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

[Monketi Ghost]

So, is it really supportable to claim (and I mean directly and not in some feeble, round-about way i.e. "fewer guns means more safety") that this is an actual effort to address an actual problem?

 

[triforcharity]

True, but maybe that handgun doesn't actually cost $500, it costs $500+insurance.

Maybe there should be a process whereby loss of job or other financial problem could mean you can notify the insurers that the gun is no longer being used and is stored until you can afford to re-activate the policy. After all, if you're that hard up you maybe shouldn't be spending money on ammunition either.

And if you're subsequently found to be using or have used the gun without the insurance policy in place..... well, there may be trouble ahead....

Couple problems sir.

1- It costs my friend $0.00 per month to own that handgun. NOTHING. He doesn't have to buy bullets, unless he fires the ones he has. There is ZERO cost in keeping a gun. Most people don't shoot their guns daily, or even weekly.

2- Violates the 2nd Amendment, and as such, would never fly.

(As an aside, I've had the same self defense ammo in my gun for over 2 years. My cost of ownership of that gun, is $0 per year. NOTHING)

 

[triforcharity]

Let's run a comparison here to show why the pro gun side of the argument is so ridiculous:

| Firearms | Automobiles
New: | $149-$500 | $15,00+
Used: | Free-$500 | $500-$15,00+
Expendables (fuel/ammo): | $24+ 50 rounds | $3-$4 a gallon
Insurance: | $10 a month | $300-$1,000+ a month

It gets even more ridiculous when you point out such expenses such as maintenance and the inescapable fact that people spend far more time behind a wheel then behind the barrel of a gun meaning that the differences in expenditures become even more pronounced. And gun owners whine about a mere $10 a month insurance policy?

Am I supposed to respect this?

(Just an aside, your numbers are wildly off)

Um, yes, you should respect that. If you want to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, you should just try to have it amended. At least then I could respect YOUR argument.

Also, driving is not a right. and you're also more likely to be injured in an accident than shot by a gun.

 

[uk_dave]

Yes, meaning he has no further expenses to keep that gun, carry that gun, and use that gun if he really needs to, which I surely hope he never does.

None. Zero. No fees, insurance, taxes, license requirements, nothing.

Ammunition?

 

[Newtons Bit]

That problem the gungoons claim doesn't exist in the US. People getting shot dead all out of proportion to civilized countries that care about social issues.

Your post did not support that.

 

[Montag451]

If you have the right to own a gun then the responsibility is yours as to what happens to the gun I think would be agreed.

So if somebody chooses not to exercise their right to own a gun then they should not be responsible, again difficult to argue with.

So how do you legislate gun owners owning weapons where they are both financially and legally responsible for the use of the weapon which does not require non-users to contribute through taxes? Does a right mean that everybody has to contribute financially to the cost of others right? Sounds a bit socialist to me

If I chose to not own a gun why should any taxes paid go towards dealing with gun violence (180 billion I believe someone quoted).

Should your right to your hobby be funded by my right to not have the same hobby.

Does seem equitable that people who exercise the right should bear the financial burden.

 

[uk_dave]

2- Violates the 2nd Amendment, and as such, would never fly.

(As an aside, I've had the same self defense ammo in my gun for over 2 years. My cost of ownership of that gun, is $0 per year. NOTHING)

The fact that a gun costs money to purchase must surely violate the 2A on those terms.

All the 2A appears to give you is the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say those arms are to be free.

Yes, the weapon in question could be a gift to you, but somebody still had to buy it in order to gift it to you.

The right exists, but someone needs to have the financial wherewithall to implement it. Either that or the government should be supplying arms to any who ask for them.

The argument has been put forward that somehow adding on a cost to the current price of a gun becomes unconstitutional but this doesn't even take into account that in order to purchase a weapon you first have to buy a licence (for the first time, but it's still an add-on cost) and if you buy from a dealer it could be argued that the price you pay for the gun has been increased by whatever fee the dealer pays to do the background check on you.

How on earth have you allowed all of these additional costs to be applied in order to exercise your 2A rights?

And since you have allowed those costs, what makes you think it is wrong for further costs to be added if they are commensurate with the damage which could be caused by irresponsible use of that weapon?

I sympathise, seriously, with the prospect you may find yourself in of having to pay monthly or yearly an insurance premium which might make it unviable for you to hold a weapon. I suspect that the actual premiums won't be nearly as high as people imagine, especially given that the larger the pool of contributors the more the premiums can be reduced by.

And, of course, the more responsible the gun owner the lower the risk and the lower the premium.

Wildcat didn't like my example of the UK shotgun insurance because for some reason having £10million cover was considered irrelevant due to living in a society with UHC and that the insurance only covered useage at the range, though I hadn't picked up on that aspect and would have expected it to cover use in hunting away from a controlled range. But no matter, the point was that it was effectively $15million cover for around $40 per year.

If the insurance proposed in the US was $40 per year would that still be an infringement of your 2A rights?

 

[Upchurch]

No, because of two reasons.

1- Military tribunals run slightly differently, and as such, are governed by a different set of rule.
2- They're not US Citizens, or really the citizens of any country, they're enemy combatants.
3- The Geneva Convention rules apply, not US law. (Though some disagree, I personally feel that they should have been shot in the desert, and left for the scorpions, but that's just me.)

Would YOU like that try again?

I thought we were talking inalienable rights of "all men". Remember the following exchange, which is what you were responding to?

I hold some truths to be self evident, that I'm endowed with certain unalienable rights. I don't agree with you.

Great rhetoric to argue a very different point. Don't take even Jefferson's words as literally factual without some critical analysis. (A point you should realize when you already had to edit them to remove the more obvious flawed portion about a creator.)

Although all people deserve certain rights, you cannot name a one that is truly unalienable, one that cannot be removed from you.

So, unless you are prepared to argue that non-US citizens are not human, you've just proven my point that those rights you've indicated are not inalienable. (Or else you don't understand what "inalienable" means.)

 

[smartcooky]

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea, but I'm afraid it will be very easy to circumvent.

The NRA could simply set themselves up as an Insurance company, and offer Public Liability insurance for a very nominal sum, or perhaps even free to members as part of their membership T&C.

They could make a condition of the insurance that before they would pay out on a claim, the claimant would have to have been charged and found guilty of the gun crime in question.

The insurance would be underwritten by the membership itself, or by a sympathetic insurance underwriter. There are 4.5 million of them, so you have to believe there would be at least one insurance underwriter among them.

 

[Upchurch]

Couple problems sir.

1- It costs my friend $0.00 per month to own that handgun. NOTHING. He doesn't have to buy bullets, unless he fires the ones he has. There is ZERO cost in keeping a gun. Most people don't shoot their guns daily, or even weekly.

2- Violates the 2nd Amendment, and as such, would never fly.

(As an aside, I've had the same self defense ammo in my gun for over 2 years. My cost of ownership of that gun, is $0 per year. NOTHING)

I'll grant you that it is a long thread, but there appears to be a long term memory problem going on here. People are having trouble remember what they are arguing against.

Here is what you were responding to:

You cannot exercise your 2A right if you are a danger to yourself and others? Yes.

Because you can't afford it? No.

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.

US Citizens have a right to own a gun. They do not have the right to own a gun even if they cannot afford to purchase one. You provided your friend as an example, but as you have admitted, he was able to afford the gun he currently owns (which you provided to him at a cost of $0.00).

You have not countered my statement in the least. You have, in fact, supported it.

 

[triforcharity]

Well, duh! The Second makes no mention of cost, which is Upchurch's entire point. Some dirt-poor person who couldn't afford a gun had no right to have a gun handed to him for free.

Meanwhile the right to exercise free speech might well carry the incidental cost of paying for legal aid if it came to court.

The right to assemble doesn't include getting your bus fare (or car insurance) paid for you.

and so on ....

Requiring insurance against risks inherent in claiming constitutional rights does not infringe The Constitution itself.

Since nobody is arguing that, it's a strawman.

If you had to carry liability insurance to post on an internet forum, because the chance of you slandering/libeling someone was there, it would absolutely violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[Newtons Bit]

US Citizens have a right to own a gun. They do not have the right to own a gun even if they cannot afford to purchase one. You provided your friend as an example, but as you have admitted, he was able to afford the gun he currently owns (which you provided to him at a cost of $0.00).

You have not countered my statement in the least. You have, in fact, supported it.

Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled poll taxes unconstitutional?

 

[AlBell]

Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled poll taxes unconstitutional?

Because such were deemed racist was the actual reason iirc.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Because such were deemed racist was the actual reason iirc.

Having just read the Supreme Court decision, that was expressly not the case.

 

[triforcharity]

And if you subtracted the handguns which are the large part of the insurance experience and which about 3/4's of wouldn't be insured anyway because they're in the hands of criminals, you would reduce that to a few bucks a year. You would be insuring a relatively small number of handguns which would be more expensive to insure and lots of rifles and shotguns that are supposedly in the hands of safe gun owners and would be cheap to insure.

I have to go with something around $10 for long guns and maybe $20 or $30 for the handguns. Just another reason why it's the perfect solution!

Wait, you think that 3/4 of the handguns in the US are in the hands of criminals?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That is laughable stupid.

But, if you really want to make that argument, prove it.

I'll wait.

 

[triforcharity]

Ammunition?

Zero. I gave him some of mine. Also, he doesn't shoot it for recreation. It's a self defense weapon only. So, no, none.

 

[triforcharity]

If you have the right to own a gun then the responsibility is yours as to what happens to the gun I think would be agreed.

So if somebody chooses not to exercise their right to own a gun then they should not be responsible, again difficult to argue with.

So how do you legislate gun owners owning weapons where they are both financially and legally responsible for the use of the weapon which does not require non-users to contribute through taxes? Does a right mean that everybody has to contribute financially to the cost of others right? Sounds a bit socialist to me

If I chose to not own a gun why should any taxes paid go towards dealing with gun violence (180 billion I believe someone quoted).

Should your right to your hobby be funded by my right to not have the same hobby.

Does seem equitable that people who exercise the right should bear the financial burden.

For the same reason that I still pay taxes for schools, though my children never once attended public schools.

For the same reason I pay for public boat ramps, even though I have yet to use one in my county.

For the same reason I pay for the fire department, though I have yet to need them, thankfully.

See my point? I surely hope you do.

 

[triforcharity]

I thought we were talking inalienable rights of "all men". Remember the following exchange, which is what you were responding to?


So, unless you are prepared to argue that non-US citizens are not human, you've just proven my point that those rights you've indicated are not inalienable. (Or else you don't understand what "inalienable" means.)

Sorry I missed the part that we were talking about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My bad. Not sure why that was brought up in a thread about gun control, but it's cool. Either way, my bad.

 

[Courier]

And if you subtracted the handguns which are the large part of the insurance experience and which about 3/4's of wouldn't be insured anyway because they're in the hands of criminals, you would reduce that to a few bucks a year....

Wow, you really don't know **** about this issue, do you?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever, that 75% of all handguns in the USA are in the hands of criminals?

Un-***********-believable. Please take some time to educate yourself about this issue and my country, before you comment further.

 

[AlBell]

Having just read the Supreme Court decision, that was expressly not the case.

I doubt the word racist was used in the decision, although that was some part of it.

Equal Protection Clause was the basis cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)

In U.S. practice, a poll tax was used as a de facto or implicit pre-condition of the exercise of the ability to vote. This tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the ability to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws as a means of restricting eligible voters; such laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.