• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Upchurch said:
No? You have a right to own gun and ammunition even if you cannot afford the gun and the ammunition?

eta: To put it a little more clearly, can you exercise your 2A right if you cannot afford either the gun or the ammunition? If not than, yes, you cannot exercise your 2A right because you can't afford it. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. No rights are, really.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

Guns are not cheap and neither is centerfire ammunition. But let's look at this another way....

You have a farmer in central NY who is skirting by. He hunts deer and other wild game as a cost effective way to put food on the table. Now you want this gentleman to pay $1,200 to $12,000 dollars a year just to use his right?

Or myself for example. I own guns for deer hunting and target shooting. I bought the guns, paid for the safety classes, paid for the ammo, paid for the yearly hunting license...but those are all one time costs. Now I have to pay an additional $1,200 to $12,000 dollars a year just to use my right?

I don't know about you, but my budget is pretty tight already. Paying another $100+ a month to enjoy a sport I only partake in a handful of times per year is not a perk I can afford. So you've essentially taxed me out of gun ownership.

So, yes, I can't afford to exercise my 2A right. And, please do explain to me how this curbs gun violence? Exactly how many illegal gun owners plan to carry insurance?

I seriously can't believe I have to explain this.

It's stupid and it's only going to make guns available to the well-off, rich, or criminal.
 
Gee, seems to me responsible gun owners would want this to pass.

Irresponsible gun owners won't buy the insurance and will have to give up their guns.

Making you and the rest of us safer.

Isn't that what you say you want?
 
BenBurch said:
Gee, seems to me responsible gun owners would want this to pass.

Irresponsible gun owners won't buy the insurance and will have to give up their guns.

Making you and the rest of us safer.

Isn't that what you say you want?
Click to expand...
That's why we have to have a poll tax, to keep irresponsible (poor) people from voting.
 
lionking said:
I seriously doubt the cost of the liability insurance sabertooth quoted in #6. I know it's much cheaper here so some evidence would be good.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If we take gun owners at their word that 99.999% of guns cause no damage then this should be some pretty cheap insurance for most people. That's how insurance works, the less likely the risk of a claim the less the insurance will cost. If you throw in the fact that the state is mandating coverage then the insurance companies have even more incentive to reduce prices because there will be competition and they know even the risk pool will be severely diluted.

Imagine a federal version of this: 300 million guns are owned by Americans. There are 30,000 gun deaths a year. If each was caused by a unique gun that means a claims rate of .01%. Even if they paid limits on every death (not at all likely, or even possible) that would only be $100 per gun per year.

Once you factor in the actual likely coverage payments and the likelihood that some guns cause more deaths than others and finally some uninsured guns, the total cost of this is likely to be around $10 per gun per year for people with low risk gun habits. I'd imagine more for those who pose a higher risk.

But let's not let math get in the way of a proposal that makes responsible gun owners responsible for their guns.

Besides that, a fine proposal, but one destined to be challenged to hell and back if passed.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Agreed. If we take gun owners at their word that 99.999% of guns cause no damage then this should be some pretty cheap insurance for most people. That's how insurance works, the less likely the risk of a claim the less the insurance will cost. If you throw in the fact that the state is mandating coverage then the insurance companies have even more incentive to reduce prices because there will be competition and they know even the risk pool will be severely diluted.

Imagine a federal version of this: 300 million guns are owned by Americans. There are 30,000 gun deaths a year. If each was caused by a unique gun that means a claims rate of .01%. Even if they paid limits on every death (not at all likely, or even possible) that would only be $100 per gun per year.

Once you factor in the actual likely coverage payments and the likelihood that some guns cause more deaths than others and finally some uninsured guns, the total cost of this is likely to be around $10 per gun per year for people with low risk gun habits. I'd imagine more for those who pose a higher risk.

But let's not let math get in the way of a proposal that makes responsible gun owners responsible for their guns.



Yep.
Click to expand...

A $10 premium on a $1,000,000 policy?

Show me where. I'll buy it right now.
 
WildCat said:
That's why we have to have a poll tax, to keep irresponsible (poor) people from voting.
Click to expand...

Gun owners always give a "No True Scotsman" argument when somebody abuses their guns.

We RESPONSIBLE gun owners are not the PROBLEM. The Irresponsible gun owners are!

So, we have here the opportunity to have ONLY responsible gun owners.

That they oppose it speaks volumes to the honesty of their other arguments.
 
Sabretooth said:
You cannot exercise your 2A right if you are a danger to yourself and others? Yes.

Because you can't afford it? No.
Click to expand...

So we need programs to put guns in the hands of welfare recipients?

I have never seen guns subsidized for low income people.
 
Sabretooth said:
You're missing the point.
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed my point?

The Second Amendment says nothing about prohibiting a barrier to entry. If it did, firearms would have to be free.

Moreover, there are already restrictions placed on the Second Amendment for those citizens who have not broken the law. We are not, for example, allowed to carry firearms into the local Post Office or city hall.
 
Ziggurat said:
There's a name for those conditions: due process.

The same doesn't apply to what are actually considered legal privileges and not rights, such as driving a car on public roads. A key difference is the default state. The default state is that you can own a gun, unless you have had that right taken away from you through due process
Click to expand...

Some guns. Others, such as fully automatic weapons, require getting an ATF license.
 
BenBurch said:
Gun owners always give a "No True Scotsman" argument when somebody abuses their guns.

We RESPONSIBLE gun owners are not the PROBLEM. The Irresponsible gun owners are!

So, we have here the opportunity to have ONLY responsible gun owners.
That they oppose it speaks volumes to the honesty of their other arguments.
Click to expand...

How does forcing insurance do this, exactly?

I'm guessing you think criminals and nutjobs would gladly go out and hit up a local agent for a gun insurance policy...
 
Sabretooth said:
Do they also require you to carry one million dollars worth of insurance?
Click to expand...

That number is immaterial to you, the gun owner, as others have pointed out. It is the premium what matters. That will be in the hands of private insurance companies, I would imagine. Free market place, and all that.
 
Democrats have a, er, distinguished history of coming up with "clever" ideas to circumvent constitutional rights. These gun insurance shenanigans are just the latest iteration.

See also: numerous liberals throwing around the idea of making ammunition prohibitively expensive. "Look, we're not infringing on GUN rights, we just want to make AMMO unattainable!" So clever.

See also: Poll taxes, literacy tests for prospective voters, etc.

To be fair though, that last example was before the magic spell which transformed all the slavery-supporting, anti-civil rights, Bull Connor Democrats into enlightened post-racial heroes. Like LBJ.
 
Cleon said:
Some guns. Others, such as fully automatic weapons, require getting an ATF license.
Click to expand...

Sure. But the law being proposed doesn't apply to only some guns. It applies categorically to all guns. A law which required insurance for fully automatic weapons would pass constitutional requirements. This... doesn't.
 
Sabretooth said:
How does forcing insurance do this, exactly?

I'm guessing you think criminals and nutjobs would gladly go out and hit up a local agent for a gun insurance policy...
Click to expand...

No, I am guessing that they will not.

And then we have a status crime we can use to jail them and confiscate their guns.

Will make taking gang members off the street much easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom