So you want to protect society from guns but not knives. If you get killed by a knife your wife doesn’t get any insurance money got it. I get it guns do more volume of damage therefore need insurance. Who do you think is doing most of that volume of violence? Criminals I would guess the very people you stated wouldn’t even get insurance. So most of violence will be done by criminals who aren’t going to get insurance but you want everyone else to get insurance because of all the violence. Not going to happen.
See... So, 40% for "many areas". Show me the data and we'll talk or throw out some more insults. I suspect the latter is easier for you...more practice. You think the media directed me to that site on non-insured motorists or are even pushing the idea that gun owners should carry liability insurance? Maybe you can do a google search for me to find an article, opinion or news, advocating the points I'm making here. I'd love to read for another perspective. Only 1 person is on ignore though you are making a good case to be #2. I suggested you place me on ignore since you aren't interested in debate but rather **** flinging which also conforms to your boasting of how many times you've been suspended by Twitter. You don't want to discuss, learn about opposing views but want to simply toss around insults. At least, that's what you've demonstrated here over and over.
You clearly have never been to the east side of Austin or the east side of the Houston area. It is ALSO clear that you don't see dockets very often. The left doesn't want routine traffic stops to occur precisely because they know things like insurance will be found nowhere in sight, and they whine that such stops disproportionately impact the criminal class, err I mean the poor... Seems you don't realize that all it takes to get suspended on the bird app is to point out that males are not and will not every be women. Or that women's sex-segregated space means something...and that it should be sacrosanct and entirely exempt from colonization by the pervert class. Places like the bird app ALSO suspend and ban people for misinformation which is simply fact that has not yet been conceded by the powers that be...numerous examples of this exist in the sniffles thread. In the meantime, I will continue pointing out examples of you and other libtiles being wrong. Enjoy your coming red wave with the midterms and in the interim, bringing it back to Breyer and his retirement, enjoy the double standards the Dems embrace in their appointment and hiring process.
In real Breyer replacement news, not fantasy gun control schemes, NM's Senator Lujan had a stroke and is out an estimated 4-6 weeks. That said, I can't believe that Mittens or Murkowski wouldn't vote to confirm whatever Communist that Depend's handlers push forward. Thought Mitch is good at judge battles - about the only thing he is good for, but mighty good there so full marks for what he's done in the past. It does mean the B^3 bill, and whatever other Senate rule busting stuff the Democrats dreamt of pushing forward is done till Lujan gets back, or at least propped up to Biden/Ginsberg level of automation. Poor Ginsberg was so frail at the end of her term that she couldn't even get out of her chair by herself. At one meeting, everyone sort of forgot about her and she was stuck in place till someone remembered she needed help in sitting up.
I very clearly said that guns are much more of an issue when it comes to deaths/accidents but if knives become a problem on the same level as guns then I'd consider it. At this point there is wide chasm between guns and knives. I didn't tie insurance just to crime. Is auto liability insurance required just to combat bank robbers who use automobiles to getaway? It's to ensure the driver is accountable for the awesome responsibility of driving. Gun ownership, especially open/concealed carry should be though of in the same vein.
You got me. I've never been to the East side of Austin or Houston and don't see dockets. Not sure how looking at micro-locations invalidates my point. "libtiles", "pervert class", "sniffles thread". It's as if I'm paying you to prove my point. You think you were kicked off twitter for having a different view but in reality you simply don't know how to converse with others. Your own writing proves it. You are the toxicity Twitter is trying to expunge from it's platform. My Grandfather used to tell me "God gave you 2 ears and one mouth. He did that so you listen twice as much as you talk." My advice is to listen more. You may learn something about why the opponent thinks the way they do. More than simply being a "pervert" or "libtile".
Yeah, 'micro-locations' in large metropolitan areas...that could never be relevant. GTFOH. I guess we should thank you for identifying yourself as endorsing the rights of sex offenders to declare themselves women so they can prey on females. And the right of mediocre athletes to decide between semesters that they can be champion athletes by changing the switch to easy mode on the game of life and step down in competition class. Oh and that you ALSO only want one approved narrative. You and your ilk cannot help yourself in decrying that with which you disagree and demanding that it be squelched. Fortunately those high school kids in Washougal who are sick of mask stupidity give some measure of hope that common sense may eventually prevail in the PNW.
I didn't endorse or identify anything but you ascribed a whole bunch of opinions to me just as you did with the other terms I pointed out. You are replete with loaded language which exposes that you have zero interest in listening to the opposing party. So, you project on them what you want to believe based on a limited set of experiences. That's your prerogative but the term closed minded is typically reserved for that type of behavior.
I blocked that lovely individual. A wise consultant once told me to never get into a pissing contest with a skunk - nobody wins. Not sure if that one fits her as much as the chess/pigeon one. I’m better than that. I can disagree without being disagreeable, as can you. Most here can. I can’t imagine a rational adult getting banned multiple times on any platform.
You once talked **** to other people for talking about blocking someone. What gives, here, bootlegger?
I didn't go to UT Law so I was never in his class, but I met and spoke with him at some YCT functions back in the day. He was a great man.
A commonality across social platforms is that the weak often resort to blocking almost as soon as their ivory tower nonsense is pierced by real-world experience and data. Saw that again the other day on the bird app where so far-left whacko was claiming Abbott, Patrick and Paxton were all racist. When pressed upon WHY they were racists, they avoided the question. Two posts later, having been shown the other user was clearly a liar, she blocked me. It is part and parcel of the left's playbook...
The size of the state has nothing to do with it. Law professors don't care how big or well-armed the state is. The opinion doesn't get the publicity you expect, because the idea that Congress decides who the government of a particular state is isn't very controversial in legal circles. In fact, on the issue in question, it's still good law. I'm not trying to be a jackass, but you talk about this case as though you haven't read it or haven't read it carefully. Peruse it again. It's not the travesty you think it is. Furthermore, if the Court did what you would want it to do, it would run afoul of other constitutional provisions. Actually you have it ***-backwards. We may as well not have a by 14th Amendment or FFC under your mentality, because the Court could just force it arbitrarily. Under my mentality (and the mentality lawyers and judges generally apply when it's not justices screwing with the Constitution), those laws actually have relevance. I don't know if it'll do any good because it hasn't so far, but I'll say it again. We should follow the law (including the Constitution) as it's written. That doesn't mean we never be strike down laws. However, it does mean that we only do so when the Constitution actually conflicts with them. Any other system is arbitrary and renders legislatures and any system that codifies laws irrelevant. It is why we don't like places like North Korea and Cuba.
Anyone expecting block voting from the Republicans is going to be disappointed. I heard Lindsey Graham say he expects to vote for Biden’s appointee.
You are dodging. I didn't say one shouldn't be blocked. You ribbed me a while back for repeating a few times about blocking a certain poster. Edited for egregious, outrageous, uphauling, and disgruntling spelling errors.
The answer for what to do with criminals is already in the driving world under uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. In your example you want this lady to have gun insurance so the clerk can sue her and get money for his emotional distress. Next time a gangbanger pulls a gun with no insurance on it. The clerk needs to pay for his own uninsured and underinsured gun coverage for his emotional distress?
Yep, I'm sure insurance companies would offer that as an option after liability insurance was mandated for gun owners.
Ok. I don't see it passing constitutional muster like a poll tax. As others stated, right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Right to drive car is not. Anyway, I better let this return to Breyer...
On the merits, I don't have a problem with background checks so long as they're reasonable in cost, timeliness, and scope. If we're talking about what should pass constitutional muster, the state/federal issue comes into play. A state legislature can basically do what it wants. Congress could only require a background check on interstate sales.
I'm at a point of tit for tat and fight fire with fire with the dims. Playing nice gets us nowhere. I didn't used to think that but that is where we are at.
This. We only know that the nominee will be an African American woman. Unless you are willing to leap to say that all or none are qualified it's premature to comment.
I got a bit derailed, but your comments warranted examination and response. As you might guess, I tend to accept the NRA's view that the well-regulated militia clause isn't a limitation on the right to bear arms. However, I don't accept their application of the Second Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment. As I've indicated before, I think a state has the right to ban handguns unless they limit it by their own constitutions or laws. There are more guns than cars. However, I think you also have to consider use, exposure to the public, and likelihood of accidental injury. Obviously gun accidents happen, and every one of them is a tragedy, but auto injuries and fatalities are much, much more common even though there are fewer cars. For example, in 2018 there were 458 accidental gun deaths in the United States. There were about 36,000 traffic fatalities that same year. The bottom line is that driving a car is just a hell of a lot more dangerous than carrying a gun, because it's far more likely to be lead to injury or death. It's much easier to accidentally cause a car wreck than to accidentally fire a gun. Why do I not consider intentional injuries and deaths in this equation? Because liability insurance protects against negligence and gross negligence torts. It doesn't cover intentional acts. I also can't speak for every state, but at least in Texas, a car doesn't have to be insured if it's not driving on the roads and therefore exposing people to harm. A car that's just sitting in your garage doesn't have to be insured. I don't see much need for a gun that's sitting in a safe to be insured. Could I be convinced to require it for those who get carry licenses? Perhaps. Should gun ranges have to carry insurance that covers the shooters inside? Absolutely. But do I think a guy who keeps his gun in his home and uses it only for home defense should have to carry a special liability insurance policy? No, and there's a good chance his homeowners policy would kick in if an accident occurred. And of course, you can see where the skepticism is going to come from. States have the power to set insurance rates. Will the State of California set rates at something reasonable, or will it gouge gun owners just because it can? Gun owners aren't going to trust states like that not to make insurance premiums do to the right to bear arms what a poll tax did to the right to vote.
