way out, and argue that gun owners should only pay those fee the gun owners agree to pay, and all fees the gun owners don't want to pay are unconstitutional.  As an argument, this is of course, lazy and intellectually dishonest.  And far beyond what is described in the 2nd Amendment.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:38:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I would go further on private transfers (0+ / 0-)

        I think they should be mediated by a licensed dealer, who would take possession of the weapon for the waiting period, if any, perform the standard background check, etc.

        The other part of such legislation would be to require gun owners to timely report the theft of a gun, with a monetary/civil penalty for noncompliance. Without that, someone legally buying guns and reselling to ineligible buyers could just say, "Well gosh, officer, whaddaya know? That gun was stolen out of my car 5 years ago." This requirement would inhibit such strawman purchases and give ATF some idea of how a particular crime gun was trafficked; and it perhaps could expose noncompliant sellers to civil liability and perhaps criminal conspiracy charges.

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:05:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site