More Insanity: "Liability Insurance" for Gun Owners???

[Crux]

I do carry liability insurance but I do so of my own free will, not because I'm being forced to.

[awa54]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

[Bodog]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

If they required you to have a safety license to casually or unnecessarily shoot at some shooting range, I'd find that acceptable. I find it acceptable to make sure someone can safely drive in public, too. If they said you need a license to simply own a car for dire situations, I'd find that problematic. If they said you need a license to get in a car a drive away from a deadly situation or drive to save someone's life, I'd have a problem with that. If they jailed someone who drove a car without a license in a life or death situation, I'd find that problematic. If they said someone was at fault for driving without insurance in a life or death situation and therefore they are going to jail, I'd find that problematic.

If my 11 year old son took my gun and accidentally shot someone with it, that'd probably be national news and I'd be blamed. If my same son stole my car keys and accidentally ran someone over, people would say it's sad but little else.

If we're talking about keeping things on the same standards, we can. But it goes against a lot of people's beliefs when doing so. Doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a liberal. People want open borders but put a fence around their yard and a lock on their door. People say they're pro-life but support unnecessary wars and death penalties. People say they want freedom of speech, but only if it doesn't offend them. People scream about fraudulent elections but don't care about insisting on measures that would prevent it.

There's a lot in this regard. It offends people when you tell them they're hypocrites

[Crux]

Far more people die in America from car related accidents than from firearms. This is an apples and oranges argument in the extreme in that bad drivers are everywhere. Stupid people that kill are around but in much far less numbers, and we have a lot of good people with guns that stop a lot potential tragic circumstances.

I said earlier that I have insurance, but to require that I do is a major impediment to the 2nd AMENDMENT. Maybe you should have liability insurance for what you say. 1st vs 2nd. Come on peeps, let's be real.

[awa54]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom ... States_law

OK, line up and hand in your cars...

Discuss (rationally and honestly please).

Seriously, this issue induces a giant sized and emotionally charged blind spot in many otherwise broad minded and rational Americans.

[Daveho]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

Well as I don’t have the right to bear arms is not really relevant to me an I’m not in the US- my personal opinion on firearms is my own butim just saying that in a situation where the repercussions if something goes wrong are so dire insurance makes sense-
However the conflict with the second amendment makes it tricky.

[awa54]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

If they required you to have a safety license to casually or unnecessarily shoot at some shooting range, I'd find that acceptable. I find it acceptable to make sure someone can safely drive in public, too. If they said you need a license to simply own a car for dire situations, I'd find that problematic. If they said you need a license to get in a car a drive away from a deadly situation or drive to save someone's life, I'd have a problem with that. If they jailed someone who drove a car without a license in a life or death situation, I'd find that problematic. If they said someone was at fault for driving without insurance in a life or death situation and therefore they are going to jail, I'd find that problematic.

If my 11 year old son took my gun and accidentally shot someone with it, that'd probably be national news and I'd be blamed. If my same son stole my car keys and accidentally ran someone over, people would say it's sad but little else.

If we're talking about keeping things on the same standards, we can. But it goes against a lot of people's beliefs when doing so. Doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a liberal. People want open borders but put a fence around their yard and a lock on their door. People say they're pro-life but support unnecessary wars and death penalties. People say they want freedom of speech, but only if it doesn't offend them. People scream about fraudulent elections but don't care about insisting on measures that would prevent it.

There's a lot in this regard. It offends people when you tell them they're hypocrites

I agree that proportionality in legal responses needs to be worked on... Home defense is not something you should go to jail for.

[TomAiello]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

Why is driving a "privilege" and not a right?

The 9th Amendment is pretty clear--why does everyone ignore it?

[Crux]

The 9th Amendment argument is a very, very weak one.

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somewhat of an enigma. It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... +Amendment

[Bodog]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

Why is driving a "privilege" and not a right?

The 9th Amendment is pretty clear--why does everyone ignore it?

Because that's the one that actually is supposed to ensure the government doesn't encroach on a person's total sovereignty. The government, any government, doesn't know how to govern without encroaching on sovereignty. That's why this country is a failed experiment. The right idea was there, we just happened to fail at its execution. Your statement is proof of it.

If you're hungry can you fish in a public lake without a permit? Can you hunt public land without a permit? Can you freely travel and live without a permit? Do you have the right to collect rain water without a permit? Can you even choose to partake in the religious ceremony of marriage without the government giving its blessing? Can you choose to live how you want without the government giving permission?

This country was supposed to embody those rights, that no man is more sovereign than another. That no group can diminish your freedom as an individual. That society can only take your sovereignty away if it can be proven that you are harming another or infringing on their rights. That your rights can only be removed through a codified legal process that is difficult to navigate on purpose. And if you need to fight to retain your rights, you are fully within your natural and legal rights as a living, sovereign being to fight to protect those natural rights despite what society says is acceptable or not. You may lose, and you may die defending those rights, but it's fully natural and legal to defend your own freedom and sovereignty against any hostile actor, regardless of who supports the hostile actor or not. Doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the hostile actor is an agent of the government or not. As a matter of fact, the people are supposed to always be hostile towards anyone in government because the government is always seeking to subvert a person's sovereignty. It was supposed to be a known issue and if you become a government agent or official you were supposed to go into it understanding that Americans would despise you and seek to undermine you at every turn. That's what keeps the government in check. Yes, I'm a government agent, and yes, I know what I'm saying.

It was fully codified within the bill of rights and it's clear as day if you think about it. But this country and its constitution and laws codifying sovereignty failed even in Washington's time with the whisky rebellion. Why shouldn't someone have the obvious right to turn a perishable agricultural product into a marketable non-perishable product without needing governmental approval with the approval only obtained by a "legal" bribe to the government via taxation? But the civil war is what really put the country into the coffin with the federal reserve act and income tax act being the final nails.

[The Mastiff]

Very, Very well put Bodog. I couldn't say it better.

Joe

[Crux]

Sure, but I said it in ONE sentence. :)

[The Mastiff]

Sure, but I said it in ONE sentence.

Indeed. :D

[Bodog]

Sure, but I said it in ONE sentence. :)

Sorry, it's hard to write thoughts that swim upstream in one sentence without putting it into a memetic picture. And i tend to ramble regardless of what I'm trying to say. :o

[awa54]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

Why is driving a "privilege" and not a right?

The 9th Amendment is pretty clear--why does everyone ignore it?

Because that's the one that actually is supposed to ensure the government doesn't encroach on a person's total sovereignty. The government, any government, doesn't know how to govern without encroaching on sovereignty. That's why this country is a failed experiment. The right idea was there, we just happened to fail at its execution. Your statement is proof of it.

If you're hungry can you fish in a public lake without a permit? Can you hunt public land without a permit? Can you freely travel and live without a permit? Do you have the right to collect rain water without a permit? Can you even choose to partake in the religious ceremony of marriage without the government giving its blessing? Can you choose to live how you want without the government giving permission?

This country was supposed to embody those rights, that no man is more sovereign than another. That no group can diminish your freedom as an individual. That society can only take your sovereignty away if it can be proven that you are harming another or infringing on their rights. That your rights can only be removed through a codified legal process that is difficult to navigate on purpose. And if you need to fight to retain your rights, you are fully within your natural and legal rights as a living, sovereign being to fight to protect those natural rights despite what society says is acceptable or not. You may lose, and you may die defending those rights, but it's fully natural and legal to defend your own freedom and sovereignty against any hostile actor, regardless of who supports the hostile actor or not. Doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the hostile actor is an agent of the government or not. As a matter of fact, the people are supposed to always be hostile towards anyone in government because the government is always seeking to subvert a person's sovereignty. It was supposed to be a known issue and if you become a government agent or official you were supposed to go into it understanding that Americans would despise you and seek to undermine you at every turn. That's what keeps the government in check. Yes, I'm a government agent, and yes, I know what I'm saying.

It was fully codified within the bill of rights and it's clear as day if you think about it. But this country and its constitution and laws codifying sovereignty failed even in Washington's time with the whisky rebellion. Why shouldn't someone have the obvious right to turn a perishable agricultural product into a marketable non-perishable product without needing governmental approval with the approval only obtained by a "legal" bribe to the government via taxation? But the civil war is what really put the country into the coffin with the federal reserve act and income tax act being the final nails.

One enormous problem with that interpretation is that a country of Sovereign individuals can only function if all of those individuals are willing to respect each other's Sovereignty...

Historically humans are very bad at that, LOL!

[Bodog]

OK, I'm calling BS right now... too many RKBA people use the tired old saw of driving being a privilege, not a right. Are you seriously telling me that if your "privilege" to drive a car was revoked that it wouldn't affect you as much or more than the revocation of your "Right" to keep and bear arms??

BTW, I'm all good with both the Right to own weapons and the "privilege" of driving, I'm just calling out hypocricy where I see it.

Why is driving a "privilege" and not a right?

The 9th Amendment is pretty clear--why does everyone ignore it?

Because that's the one that actually is supposed to ensure the government doesn't encroach on a person's total sovereignty. The government, any government, doesn't know how to govern without encroaching on sovereignty. That's why this country is a failed experiment. The right idea was there, we just happened to fail at its execution. Your statement is proof of it.

If you're hungry can you fish in a public lake without a permit? Can you hunt public land without a permit? Can you freely travel and live without a permit? Do you have the right to collect rain water without a permit? Can you even choose to partake in the religious ceremony of marriage without the government giving its blessing? Can you choose to live how you want without the government giving permission?

This country was supposed to embody those rights, that no man is more sovereign than another. That no group can diminish your freedom as an individual. That society can only take your sovereignty away if it can be proven that you are harming another or infringing on their rights. That your rights can only be removed through a codified legal process that is difficult to navigate on purpose. And if you need to fight to retain your rights, you are fully within your natural and legal rights as a living, sovereign being to fight to protect those natural rights despite what society says is acceptable or not. You may lose, and you may die defending those rights, but it's fully natural and legal to defend your own freedom and sovereignty against any hostile actor, regardless of who supports the hostile actor or not. Doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if the hostile actor is an agent of the government or not. As a matter of fact, the people are supposed to always be hostile towards anyone in government because the government is always seeking to subvert a person's sovereignty. It was supposed to be a known issue and if you become a government agent or official you were supposed to go into it understanding that Americans would despise you and seek to undermine you at every turn. That's what keeps the government in check. Yes, I'm a government agent, and yes, I know what I'm saying.

It was fully codified within the bill of rights and it's clear as day if you think about it. But this country and its constitution and laws codifying sovereignty failed even in Washington's time with the whisky rebellion. Why shouldn't someone have the obvious right to turn a perishable agricultural product into a marketable non-perishable product without needing governmental approval with the approval only obtained by a "legal" bribe to the government via taxation? But the civil war is what really put the country into the coffin with the federal reserve act and income tax act being the final nails.

One enormous problem with that interpretation is that a country of Sovereign individuals can only function if all of those individuals are willing to respect each other's Sovereignty...

Historically humans are very bad at that, LOL!

That was the point of the second amendment. If someone chooses to violate your sovereignty, you can take the necessary actions to ensure your sovereignty is protected, including forming into a milita to fight predatory groups wherever they spawn. And it's precisely because they understood that humans are, or can be, bad. Sometimes you have to fight to protect yourself. It's a natural right because every living being is confronted with that prospect. If someone chose to violate sovereignty, they'd better be prepared for a life or death fight. And that's the way it still should be. Respect would be much more commonplace if the person being violated has the inherent legal right and social acceptance to shoot you and hopefully kill you. It would be a very real threat to the predator and force them to think very hard about who to prey upon and when.

Imagine what Sweden would be like if the swedish started killing the African immigrants who are preying on them. The Africans would either live in peace or die. It would LOOK racist but it wouldn't be. That's the honest to God only way to have a peaceful society. You either choose to be a decent person or you get killed. No one cares about your race or ancestry. We can act like humans are somehow more advanced than that but we're not. You are either good and deserve to live freely or you are bad and deserve to die. It doesn't matter an iota if you are black or white or jewish or asian. You're a decent person or not.

There's a reason why Detroit and Chicago and other places have rotted. Good people felt they could not or should not fight to retain a decent society. They felt they should not or could not fight against the predators. Had the decent people stood up and fought the lowlifes, those cities would still be prosperous beacons of life. But the good people stood down and allowed predators to run amok and ran when they should have stood their ground. All in the name of diversity and political correctness. Now those cities are lost. They aren't worth anything. If earthquakes or fires destroyed them, no decent person would care all that much.

There are common threads in the discussions concerning freedom and sovereignty and what mitigates human rights wherever they may be found. When you say those common threads aloud, you sound like a racist. But it's not racism despite them telling you it is. You either learn who's killing you and defend against them or you die. That's life. Even if they consolidate themselves along "legally" protected lines, you identify those who seek to hurt you and stop them or you die.

That's how it is. Right now there is a concerted effort to genocide a certain race of people who hold certain ideologies in the US. Either they stand up and defend themselves or they die. It should be absolutely acceptable to do so in the US, but those people are scared to exert their God given rights to remain alive and free. So they'll die. I'm one of them and my children are too. That's the natural order. Fight or die.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Those are very great points! Is there any shred of hope that this process can be reversed, at this point as things are now, and get America back to being what it originally was, or to restart it, and have it be a successful experiment, without severe hardship and strife accompanying that, or, is that not possible and its past the point of no return?

I remember reading about two different insane situations where personal freedom was encroached upon by local government ordinances:

One was a couple who was hosting a Bible study in their own private house, and the town threatened to fine and have them arrested for violating zoning ordinances. A second was about a man who received similiar threats because he was collecting and using rain water on his own property.

I read that in some or most areas, new outhouses are banned on properties, with the claim that in can endanger the local water table or sanitation ordinances. Is that true?

[The Mastiff]

There's a reason why Detroit and Chicago and other places have rotted. Good people felt they could not or should not fight to retain a decent society. They felt they should not or could not fight against the predators. Had the decent people stood up and fought the lowlifes, those cities would still be prosperous beacons of life. But the good people stood down and allowed predators to run amok and ran when they should have stood their ground. All in the name of diversity and political correctness. Now those cities are lost. They aren't worth anything. If earthquakes or fires destroyed them, no decent person would care all that much.

It goes deeper than that in cities like Detroit, Chicago and even NYC. For much of the last one hundred years the local government was in bed with whatever organized crime/drug gangs were there and if you did make an example of a few criminals the biggest gang of all the police would get you by order of the mayor or whomever controlled things. As TV like as it sounds it was and might still be true in places. It's easier for many to move out of the city where you don't have to worry about much more than stray dogs knocking over your trash can. :D

And before anyone asks for examples I say do the research yourself. It's readily available.

Joe