Finally, intelligent gun regulations

cawacko said:
Is someone who’s considering doing a mass shooting not going to do so because their insurance would go up afterwards and they would liable for a big payout? (That they will likely die in the act or spend the rest of their life in jail isn’t enough to stop them but the monetary risk would?)
Click to expand...

The imbecile thinks the bad guys will pay up their insurance before hand.
 
Yakuda said:
True. Did you ever see that movie with Jason Statham he killed 8 guys with a butter knife and a spoon? Best fights scenes ever in my opinion. One of the points in the movie is Stathams character has never used nor needs a gun to kill someone and is insulted by the inference.
Click to expand...

Babe Ruth couldn’t have hit all those home runs if he didn’t have a bat
 
volsrock said:
CHICAGO (AP) — A man caught in the crossfire when shots were fired inside a Chicago store was killed along with a 16-year-old boy who had fired into the business, police said.

Chicago police said the teen fired shots into Big Salem’s Food Mart on the city's South Side about 9 p.m. Wednesday while apparently targeting two males inside the business.


But hey if we just had gun insurance:laugh: fucking idiot
Click to expand...

Like when Kyle was firing wildly into a crowd?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Precedent.

Do you really think our rights should be subject to fees in order to exercise them? Do you think the rich and some middle-class will enjoy their "rights" after payment but lower income families will not?

Do you really want to turn a single mother with three kids in a bad neighborhood into a criminal because she can't afford gun insurance?

Once again, the Democrats fulfil Einstein's definition of insanity. They continue treating the symptom like it was the disease.

Not only that, but they set the legal precedent that our rights can be taken away for lack of payment.
Click to expand...
Yes, I feel our second amendments right needs to be amended. I think if you can afford to buy a gun and bullets, that you can buy a liability policy.
 
archives said:
Nothing you can do, thanks to the propagandizing of the gun manufacturers, any attempt is stalled or forgotten, haven’t you ever wonder why America’s gun violence far out measures that of any other developed nation in the world
Click to expand...

All the time but id suggest it has nothing to do with the number of guns unless you have evidence to support that claim.
 
archives said:
Babe Ruth couldn’t have hit all those home runs if he didn’t have a bat
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


:rolleyes:
 
cawacko said:
Is someone who’s considering doing a mass shooting not going to do so because their insurance would go up afterwards and they would liable for a big payout? (That they will likely die in the act or spend the rest of their life in jail isn’t enough to stop them but the monetary risk would?)
Click to expand...

Late joined, again, as I’ve said before, probably won’t, but down the road, the more one can lessen accessibility to guns today effects the greater number of guns in circulation later
 
Phantasmal said:
Yes, I feel our second amendments right needs to be amended. I think if you can afford to buy a gun and bullets, that you can buy a liability policy.
Click to expand...

Then you favor liability insurance for voting. The idiots that elected Brandon sure are liable for all the damage the retard in chief has done.
 
archives said:
Been there, done that, show us one comparable to Stephen Paddock’s work and until you do spare us the antidotal narratives
Click to expand...

u really think Stephen Paddock would have worried about gun insurance and that would have stopped him? fucking idiot
 
archives said:
”San Jose could set a precedent by requiring gun insurance”

“San Jose may become the first city in the nation to mandate an annual gun owner fee and liability insurance in an effort to curb gun violence.”

“The City Council will take a vote on Tuesday and if passed, San Jose residents who own guns will have to pay a $25 fee per household and purchase gun insurance that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from “any negligent or accidental use of the firearm” in six months, according to the ordinance.”

https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-could-set-a-precedent-by-requiring-gun-insurance/

Amazing it has taken this long, treating guns just as we do vehicles, especially liability requirements, and before the gun nuts begin, every Constitutional right can and is regulated, Second Amendment isn’t any different
Click to expand...

Mandates of insurance is unconstitutional. That's also true of auto insurance. Just another indication that there is no republic in the SOTC. It's an oligarchy, moving towards a dictatorship.
 
archives said:
Late joined, again, as I’ve said before, probably won’t, but down the road, the more one can lessen accessibility to guns today effects the greater number of guns in circulation later
Click to expand...

Prove there would be less violence if there were 1million fewer guns on the streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top