Stand for the Second Amendment

eider

eider

Well-known member
glorydaz said:
Get off your talking points. They were stupid the first time, and they aren't improving. :rotfl:
Click to expand...

OK..... let's do this slowly, one point at a time....

Do you support mandatory all-risks insurance for all gun owners?
YES/NO.
 
D

Danoh

New member
eider said:
OK..... let's do this slowly, one point at a time....

Do you support mandatory all-risks insurance for all gun owners?
YES/NO.
Click to expand...

Nah, just go back to the Old West of every man for himself; gun at his side; rifle in his saddle; and the rule of law determined by who is able to walk into a school and blow away innocent lives.

Solution?

Arm the students and the teachers. And post armed guards at the entrances.

And then sit back feeling safe as the would-be assassin figures out another way to take out innocent lives.

Obviously we have learned nothing from the fact that the Japanese were able to wreak their astounding devastation on Pearl Harbor though Pearl was a massive ants' colony of U.S. military might.

Obviously, we have learned nothing from the Oklahoma Bombing - that building was crawling with highly trained law enforcement officers.

Obviously...

There is...no easy solution.
 
eider

eider

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Nah, just go back to the Old West of every man for himself; gun at his side; rifle in his saddle; and the rule of law determined by who is able to walk into a school and blow away innocent lives.

Solution?

Arm the students and the teachers. And post armed guards at the entrances.

And then sit back feeling safe as the would-be assassin figures out another way to take out innocent lives.

Obviously we have learned nothing from the fact that the Japanese were able to wreak their astounding devastation on Pearl Harbor though Pearl was a massive ants' colony of U.S. military might.

Obviously, we have learned nothing from the Oklahoma Bombing - that building was crawling with highly trained law enforcement officers.

Obviously...

There is...no easy solution.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.

Do you think that all gun owners should have all-risks insurance for their guns?
YES/NO
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
eider said:
Wait and see.......... support for better gun controls is growing throughout all sectors of US society, we hear.
Who would complain against Public Liability all risks gun insurance for all? Who? Only the irresponsible...
Who would complain against mandatory gun safes and their consistent use? ...only the irresponsible....
Who would complain against mental health reviews for all gun licence applicants? .... only the irresponsible...
Who would complain against tighter criminal record reviews for all gun licence applicants? .......... only the irresponsible...
Who would complain against a compulsory Health&Safety course for all gun licence applicants?............only the irresponsible...
Who would complain against the installation of full perimeter security fencing, high security egress-only only emergency exits, main-gate access control and a professional security presence at all US schools, paid for with tax dollars? ....... only the irresponsible...

And many would support an outright ban on Semi-Automatic rifles.

The Republicans and GOP supporters are coming round in greater numbers about all this, and its not a Leftist, Communist, Marxist plot......... only political paranoids would think that. They might benefit from seeing their doctor for some kind of medication, maybe?
Click to expand...

You're not as smart as you thought you weren't.
 
D

Danoh

New member
eider said:
You didn't answer the question.

Do you think that all gun owners should have all-risks insurance for their guns?
YES/NO
Click to expand...

What exactly does that mean?

For I am (often) all about the finer distinctions within a thing - big time.

Thanks

Rom. 5:6-8.
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
eider said:
Who told you that?
Leftist.... Rightist....... you only have one answer for everything, it seems.

Where I live, the landowners benefited from gun controls of the late 60's, for instance, all rights to carry a gun and shoot on tidal foreshores were taken from common-rightsofway and handed to the adjacent land owners. So when you crank the 'Leftists are bad' handle it just makes me sigh...... really.

Gun control needs rightist ( :D ) support or children and teachers are going to be mass murdered on a regular basis......... so maybe the leftists could blame the rightists for this dreadful crazy situation where folks can obtain fast-fire semi-auto rifles and go killing children? And don't forget the average of 80 deaths per day that are caused, every day, by guns.
Click to expand...

Do you get your 'facts' from CNN and their ilk? I'm starting not to like you.
 
eider

eider

Well-known member
Danoh said:
What exactly does that mean?

For I am (often) all about the finer distinctions within a thing - big time.

Thanks

Rom. 5:6-8.
Click to expand...

It means what it says..............
It seeks to discover whether you would approve of all gun licence holders having all-risks full-cover gun insurance.

If you lose your gun and its found and used by villains you're covered for any damages.
If your gun is stolen and used by thieves you're covered....
If you had a gun accident which injured/killed people or damaged property, you're covered for the massive damages.
If you shot at a villain and injured/killed an innocent beyond, or were just plain mistaken you would be covered for the huge damages (you might still get convicted of various offences).

.... and so, however you and your gun cause injury, damage, pain and suffering, your insurance would underwrite for legal provision and financial damages.


..........and there's a huge angle to this...... bad people would be refused insurance, and thus couldn't have a licence. Insurers aren't careless about who they give cover to.

Does that make it all more clear for you?
 
eider

eider

Well-known member
Grosnick Marowbe said:
Do you get your 'facts' from CNN and their ilk? I'm starting not to like you.
Click to expand...

Wow...... you liked me before? I'm flattered.

More to the point of the thread, do you personally own any guns?
Would you support licensing for all guns?

Do you think that assault rifles are needed by civilians?
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
eider said:
It means what it says..............
It seeks to discover whether you would approve of all gun licence holders having all-risks full-cover gun insurance.

If you lose your gun and its found and used by villains you're covered for any damages.
If your gun is stolen and used by thieves you're covered....
If you had a gun accident which injured/killed people or damaged property, you're covered for the massive damages.
If you shot at a villain and injured/killed an innocent beyond, or were just plain mistaken you would be covered for the huge damages (you might still get convicted of various offences).

.... and so, however you and your gun cause injury, damage, pain and suffering, your insurance would underwrite for legal provision and financial damages.


..........and there's a huge angle to this...... bad people would be refused insurance, and thus couldn't have a licence. Insurers aren't careless about who they give cover to.

Does that make it all more clear for you?
Click to expand...

That's so dumb. No insurance, that ordinary people could afford, would cover a thief's actions. Any more than your car insurance will cover the bank robbery committed by a car thief, or the payment to a family of someone run over by the car thief.

Are you an insurance salesman or something?
The world of litigation is already way out of bounds. :kookoo:
 
D

Danoh

New member
eider said:
It means what it says..............
It seeks to discover whether you would approve of all gun licence holders having all-risks full-cover gun insurance.

If you lose your gun and its found and used by villains you're covered for any damages.
If your gun is stolen and used by thieves you're covered....
If you had a gun accident which injured/killed people or damaged property, you're covered for the massive damages.
If you shot at a villain and injured/killed an innocent beyond, or were just plain mistaken you would be covered for the huge damages (you might still get convicted of various offences).

.... and so, however you and your gun cause injury, damage, pain and suffering, your insurance would underwrite for legal provision and financial damages.


..........and there's a huge angle to this...... bad people would be refused insurance, and thus couldn't have a licence. Insurers aren't careless about who they give cover to.

Does that make it all more clear for you?
Click to expand...

Yep.

And no to your question. At least on something of that magnitude - which demands some seriouus looking into before allowing oneself a simple yes, or no.

Rom. 5: 6-8.
 
D

Danoh

New member
glorydaz said:
That's so dumb. No insurance, that ordinary people could afford, would cover a thief's actions. Any more than your car insurance will cover the bank robbery committed by a car thief, or the payment to a family of someone run over by the car thief.

Are you an insurance salesman or something?
The world of litigation is already way out of bounds. :kookoo:
Click to expand...

Glad I was able to help get ya clear on what he'd meant, GD.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top