Quantcast

It will never stop. Unless

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by tws3b2, Aug 12, 2019.

  1. tws3b2

    tws3b2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Asheboro NC
    I was just reading where California is trying to start requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance. In other words to make it unaffordable for the average person to own a firearm. Just the rich and criminals. You know, at some point we are going to have to stop whining and crying to each other and stand up for our rights. The pro Constitution, pro Rights, pro Freedom American greatly out number all the anti Constitution, rights, hate groups put together. You heard of the million man march? Just think what we could do. If we just would.
     
    Ks5shooter, yzguy87, JTHunter and 9 others like this.
  2. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,854
    Location:
    Virginia
    It's like a chess game. The antigunners are trying to think of as many ways as possible to checkmate gun owners, so as to force them to give up. However, they haven't thought through the next moves. The gun owners may give up, all right -- but not in the way the antigunners expect. Instead of continuing to play this no-win game, they will quit and take their guns underground. So we may end up with the same numbers and types of guns, but now hidden and untraceable. This is what happens in every country with draconian gun laws.
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  3. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,630
    Location:
    TX
    So what? The guns are unusable by law abiding citizens. They may be used by nuts. Not a great outcome. If the guns in NZ or NY exist but are hidden, never to be seen, in a sense they don’t exist for us. The NY Times had a recent editorial pointing out that a ban won’t stop usage by nuts and since guns will be hidden, the ban is useless for crime prevention.

    However, it stops lawful use in its tracks.
     
    EIB0879, LiveLife, freyasman and 6 others like this.
  4. AZAndy
    • Contributing Member

    AZAndy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ, USA
    Apparently not in California, from what you just reported.
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  5. tws3b2

    tws3b2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Asheboro NC
    I don't think its a no-win game . The only way we can lose is to just give it away. Pretty much what we are doing now. We can hide our guns away and we can hide ourselves away with them. But is that the freedom you want? Is that what our forefathers fought and died for. If we are willing to settle for that, we should give up now and kneel before our betters.
     
  6. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,854
    Location:
    Virginia
    Worse than useless. When guns are in the open, at least they can be monitored, and attempts can be made to channel them into proper hands. Hidden guns cannot be monitored, and nothing can prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. And also, when you remove the "safety valves" for legal ownership, you turn formerly law-abiding people into criminals by definition. The presumption of the antigunners is that people will willingly turn in their guns when told to do so. That's a false assumption.
     
  7. John Joseph

    John Joseph Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    The proposal is the brainchild of the mayor of San Jose for the citizens of San Jose.
    But this stuff spreads like shingles.
    Beware!
    Ironically didn't New York just ban the NRA from selling gun liability insurance in New York?
     
  8. shafter

    shafter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,021

    I don't see the value in this. Hidden guns are useless guns. You can't enjoy them at the range, teach new shooters, or carry them for protection, and there will always be the weight over your head of knowing that if you are found out you may face jail time.

    I'm under no illusions that the day is soon coming where firearm ownership as we've known it is going to be over.
     
    Tom-R2, Bfh_auto and SilentStalker like this.
  9. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,345
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    30 minutes watching a show like "Live PD" will show you that a large percentage of the folks driving around don't carry insurance on their cars. Does California expect that criminals will buy insurance for their guns? A waste of perfectly good cranial space.
     
    Demi-human and P5 Guy like this.
  10. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,854
    Location:
    Virginia
    Hidden guns are more useful than no guns. The "gun culture" may soon turn into an underground movement. (The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto wished that they had more hidden guns. But every one that they had exacted a price against their oppressors.)
     
    748, Tom-R2, JTHunter and 2 others like this.
  11. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    960
    Required liability insurance isn't a practical means forward for either side. If all gun owners had to buy liability insurance, it would be inexpensive enough that everyone could afford it and it would make no difference. It is illegal to insure criminal or unlawful activity -- that is the crux of the efforts in some states to ban "concealed carry insurance." Because insurance companies would never be on the hook to pay a dime for the illegal use of guns in crimes, their actual exposure would be extremely low and they could not justify high premiums. Indeed, we already have lots of insurers offering "concealed carry insurance" that in some cases might actually pay for the legal defense of criminal acts. This insurance is voluntary, and so it has very few people paying the premiums. Yet it's often quite affordable.

    Before the state could require the purchase of liability insurance for firearms, it would need to clarify the grey area here. Are these pre-paid legal services? Or are they insurance for criminal acts? If insuring criminal acts was ruled out, the insurance company would be on the hook for what is essentially the prepaid legal defense of criminal acts, which is not something the State is going to sponsor. So then what are they insuring? Firearm accidents? Is that really the plague the state is trying to resolve? Whatever little liability for lawful acts that insurers would have to cover, without having to pay for legal services, and having so many premium payers, the premiums, compared to existing concealed carry insurance, would be a pittance.

    I'm certainly not suggesting anyone capitulate to the demands for liability insurance. It's certainly an unlawful infringement. My point is that it would not financially burden gun owners or actually pay anything to victims of crimes because insuring criminal acts is unlawful. So these efforts are a waste of time.

    The people who've engendered these gun control schemes would be better off focusing their effort on reducing the incidence of hoplophobia, and working toward reinforcing good behavior with guns. If people aren't afraid of guns, hateful aggressors are less likely to perceive them as an effective means to strike terror into our society. If more people model good behavior with guns, not only will incidence of hoplophobia be reduced, but the relatively small portion of people that are fascinated and obsessed with guns that are at risk for expressing themselves in a destructive way, will be more likely to find productive and positive ways to pursue their passion.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    Tom-R2 likes this.
  12. tws3b2

    tws3b2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Asheboro NC
    You know, That sounds exactly like what i would expect the anti Constitution/ gun people to say. Just another insignificant little thing that would be no problem for anyone. You take one little insignificant little slippery pebble and add it to another, then another then another, then another and soon you will be walking a whole bunch of slippery rocks. The anti Constitution/gun bunch know they are not going to just walk in and rip out the Constitution and your rights to be a free American. Chip away, one step at a time, one little insignificant pebble.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    Demi-human likes this.
  13. tws3b2

    tws3b2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Asheboro NC
    "Everyone could afford". Do you know how many people live pay check to pay check in this country. Can't even take in a movie because there simply nothing left at the end of the week. A young person just starting out with little to begin with. Nothing left after bills each month. Likes to shoot. Walks into walmart. Cheapest thing on the shelf $200, box of shells $20. $220. Nothing to a lot of people. But $220 from nothing is a lot. Permits, background check, where to shoot, range fees, more shells. Then comes insurance. Not much . Not much from nothing is a lot. That young person looks at all the rules, regulations, hassle, cost and says Its not worth it. If its not worth it to them Why should they care? If they don't care they are Not on our side. We need everybody we can get on Our side. There are No insignificant Pebbles and No insignificant supporters of Our Constitution/Rights/Freedom out there. And that my friend's is just my little insignificant penny worth.
     
  14. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    960
    You're missing the point. The point is that there is no support for insuring criminal activity from any side. Firearm liability insurance will never pay the victims of criminal acts. The whole idea is worthless.
     
    BigBore44 likes this.
  15. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    960
    What the antis really want here is not insurance at all, but a social justice tax. This wouldn't be unprecedented, and we've seen taxes conflated with insurance schemes before -- social security and medicare welfare taxes, and national flood insurance (Katrina tax). It would be completely untenable to insure criminals. But people could vote to tax gun owners, the government collects the tax, wastes most of it, and pays a little bit to victims of crimes where a firearm was used. Only then would the burden on gun owners be significant enough to reduce gun ownership. If the "insurance" only covered lawful acts, it simply would not accomplish a purpose to reduce gun ownership -- regardless of how onerous it would be for gun owners.

    Efforts to tax guns out of popularity aren't unprecedented. The NFA was just such an effort. It was crafted to add a $3880 (in 2019 dollars) tax to all handguns and practical substitutes (short barrel rifles and shotguns) during the Depression-era economy. It certainly would have taxed most people out of lawful gun ownership. Fortunately, handguns were withdrawn from the act before it was passed. Could something like that be proposed again under the auspices of collecting victim compensation from all gun owners? It could certainly be attempted, but it wouldn't be legitimate to call it "insurance." Since it isn't a "new" idea, nor is it foremost on the agenda of gun control advocates, it doesn't seem like a concern of immediate priority that addressing should take precedence over my suggestions to reduce hoplophobia and turn people fixated on guns toward productive expressions of their passion and surround them with positive role models.
     
    DoubleMag and Walkalong like this.
  16. tws3b2

    tws3b2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Asheboro NC
    And that is my point. There is no little insignificant thing they won't try. If it don't stick, Fine. They have lost nothing. Go on to the next. If it don't stick, Fine. They still have lost nothing. Sooner or later something will stick. Rip out the Constitution one letter at a time if that what it takes. Remember, they have plenty of time. AND NOTHING TO LOOSE. We have a Lot.
     
    doubleh and Another_Kelley like this.
  17. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    58,153
    Location:
    Alabama
    If it gets to the point that we feel like we have to hide our guns and become defacto criminals, that will be a very bad day. We need to try to avoid that by electing pro gun candidates and fighting the anti ones.

    That said, there is no doubt there will be a great many people refuse to hand in or register guns. There is plenty of history elsewhere to back that up.
     
  18. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,123
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    What is the insurance for? Insurance companies will not insure against criminal acts, so accidents, firearms theft, maybe someone injured with your stolen gun.

    Anyone who says the insurance will be cheap, maybe, until the company has to pay out. In today's litigious society, figure a hundred thousand or more for a claim wouldn't be out of the question. What do you think your next premium will be? One payout and your shooting days are probably over. Either no one will insure you, or the premium will be so high most people couldn't afford it.

    In some states, when your auto insurance expires without renewal, the insurance companies, by law, notify the state. I'm sure the same would happen under a firearms insurance plan.

    Hmm, no thanks.
     
  19. HOWARD J

    HOWARD J Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,428
    Location:
    S/E Michigan
    One of my doctors invited a guy to sit in while we talked--my opinion the guy was federal gestapo giving the doctor a yearly checkup. It ended up with my doctor giving me hell for reloading more than I shoot---I was nice about it & left.
    I think he was scoring points with the guy sitting--he retires this year so I guess he don't care.
     
  20. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,122
    Location:
    GA
    What I suspect that you will get is Irish Democracy which means that the enforcement of such laws will decline in inverse proportion to urban areas. We already see the reverse in immigration enforcement for example or drug laws. I suspect that many in rural areas have a similar reaction to other federal laws affecting them such as environmental rules (wetlands issues or endangered species/specie reintroduction laws). Even the state governments cannot insure that local governmental units enforce laws that are unpopular among that government's populace and the federal government certainly lacks the ability and manpower to do such a thing.

    Thus, Irish Democracy means that the population has a say in whether or not that enforcement can occur and whether people will comply voluntarily with the statute in question. If the government policy seems illegitimate to some folks or adopted through an illegitimate (to the subjects) means, then voluntary compliance is weakened and the state is forced to up its punishments in response. However, each ratchet that catches up sympathetic folks in enforcement then reduces the respect and regard that popular governments require to govern via laws.

    The recent number of elites in politics, technology, government, etc. apparent disregard for laws and law enforcement constraining their behavior has led to the decline in the institution of rule of law with unpredictable consequences flowing from that. The Prohibition was a classic example of a government trying to enforce an increasingly unpopular law that was flouted with abandon by many of the elites and widely unenforced in places where alcohol consumption was popular. It also solidified organized crime's structure in the U.S. to supply that need.

    Our drug laws have similarly created monsters like the cartels that seek to fulfill a demand for a product that far too many crave. Many urban areas have more or less given up enforcement of these laws unless the person is causing a problem or sought for other reasons (possession cases are easier to prosecute). The selective nature of the prosecutions leads to even less regard for the fairness and validity of the laws with even greater non-compliance. In a similar vein, high taxes on cigarettes provoked interstate smuggling of cigarettes and I suspect that a crackdown on vaping will lead to underground markets and then ensuing corruption and law enforcement problems will arise because victimless crimes can be a bugger to enforce. Society has to agree to follow the laws for them to work absent brutal repression usually by unlawful means.

    Tyrants have no problem forcing virtue (laws restricting individual behaviors) on an unwilling people simply because they use asymmetrical force to do so but democracies simply cannot do what is necessary without risking massive political violence and societal upheaval. A democracy's laws must have general acceptance by the general population and when the proportion affected negatively by the law is a substantial proportion of that population, enforcement risks civil violence. Thus, politics is downstream from culture and society.

    When a substantial portion of a political unit simply will not obey specific laws, a democracy has to rely on selective prosecutions which do little to address the issue because the mass incarceration or violent termination of the activities threatens widespread outbreaks of violence. Mexico's inability to address the cartel problem is an example of that or Chicago's inability to crack down on violent gangs, France's and Sweden's no go areas for police, etc. Politicians in either place then resort to trying to cull out the worst or most public offenses rather than a systemic fix. On hard choices, democracies prefer to kick the can down the road until something breaks and then you get an elected tyrant which introduces its own set of problems--the tyrant's preferences become policy and societal decay will mean that most will accede to the tyrant's wishes to simply live another day or they will die/flee trying to resist. If bad enough things are done to the populace then the tyrant dare not step down because the victims of those actions in society will tear them to pieces if they have the chance. That is how you get an institutionalized tyranny.
     
    FROGO207, Casefull, JTHunter and 3 others like this.
  21. Basura Blanca

    Basura Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    174
    The blurb I read mentioned that if a person couldn't get covered, they'd be forced to pay into a public fund instead, sort of like a surety bond for auto insurance. Either way this is just a means to unnecessarily squeeze gun owners and if it comes to pass, I would hope a lawsuit follows.
     
  22. Basura Blanca

    Basura Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    174
    The breaking point is where the average person can no longer comply, regardless of feelings toward the matter. Fees, taxes, insurance mandates --all target the most vulnerable individuals, whether intentionally or not. As the issue becomes less about the objects (guns), and more about the process, our support base potentially broadens. A ban on "assault weapons" isn't going to get the uninitiated, the non-gun people, fired up. But a fee scheme that takes guns out of the hands of lower income people, denying them their rights based on nothing but their financial situation? That resonates better with the general public.

    Of course, ideally, it's better to not let it come to that at all. But it involves painting the right picture and exploiting what sells and what doesn't.
     
  23. Mullo98

    Mullo98 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2019
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    Dark and ruined castle deep in Transylvania
    I do think a lot of more action needs to be taken. Writing letters and emails just wastes paper and time in my opinion; now protesting gets things done. And I don’t mean walking around with ARs and body armor, part of our troubles that we have a bad image with at very least, the media. If we show that gun owners are from all walks and creeds. It might help just a little.
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  24. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,519
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    Ok, so what are we going to do about it? Let’s formulate a plan and put it into action instead of jabbering to each other in a echo chamber. I’m not saying I have all the answers and being in my 30’s raising kids and working two jobs, I don’t have a ton of time to be as much an activist as I’d like to be but one thing I notice on gun forums a lot is that all we do is talk. Talk talk talk amongst ourselves and complain. It’s wasted energy if we don’t actually do something. Make no mistake, the enemy, if you will, and the politicians are working 24/7 and are actually taking ground it seems. So, are we going to continue to yap amongst ourselves or act like real mean and actually do something? What that is I don’t know but we have some extremely smart and talented people within this forum. I am sure we can come up with something.
     
    Casefull, Walkalong and SharpDog like this.
  25. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    Tennessee
    OK, firstly,

    1. Lets do inform our elected representatives at every opportunity, hopefully the GOA will update us:
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/make-it-happen-goa.854729/

    2. Lets donate as much as we can to our RKBA organizations

    3. Lets donate as much as we can to our political allies

    4. Lets communicate all we can to other outlets (E.G. Facebook).
    with this we have to form rational arguments for our RKBA
     
    DoubleMag and Walkalong like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice