Liberal Friend's brilliant idea RE: gun insurance

[Red Wind]

If you cut off the dialogue the second it starts, there's no chance of ever changing a mind, and the political division in our country continues to worsen. That's how you end up with Fox News and MSNBC.

Fox News Channel throws up some liberal perspective with their guests. Watch O'Reiily, Greta and Megyn Kelly. Some alternative views.

MSNBC gives us nothing but the lib party line. Rachel, the Reverend Al and Larry O'D. No opposing sides. A big, big difference.

 

[jrdolall]

If this "Liberal" friend is like most Liberals then he has no issue whatever with doing something that costs YOU money or infringes on YOUR Constitutional Rights. Ask him if women should carry "pregnancy" insurance since kids born out of wedlock cause far more problems in this country than do guns. Maybe "abortion" insurance should be mandatory for ALL women? DUI insurance for all drivers?
Maybe government mandated healthcare insurance? Nah, That would be ludicrous!

 

[Welding Rod]

Doesn't an idea to oppress rights and increase government regulation negate a title as "Liberal"?

Perhaps liberal today means liberal incease in government and oppression, which I thought was known as Statist?

Just curious. Seems like an oxymoron.

 

[orionengnr]

There are a number of straw men at work here. I'll start with one.

in case their gun magically goes off and shoots their kid or their kids' friends while they are playing at said gun owner's home.

In nearly 50 years worth of experience, I have never heard of a legitimate instance of a gun "going off" by itself.
My first "real" instructor, who BTW also instructed for the FBI and the SEALs (many years ago) had some serious doubts about guns "going off" by themselves, and had some standard questions for any such instances.

Most importantly, whose finger was on the trigger when the gun "went off"?

If you read newspapers, guns "go off" by themselves on a regular basis, and this premise is never questioned.
In real life....hmmm...not so much.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

When he has paternity insurance on his junk (and any of his sons) for it going off by itself and getting someone pregnant is when I will think about liability insurance for inanimate objects which I own.

Come to think of it (sarcasm) he or his sons may become rapist so maybe we should castrate them now.

Can't argue with stupid. I would be cordial with him but would find other "friends" to spend time with. I personally can't call people "friends" who hate my way of life and would like to see me jailed for being me while fully complying with the laws of our nation.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I remember a time when one could be friends with liberals, because the main difference was taxes and entitlement programs.

Today, liberal "friends" want to confiscate my family's firearms, deny my family the right to self-defense, dictate how our household is run, and brainwash our children with "compulsory" education in liberal nonsense.

When you enter a man's home to exert power for evil, you have ceased to be a friend and should be properly identified as the enemy.

 

[LockedBreech]

Fox News Channel throws up some liberal perspective with their guests. Watch O'Reiily, Greta and Megyn Kelly. Some alternative views.

MSNBC gives us nothing but the lib party line. Rachel, the Reverend Al and Larry O'D. No opposing sides. A big, big difference.

I've watched the shows mentioned because a certain family member of mine has Fox on pretty much 24/7. I don't want to dive too deep into politics too far and get the thread locked, but as a moderate I find both Fox and MSNBC laughable parodies of news and both political extremes in the country nauseatingly narrow-minded. Both are right some of the time and both would rather run the country into the ground than admit that.

I'll even expand it beyond Fox and MSNBC. Any show where a guest with an opposing viewpoint is invited on the show and constantly talked over. The "Talking Head' shows like Sean Hannity and Piers Morgan (I hate them both with a lava-hot passion) are particularly awful offenders about this. They start talking over their guest every time their guest says 3 words. That's not a conversation or a debate, that's a browbeating that isn't informing anyone about anything. It's Kardashian-level entertainment-hate, not news.

Also making a blanket statement like "liberals" or "conservatives" is largely meaningless. One of the most ardent NRA life members I know is a gay man who is hard-line liberal on almost every other issue, and I went to school with a conservative veteran who ran for GOP local office and also happened to be vehemently opposed to AR-15s. There is more variety ideology than blanket "liberal" and "conservative" labels.

I reiterate my opinion that vilifying people with opposing viewpoints as fools or villains does nothing to move society forward, and in regards to guns specifically we often shoot ourselves in the foot by being so hard-line. It's why the NRA gets listened to in D.C. and GOA is a joke by comparison. If you're not even willing to talk about issues, no one will listen to you.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I propose offensive language insurance. That way, when I need therapy for when someone says something that offends me, I can force them to cover the fees.

I also propose an additional, but optional, policy for your home owners insurance. With this policy, you are protected from the government quartering soldiers in your home. Without it, better clear out that spare room.

Oh, testifying at trial? Better have proof of 5th amendment insurance, otherwise be prepared to bear witness against yourself.

Who's with me?

 

[Jim K]

"Gun liability insurance" is simply another confiscatory scheme. One proposal was for a state insurance program with a mandated $10,000 premium per gun per year. Anyone who couldn't pay would have his gun(s) confiscated by the state.

Naturally, it was described as "reasonable" and not violating the Second Amendment.

Jim

 

[Nom de Forum]

I've watched the shows mentioned because a certain family member of mine has Fox on pretty much 24/7. I don't want to dive too deep into politics too far and get the thread locked, but as a moderate I find both Fox and MSNBC laughable parodies of news and both political extremes in the country nauseatingly narrow-minded. Both are right some of the time and both would rather run the country into the ground than admit that.

I'll even expand it beyond Fox and MSNBC. Any show where a guest with an opposing viewpoint is invited on the show and constantly talked over. The "Talking Head' shows like Sean Hannity and Piers Morgan (I hate them both with a lava-hot passion) are particularly awful offenders about this. They start talking over their guest every time their guest says 3 words. That's not a conversation or a debate, that's a browbeating that isn't informing anyone about anything. It's Kardashian-level entertainment-hate, not news.

Also making a blanket statement like "liberals" or "conservatives" is largely meaningless. One of the most ardent NRA life members I know is a gay man who is hard-line liberal on almost every other issue, and I went to school with a conservative veteran who ran for GOP local office and also happened to be vehemently opposed to AR-15s. There is more variety ideology than blanket "liberal" and "conservative" labels.

I reiterate my opinion that vilifying people with opposing viewpoints as fools or villains does nothing to move society forward, and in regards to guns specifically we often shoot ourselves in the foot by being so hard-line. It's why the NRA gets listened to in D.C. and GOA is a joke by comparison. If you're not even willing to talk about issues, no one will listen to you.

The only thing I can add to this excellent analysis is that while viewers of both extremes, Fox and MSNBC, can be well informed on the issues these networks present; multiple independent research studies have found that people who rely almost exclusively on Fox for information are somewhat more miss-informed about the facts of those issues. All of us should resist consuming only media sources that appeals to and reaffirms our convictions. It is important that beliefs be challenged, re-evaluated, and confirmed or changed from time to time.

 

[Red Wind]

The only thing I can add to this excellent analysis is that while viewers of both extremes, Fox and MSNBC, can be well informed on the issues these networks present; multiple independent research studies have found that people who rely almost exclusively on Fox for information are somewhat more miss-informed about the facts of those issues.

Who did those studies? HuffPo, The Daily Kos and Media Matters!
Please give me a citation on those independent research studies.

As to the OP, I've got a lot of liberal friends (yes, that label!) who agree with me on virtually nothing. Still, for over 40 years, most of us still hang together. Those still breathing!

Opposites do attract, even politically.

I think his insurance idea is nonsense, but he still would be my friend if it was proposed to me, Sergeant. Vivre et laisser vivre.

 

[vaupet]

First, I would doubt the "friend" has a big agenda. Most anti's are just scared and uninformed.

When people are scared because they are uninformed, they often look to the government or to some organisation like insurance companies to pur their mind at rest.

Now about insurance: one way of doing this, is by having an organisation like the NRA have a group policy covering it's members. This has been done by other sports to. Because of their sheer size, they can be able to work out very favorable terms.

If I were to dump my anti-gun family and friends, I would virtualy be living alone.

 

[Inebriated]

First, I would doubt the "friend" has a big agenda. Most anti's are just scared and uninformed.

This.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that there are two types of liberals; The well-intentioned voters, and the agenda-driven politicians.

Most liberals I know are good people who want to do what's best, but are generally misinformed.

 

[1911Tuner]

While I agree that continuing to try to educate him would be a better way than "unfriending" him...it's probably futile.

We had a house guest here for several months after a job loss was about to make her homeless. I agreed to the arrangement mainly because her dog would also be homeless, but that's another story.

She's a screaming liberal who feels that the (present) government should dictate the course of our lives, and when she left, I was never so glad to see a guest exit my driveway.

I keep a loaded Cimarron Thunderer on top of the refrigerator...with and empty chamber under the hammer, of course...and when she discovered it, she nearly had a stroke. She asked me to remove it, and when I refused, she asked me to at least turn the muzzle away from the room off the kitchen where she slept and used her computer, because: "Guns go off. I don't want to be in the way when that one does."

And nothing...no explanation on the empty chamber...no points about firing a gun requires pulling the trigger...would allay her fears. She literally tip-toed past the fridge. I oriented the gun in a direction that put her mind at ease...but she still visibly flinched whenever she opened the refrigerator. Never saw anything like it.

 

[DT Guy]

1911Tuner While I agree that continuing to try to educate him would be a better way than "unfriending" him...it's probably futile.

We had a house guest here for several months after a job loss was about to make her homeless. I agreed to the arrangement mainly because her dog would also be homeless, but that's another story.

She's a screaming liberal who feels that the (present) government should dictate the course of our lives, and when she left, I was never so glad to see a guest exit my driveway.

I keep a loaded Cimarron Thunderer on top of the refrigerator...with and empty chamber under the hammer, of course...and when she discovered it, she nearly had a stroke. She asked me to remove it, and when I refused, she asked me to at least turn the muzzle away from the room off the kitchen where she slept and used her computer, because: "Guns go off. I don't want to be in the way when that one does."

And nothing...no explanation on the empty chamber...no points about firing a gun requires pulling the trigger...would allay her fears. She literally tip-toed past the fridge. I oriented the gun in a direction that put her mind at ease...but she still visibly flinched whenever she opened the refrigerator. Never saw anything like it.

In my mind, that's the classic definition of Cooper's 'Hoplophobia'; an irrational fear of weapons.

Did she twitch when she got in a car, passed a swimming pool, or got on a plane?


Larry

 

[HexHead]

Suggest he carry insurance in case he says something stupid.

 

[HexHead]

Doesn't an idea to oppress rights and increase government regulation negate a title as "Liberal"?

Perhaps liberal today means liberal incease in government and oppression, which I thought was known as Statist?

Just curious. Seems like an oxymoron.

Today's "Liberals" are not yesterday's Liberal. It's just a PC term for Socialist now.

 

[AlexanderA]

The ideas of "arsenal licenses" and "required liability insurance" would be absolutely devastating to serious gun collectors. How would the fees and premiums be set? By the number of guns, and/or their types? A collection of 100 or 200 guns -- which is not at all unusual for a collector -- would be financially ruinous, on an ongoing basis. This even raises issues of an unconstitutional "taking" under the 5th Amendment.

Such ideas are superficially attractive to those who are against guns in general, but who are also woefully ignorant of the workings of the gun world.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Who did those studies? HuffPo, The Daily Kos and Media Matters!
Please give me a citation on those independent research studies.

As to the OP, I've got a lot of liberal friends (yes, that label!) who agree with me on virtually nothing. Still, for over 40 years, most of us still hang together. Those still breathing!

Opposites do attract, even politically.

I think his insurance idea is nonsense, but he still would be my friend if it was proposed to me, Sergeant. Vivre et laisser vivre.

Here are three. There are other sources finding that Fox News viewers can be well informed about issues but are more miss-informed about the facts of those issues.

University of Maryland, Program on International Policy Attitudes, “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War” October 2003

Stanford University, Krosnick and MacInnis, “Frequent viewers of Fox News are less likely to accept scientists’ views of Global Warming” December 2010

Kaiser Family Foundation, “Pop Quiz: Accessing Americans’ familiarity with the New Health Care Law” February 2011

P.S. I completely agree with you that the insurance idea is nonsense.

 

[Thermactor]

Careful - i got my hand slapped here for talking about liberals.

 

[dusty14u]

I spoke to my wife about this some time ago and she said no insurance underwriter would ever consider underwriting any such policy. She has worked in the insurance business since 1977 and is an Account Manager for a very large insurance company. She specializes in commercial insurance right now for large business but has done just about everything there is to do in insurance. I will have to ask her for specifics but she is on a business trip and will fly back tonight. She had mentioned several things on why it could not be done.

 

[Midwest]

The ideas of "arsenal licenses" and "required liability insurance" would be absolutely devastating to serious gun collectors. How would the fees and premiums be set? By the number of guns, and/or their types? A collection of 100 or 200 guns -- which is not at all unusual for a collector -- would be financially ruinous, on an ongoing basis. This even raises issues of an unconstitutional "taking" under the 5th Amendment.

Such ideas are superficially attractive to those who are against guns in general, but who are also woefully ignorant of the workings of the gun world.

And I bring up the example of Brady II from time to time to show what the other side had planned for us. If the Dems didn't get thrown out in 1994, Brady II could have been the law of the land. This is why it is essential to vote and to get others to vote.
.

 

[Red Wind]

Here are three. There are other sources finding that Fox News viewers can be well informed about issues but are more miss-informed about the facts of those issues.

University of Maryland, Program on International Policy Attitudes, “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War” October 2003

Stanford University, Krosnick and MacInnis, “Frequent viewers of Fox News are less likely to accept scientists’ views of Global Warming” December 2010

Kaiser Family Foundation, “Pop Quiz: Accessing Americans’ familiarity with the New Health Care Law” February 2011

Yeah, I see how that works. More misinformed when the Fox viewers don't agree with those sources leftist spewing's. And Global Warming is now Climate Change. The 2500 page Health Care Law which no one has read!

Stanford and Maryland; Kaiser, funding chairs at UC Berkeley,Stanford,Harvard and Johns Hopkins! Just moderate oasis's all of them.

All crock, junk science. But, we have to move on past this. For sure.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Yeah, I see how that works. More misinformed when the Fox viewers don't agree with those sources leftist spewing's. And Global Warming is now Climate Change. The 2500 page Health Care Law which no one has read!

Stanford and Maryland; Kaiser, funding chairs at UC Berkeley,Stanford,Harvard and Johns Hopkins! Just moderate oasis's all of them.

All crock, junk science. But, we have to move on past this. For sure.

I just knew I would get a reply like that with many of the common insults: "leftist spewings", "All crock", "junk science". Typical unsophisticated attempt to discredit a source of information by dismissing information that is neutral about an issue because it does not support an opinion about the issue. The thing is the surveys did not concern conclusions based on analysis of facts but simple easy to confirm facts about the issues. The same surveys also found significant percentages of people miss-informed by multiple sources I am sure you consider “leftist spewings” but they were a smaller percentage than people who primarily watched Fox News. To repeat: the surveys were not about conclusions and opinions based on analysis of facts but about simple to confirm facts.

Global Warming is not now Climate Change. Global Warming remains what it is, the progressive warming of the planet with the consequence of Climate Change. Few scientific sources deny that Global warming is occurring resulting in Climate Change. There is however disagreement about what has caused Global Warming, but the vast majority of scientists agree the activities of Man are the primary reason for what is causing Global Warming. Even Fox News has Conservatives on its programs that acknowledge Global Warming is occurring even if they do not agree that the activities of Man are the primary reason.

 

[jrdolall]

Few scientific sources deny that Global warming is occurring resulting in Climate Change.

Horse Hockey! There are 1000's of scientists that refute that global warming is occurring. You seem to be attacking people for not believing what you and a couple of "sources" say and then attack people for not believing what the other side says. Then you claim the "other side" is doing all the attacking with "leftist spewings". Global warming (as a modern phenomenon caused mostly by man) is being pushed by people that make a living off of the research. Nothing keeps the Weather Channel going like the threat of a hurricane or tornado. My favorite quote that is used to prove global warming is that "The Northwest Passage is re-opening". If it is reopening then that implies that is was open in the past, presumably before man started polluting.
Sell crazy to CNN.
I am slowly coming to the realization that the Left and Right are drifting further apart every day. Media bias? Rotten President? I don't know. What I do know is that all of my left leaning friends are pretty far left on social issues and many are beginning to lean ever farther left on fiscal issues because, let's face it, it takes more of my money to support the social agenda of the Left. Unfortunately the Left continues to add NEW CRISES at an alarming pace and gun control/registration/confiscation is right at the top of that list.