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

DavidJames said:
aw, poor babies. Their tools of death are getting expensive.

Here's an idea, find a way to boost your self esteem that doesn't include tools used to kill innocent people.
Click to expand...

What does having a means of self-defense and hunting, have to do with self-esteem?

Your broad-stroked attack against tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners shows just how pathetic you guys can be.
 
Imposing a sin-tax upon a Constitutional right, will get laughed out of the Supreme Court and most Federal Appeals courts.

..But I'm sure this would be accepted in San Francisco.
 
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...

I gave a good friend of mine a 9mm and some ammo a few months back because his house was broken in to, and he couldn't afford a gun. So, yes, you can exercise the right, even if it is too expensive.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But is this a prohibitively high barrier? Insurance that covered fire arms accidents only would be fairly cheap.
Click to expand...
The proposed law also requires the insurance to cover intentional, criminal acts. This creates a moral hazard, perhaps a suicidal person will see it as an insurance policy for his survivors for example or even a homicidal father who kills the mother knowing that even though he'll be in prison the kids will be cared for by the $1 million.
 
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...

No, I want SENSIBLE laws. This is not one of them.

I want to punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and maybe increase those penalties.
 
This is no different than taxing someone for using a court-appointed attorney.

Or charging someone for a fair-trial, or to be read their Maranda rights.


What, you want to plead the 5th Amendment and not possibly incriminate youself? That'll be $50, sir.
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope, because you would still need probable cause to stop them to begin with!
 
WildCat said:
Do you think the government could require newspapers and their reporters to carry $1 million in liability insurance in case they libel someone?
Click to expand...
Not especially, but I'm not convinced it is needed for gun owners either. (Although I recognize there is a vast difference between killing someone and libeling them.)

WildCat said:
And do you think "freedom of the press" requires the government pay for everyone to have a printing press?
Click to expand...
What? No. That is the exact opposite of what I was arguing.

I was saying that just because you have the right to own something doesn't mean it has to be affordable for you.

triforcharity said:
I gave a good friend of mine a 9mm and some ammo a few months back because his house was broken in to, and he couldn't afford a gun. So, yes, you can exercise the right, even if it is too expensive.
Click to expand...
The gun cost him nothing. That was too expensive for him?
 
Sabretooth said:
Now NY wants all gun owners to carry liability insurance valued at...one MILLION dollars!

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A3908-2013



I'm starting to wonder if NY legislators have ever read the Constitution. I don't recall the word "privilege" being a part of the 2A or any other Amendment...

I'm so sick of the utter bull **** that this state is pulling. :mad:
Click to expand...

Actually this sounds like a very reasonable proposal.

It's just like the requirement to have car insurance. Exactly like it in fact. Do you think that is unreasonable?
 
Courier said:
This is no different than taxing someone for using a court-appointed attorney.

Or charging someone for a fair-trial, or to be read their Maranda rights.


What, you want to plead the 5th Amendment and not possibly incriminate youself? That'll be $50, sir.
Click to expand...
So... how is this relevant? Are you suggesting that people should have a court-appointed firearm so they can exercise their Second Amendment rights?
 
Puppycow said:
Actually this sounds like a very reasonable proposal.

It's just like the requirement to have car insurance. Exactly like it in fact. Do you think that is unreasonable?
Click to expand...

The right to own a car isn't protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Owning a firearm in the USA is a right, while owning a car in the USA is a privilege.
 
Your arguments are ridiculous, gun insurance seems reasonable enough to me. Mandated car insurance already exists across most of the states and it doesn't keep people from being able to afford owning cars.

Why is so inherently different with guns?
 
Mudcat said:
Your arguments are ridiculous, gun insurance seems reasonable enough to me. Mandated car insurance already exists across most of the states and it doesn't keep people from being able to afford owning cars.

Why is so inherently different with guns?
Click to expand...

Again, for those who refuse to read:

The right to own a car isn't protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Owning a firearm in the USA is a right, while owning a car in the USA is a privilege

Let's be honest folks. Cut the **** ing bull ****. The point of this would be to have less folks owning guns. I wish you guys would just be honest about your intentions.
 
Please excuse the edit, Courier.

Courier said:
Owning a firearm in the USA is a right, not a privilege.
Click to expand...

Count me amongst the majority that wishes it to be the opposite. Not completely banned but neither is it common.
 
Upchurch said:
I was saying that just because you have the right to own something doesn't mean it has to be affordable for you.
Click to expand...
Why did you ignore the part about the government imposing a cost to excercise a right, as opposed to the cost of voting or a gun or a printing press or any doodads required by your religion?
 
Courier said:
Again, for those who refuse to read:

The right to own a car isn't protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Owning a firearm in the USA is a right, while owning a car in the USA is a privilege

Let's be honest folks. Cut the **** ing bull ****. The point of this would be to have less folks owning guns. I wish you guys would just be honest about your intentions.
Click to expand...

You want me to lie to you or something?

I, for one, want gun ownership to be a privilege.

Because: Less is more. Less guns in circulation is more safety. Less people owning guns is more quality control on gun safety. Less guns is more tragedies averted.

End of line.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Not especially, but I'm not convinced it is needed for gun owners either. (Although I recognize there is a vast difference between killing someone and libeling them.)

What? No. That is the exact opposite of what I was arguing.

I was saying that just because you have the right to own something doesn't mean it has to be affordable for you.

The gun cost him nothing. That was too expensive for him?
Click to expand...

Why do you want guns to become too expensive to own?

Should we make lawyers too expensive to hire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom