Dem introduces Bill to require insurance for gun owners or be fined $10,000!!!  Of course it would become a list of all guns and their owners. BTW, do you
   think criminals would be buying the insurance?  DUH!!!!!  So, this only serves to punish Law-Abiding Gun Owners - as usual!!!

http://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance

If the present Laws were properly enforced, there would be much less gun crime!!!!

Such a law would disproportionately impact blacks.

The dems are still trying to disarm them.

It wont pass...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

It wont pass...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)


We thought that about the NY Safe act!

Liberals control N.Y. but not the House in Congress...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Sounds like a good idea. A responsible gun owner should carry insurance liability insurance on their weapons.

Do you wvit?

I have a million dollar umbrella policy. So yes I do 

So you do not mind being forced to buy a separate policy just for your firearms, wvit?

It wont pass...   


But, the very notion tells you about the mindset of its proponents when it comes to the function and means of government.

nitwit approves of government control!

 We dont need to discuss the merit of Gun Insurance !
The true reason for this is to make it much more difficult for Honest citizens to own guns ! adding another layer of bureaucracy to gun ownership!
 
  Anything making it more restrictive to the honest citizen is just fine with gun banners -a neat trick to fuck over gun owners!   If you make it difficult =Expensive enough  Citizens will be less likely to engages in the priveleges of the 2Nd Amendment..Much Like England has done !!!

 WHO gets to decide Insurance rates>? some anti gun CEO of some Insurance co..  Who would determine if you can Have insurance =-Do you qualify?   What if your policy lapses because you have a choice-medicine and food or gun insurance ? We already Know the result of letting car insurance laps--  Revocation of license  or  Fines Etc.
 Yet Just Like  Spicks and Niggers-==--=They dont carry insurance --criminals will not Insure there guns !  So its just a ploy By an INNER City Democrap In a NYcity Safe District  to screw over gun owners --OBTW--This Bitch took Carolyn MCarthys place after that bitch retired...

So do you have any liability insurance on hour guns hk?

The only reason anyone would need liability insurance is if they intended to commit a crime with a firearm!

Wvit, do you intend to commit a crime with a firearm?

Of course, the goal of this bill is to strip all but the very rich of their Second Amendment rights!

what a stupid remark

doan talk insurance......ask instead.....politely

 A very stupid remark!

Insurance doesn't cover illegal activities.

The Feds could set up their own insurance program and force everyone through it.

Then, they'd have ALL the info and control they want!!!!!!  That is what they have been pushing for (by the Libs/Dems) for YEARS!!!!!!

(http://www.survivalnewsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/gun-control-1.jpg)

You can buy insurance through a private company.

So you do not mind being forced to buy a separate policy just for your firearms, wvit?

How will insurance help gun crime with criminals where most of the injuries result from with firearms?

wet-xxxx, read it again numbskull!!

Wow...I knew the loons were dumb...but an umbrella policy is not the type of insurance the dems would demand Gun Owners Carry. They would want each weapon individually covered with type and serial number recorded. Than...the government could force premiums to astronomical levels and make gun ownership impossible.   Loons really are not the brightest bulbs in the pack!!

jst-the-fax......   You NAILED it!!!   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

A Fed-mandated Ins Program would collect ALL the data surrounding each and every gun and the owner!

They would know where they are and what they are and who has them!!! They could decide who is ALLOWED to keep them
   for various "safety reasons" and who is "irresponsible" and must turn them in. The Rules would be at the whim of the
   "authorities".

They could raise the Ins Premiums to such a level that few people could afford them. The fines for NOT having the "Insurance"
   would be such that one's only choice would be to turn in the guns!!!!

It's not about insurance or anything other than taking guns away from Americans!!!!!

The  reality of truth still comes back to the same logic. "When guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns."  It does not matter what sort of scheme the government comes up with to determine who has guns and where they are. Being it insurance, registration or admiration of your collection.

The outlaws or the crooks who roam the streets of our major cities ARE NEVER GOING TO REGISTER OR ALLOW THE AUTHORITIES TO KNOW WHERE THEIR GUNS ARE.

The reality is that not much will change except that the average citizen will follow the new laws or mandates because that is what good citizens do.

The crooks or the bad actors will always have access to guns. 

You guys are idiots. Nobody is seriously trying to take hours guns away from you. You just make up stupid shit to be afraid if.

Don't you Lib-idiots ever ask "What could possibly go wrong?"?

Everything the Govt plans to do is always A-OK with you? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 Another liberal lie!

Liberals have been trying since the Wilson administration to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights!

You guys are idiots. Nobody is seriously trying to take hours guns away from you. You just make up stupid shit to be afraid if.

You're the idiot, but at least you are not so dumb that you don't realize that IS something to be afraid of.   Hell, all I have to do is read the posts of anti-gun loons on this board, and they would be perfectly content to take our guns away with no qualms about it.   They were perfectly fine with DC gun laws that prevented people from owning hand guns.  Perfectly fine.  It's not a question of their ideology, but a question of how far we let them run with it. 

So you do not mind being forced to buy a separate policy just for your firearms, wvit?

How will insurance help gun crime with criminals where most of the injuries result?

Yup...given the right numbers in the House. Senate and White House...dems would move quickly to put together a BS piece of Legislation effectively making gun ownership impossible as a major stepping stone toward seeding sovereignty to the UN and One World Government!

 

Even when the democrates have had the House and the Senate they've never tried to outlaw guns in our country.  You nuts get riled up easily about things that won't and have never happened.

Never heard of the Machine gun ban, the assault weapons ban, the "Saturday Night Special" ban, etc., Wvit?

You are a damned liar!

You should be ashamed of yourself but instead you are proud of your deceit!

there isn't and never has been a machine gun ban. 
 
there was no assualt weapons ban.
 
and cheap handguns are everywhere.

You are a damned liar!

You should be ashamed of yourself but instead you are proud of your deceit!                                                                                       

I'm not a liar but you seem comfortable with lying and exaggeration.

You are a damned liar!

You should be ashamed of yourself but instead you are proud of your deceit!

Thats what makes Liberals, Liberals.

Even when the democrates have had the House and the Senate they've never tried to outlaw guns in our country.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if they could.  You collectivists never do anything all in one fell swoop.  We usher your chit in one tiny step at a time.  We know the drill.

After Obamacare, you arsholes are now already saying that the "insurance" plan doesn't cover enough and cost too much to use.    It was only ever another step toward full state run healthcare.

We're not idiots, vit.  If you really think that they are not trying to take are guns away, you are either the real idiot, or you are a liar.

A loon writes "there was no assault weapons ban"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

A loon writes:

"there isn't and never has been a machine gun ban."
 
Only partly true...as buying and owning a fully automatic firearm is nearly impossible, as the license cost are very high.

BTW...fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1932..
 

there wasn't any ban, you could still own assault style guns.  They couldn't be manufactured and sold to civilians.  But that was the same thing with machine guns.

if you had an assault style gun manufactured before the law you could still legally own it.

and it's not nearly impossible to get a permit for a machine gun.  fill out the paperwork and you can get the permit.  unless you have some history of violent crimes, then it's nearly impossible to get the permit.

So you do not mind being forced to buy a separate policy just for your firearms, wvit?  Or do you?

How will insurance help gun crime with criminals where most of the injuries result?






Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians.

Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely.

WEAPONS BANNED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS
www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Full List of firearms banned.

So you do not mind being forced to buy a separate policy just for your firearms, wvit?  Or do you?

no, I don't mind purchasing insurance.  I already have liability insurance on them, don't you?

and no, it won't help with criminal uses.  but then car insurance doesn't help with criminals who drive their cars without insurance either.


and there are plenty of machine guns out there for you to buy if you want one for some reason.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx

Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.

A coalition of gun owners, gun sellers and sports shooting organizations sued in U.S. District Court to block enforcement of the law and overturn it on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued that the state's ban of 138 weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines is vague, discriminates among different categories of gun users and, most significantly, infringes on their Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.

Covello, a Republican appointee, dismissed all three constitutional challenges in his 47-page decision.

"Obviously, the court cannot foretell how successful the legislation will be in preventing crime," Covello wrote. "Nevertheless, for the purposes of the court's inquiry here, Connecticut, in passing the legislation, has drawn reasonable inferences from substantial evidence."


http://articles.courant.com/2014-01-30/news/hc-gun-control-0131-20140130_1_gun-ownership-gun-control-gun-rights

So you do not mind being forced by law to buy a separate policy just for your firearms, wvit?  Or do you?

no, I wouldn't mind.

Yes, there are bans on assault weapons, wvit.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Full List of firearms banned.

no, I wouldn't mind.


Depending on the cost, right?   It will not be cheap like an umbrella policy if you really own firearms.   

only for new ones.  if you already owned an assault style gun in Connecticut before the ban you can keep it.


Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.

A coalition of gun owners, gun sellers and sports shooting organizations sued in U.S. District Court to block enforcement of the law and overturn it on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued that the state's ban of 138 weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines is vague, discriminates among different categories of gun users and, most significantly, infringes on their Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.

Covello, a Republican appointee, Dismissed all three constitutional challenges in his 47-page decision.

"Obviously, the court cannot foretell how successful the legislation will be in preventing crime," Covello wrote. "Nevertheless, for the purposes of the court's inquiry here, Connecticut, in passing the legislation, has drawn reasonable inferences from substantial evidence."


http://articles.courant.com/2014-01-30/news/hc-gun-control-0131-20140130_1_gun-ownership-gun-control-gun-rights

"No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise:  If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

And now they are saying we can keep our guns if we like them.

depending on the cost?  now you're just speculating.  how do you know it would be a huge cost?  like I said before you seem to be basing your arguments on lies and exaggerations.

i don't' think anyone said anything like that local.  there isn't any real legislation to say anything like that about.

In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.


He is just speculating. He is basing his arguments on lies and exaggerations.   What bs for a law that is a violation and infringement on the 2nd Amendment.


No wonder so many in CT are ignoring the law by the tens of thousands as unconstitutional.

No, he's not just speculating.  Assault style weapons are patterned after military weapons whose soul purpose is to shoot people.

Violence liability insurance is not cheap, wvit...

how much is it?

No, he's not just speculating.  Assault style weapons are patterned after military weapons whose soul purpose is to shoot people.


You are clueless, wvit.   Have you looked at modern sporting and hunting rifles lately?

For well over a century, many of our most popular sporting rifles have directly evolved from a service rifle of a particular era. Battlefield requirements in a rifle such as accuracy, ruggedness, reliability and fast follow-up shots are features equally sought by hunters and target shooters.

The bolt-action centerfire rifle, for many decades America's classic deer hunting rifle, is a descendent of the First World War battle rifle, the 1903 Springfield. The bolt-action of the Springfield offered smooth and rapid cycling of the action and allowed for the use of a more powerful cartridge, the .30/06, accurate at ranges out to 1000 yards. More than a hundred years later, the .30/06 remains as America's most popular big game hunting cartridge.

The first semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) U.S. service rifle, the Springfield .30 M-1, popularly known as the Garand, saw service initially in the Second World War. Not long after the war, a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles as well as semi-automatic shotguns were developed by sporting arms manufacturers and have gained widespread popularity among both hunters and clay target shooters.

(http://www.nssf.org/msr/images/timeline.png)

While AR-type rifles do look different, they function the same way as models of semi automatic rifles and shotguns (one shot per pull of the trigger) that have been in the sporting marketplace for many decades.

I wonder if a loon can anwser this question

What is the difference between a pre ban and post ban AR-15?

What is the cost of a class 3 tax stamp?

http://www.class3weaponslicense.com/197/automatic-weapons-permit

I have several semi automatic shotguns and rifles which function great for hunting and target shooting.  I don't need huge clips, pistol grips, etc. like an assault rifle to shoot a deer or a pheasant.

why would you think you needed a clip with more than 2 or 3 shots to shoot a deer?  my favorite deer rifle holds 4 - .308 rounds. 

It's NOT about having insurance or not.

It's about you having to inform someone about:

- you having guns and the address
- what kind they are
- what are their serial numbers

Then, who has access to the info? What are they doing with it? Why do they want/need it?

Can't you see through this plan?

It's a sneaky way to obtain gun registration, period.

DUH!!!

paranoid much ????

why would you think you needed a clip with more than 2 or 3 shots -wvit.


Getting Started In Tactical Rifle Competition


There are many matches around the country with many different themes, so to begin, we need to define "tactical match" in our context and thus define our goals. For our purposes, "tactical rifle" would be precision rifle shooting under varying field conditions that would be common to military designated marksmen, police marksman and even hunting.

Another consideration that is relevant to target-style rifles and their inherently tight tolerances is that we may need to shoot all day without the opportunity to clean, and a match may consist of 60 rounds to more than 100 per day. If we run tightly throated guns, or rifles with minimum headspace, we may find ourselves unable to finish the course of fire due to fouling or the debris inherent to field conditions.

As long as we can install a scope and there is the capacity for multiple shots and good accuracy, there are many rifle styles and calibers that will work. Because some events are limited to "military calibers", a .223 or .308 can be a very flexible choice.

If the majority of target distances are relatively short, perhaps inside 600 yards, a match grade AR-15 can be VERY effective and a best choice for competition shooting.

The common themes to most of these matches are as follows:
• An accurate cold bore shot.
• Precision shooting under improvised field positions.
• Precision shooting at unknown distances (UKD), often very long distances.
• Precision shooting under induced stress conditions, such as mild exertion, timed events (especially those requiring movement into position), fire on command and similar techniques.
• Shooting steep departure angles from buildings, towers and/or mountains.
• Engaging moving targets.
• Rifle manipulation drills, to include rapid reloading and/or magazine changes.
• Engaging multiple targets.
• Hold over/hold under stages.
• Carrying supplies throughout the day, including food, water, ammunition and shooting equipment.

In order to be prepared to accomplish the tasks above, we will need to examine the requirements for equipment, skills and physical conditioning. Some of the things we'll need to think about can be subjects of entire articles in themselves.


Ed Shell

tactical?  why do you nuts think you need to polish up your tactical proficiency?  what are you getting ready for?

Of course a Libtard Dem would propose a Bill to screw-up gun ownership for Law-Abiding Citizens and do NOTHING about the guns of CRIMINALS!!!

http://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance

how would this screw up you ability to own a gun?  do you have some violent crime in your background that the insurance company would penalize you for?

tactical?  why do you nuts think you need to polish up your tactical proficiency?  what are you getting ready for?

Why? Very easy, DEMOCRATS, I swore to defend MY COUNTRY against ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic and you liberals are the domestic kind

I don't need huge clips, pistol grips, etc. like an assault rifle to shoot a deer or a pheasant.

why would you think you needed a clip with more than 2 or 3 shots to shoot a deer?  my favorite deer rifle holds 4 - .308 rounds.

It as NOTHING to Do with NEED ASSHOLE=!  Its about rights to own what you want---But you ass has been told this many times But Like the stupid cow you repuke it over and over..

NEED is not part of the constitution !!!  Idiot~~~

so you like playing soldier?

a gun is a responsibility, it's not a toy.

you can't own a working mortar even if you want one.  there have always been limits on the weapons you can own even though you might want one.

http://lastresistance.com/11922/new-york-dem-trying-to-require-gun-owners-to-purchase-liability-insurance/

IDIOCY by the Libs/Dems.

DOA in the House, which is run by Normal People!  THANK GOD!!!

normal people don't want nuts like you running around playing soldier with real guns wavy.

Given the chance to vote "for" or "against" each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine. Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth (82%), increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks (79%), and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others -- so-called straw purchasers (75%).


http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

Given the chance to vote "for" or "against" each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine. Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth (82%), increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks (79%), and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others -- so-called straw purchasers (75%).

So we look at the cities, Chicago, Baltimore, for a couple with the most restrictive gun laws and people are die by the dozens
So we spend millions on 'mental health" just to be told WE can call a nut job a nut job ROFL


Before I comment on the straw purchase what are the statistics showing how many people have died due to these straw purchases.


To bad MORONS can't identify the REAL problem with gun violence, it's not the gun it's the people, making it hard for law abiding citizens to exercise their rights is not going to do anything to curb gun violence

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-74_M8j7aJPk/UUq7kNmEOCI/AAAAAAAAAQk/k_CNNV2GyPU/s1600/2nd_before_after.jpg)

Wvit, Apparently the lesson between "want" and "need" has been wasted on you.  And that my friend is the beginning of wisdom.

No one "needs" all of those things that liberals think makes an automatic weapon in the liberal mindset.  However, they are still legal for the public to own or "want".  Why not?  Just because you personally don't approve really doesn't matter... Currently it is NOT your call. 

I didn't say it was my call.  This is an opinion board dumbo.

My opinion is that liberals will use any tactic they can find or imagine to control guns...Yeah the insurance angle is one that has promise for them to push.

If such a provision is ever approved...then a lot of Americans will become criminals, as we should understand that our Constitution is again being circumvented by you losers.

Rifle Competition


There are many matches around the country with many different themes, so to begin, we need to define "tactical match" in our context and thus define our goals. For our purposes, "tactical rifle" would be precision rifle shooting under varying field conditions that would be common to military designated marksmen, police marksman and even hunting.

Another consideration that is relevant to target-style rifles and their inherently tight tolerances is that we may need to shoot all day without the opportunity to clean, and a match may consist of 60 rounds to more than 100 per day. If we run tightly throated guns, or rifles with minimum headspace, we may find ourselves unable to finish the course of fire due to fouling or the debris inherent to field conditions.

As long as we can install a scope and there is the capacity for multiple shots and good accuracy, there are many rifle styles and calibers that will work. Because some events are limited to "military calibers", a .223 or .308 can be a very flexible choice.

If the majority of target distances are relatively short, perhaps inside 600 yards, a match grade AR-15 can be VERY effective and a best choice for competition shooting.

The common themes to most of these matches are as follows:

• An accurate cold bore shot.
• Precision shooting under improvised field positions.
• Precision shooting at unknown distances (UKD), often very long distances.
• Precision shooting under induced stress conditions, such as mild exertion, timed events (especially those requiring movement into position), fire on command and similar techniques.
• Shooting steep departure angles from buildings, towers and/or mountains.
• Engaging moving targets.
• Rifle manipulation drills, to include rapid reloading and/or magazine changes.
• Engaging multiple targets.
• Hold over/hold under stages.
• Carrying supplies throughout the day, including food, water, ammunition and shooting equipment.

In order to be prepared to accomplish the tasks above, we will need to examine the requirements for equipment, skills and physical conditioning. Some of the things we'll need to think about can be subjects of entire articles in themselves.


Ed Shell

So?  You can still have your competitions with guns that have insurance on them

Some cannot with the gun bans on competition rifles...

That doesn't have anything to do with insurance.

You cannot buy insurance on what is banned...  Nor can you participated in competition with what is banned.   Another infringement.

That doesn't have anything to do with insurance requirements though.

Violence liability insurance on gunowners will not help as criminals do not abide by the law.   It is a poll tax on the rest.   It will not pass Congress.

Apparently our resident loon...feels she doesn't have to comply

liability insurance covers accidents sweaty.  it's not violence insurance, as you call it.

Requiring insurance will price all but the rich out of exercising their Second Amendment rights!

In effect it would be a ban!

It would?  How much would liability insurance for your guns cost D2?

The base policy for personal concealed carry weapons coverage offered through EIB starts at about $200 to $250 a year. It has a $25,000 person limit, a $50,000 per accident limit and a $100,000 aggregate limit.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/11/288010.htm

Nope, democrats are sneaky!

They will add on so many conflicting requirements it will cost thousands of dollars a year!

They would?    You can already get insurance on your guns.  You would think a responsible gun owner like yourself would already have insurance for your weapons.

Violence liability insurance on gunowners will not help as criminals do not abide by the law.   It is a poll tax on the rest.   It will not pass Congress.


California lawmakers are also pondering a move to make violence liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners.

How does violence liability insurance work?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792

Sweetwater,

It would seem to me...the Government would salivate at the ability to kick down a law abiding citizens door in the dark of night, throw them to the floor and confiscate their legally owned weapons...once the knowledge of who does and who doesn't have said firearms.  If our resident loons want to register their weapons...go for it. But I choose living under a free government that fears me, rather than vice-verse.   

why would the government do that faxy?

Yes, that is how democrats operate they ban by regulating what they don't like to death!

No, wrong again D2. 

Where do you get your idiocy?

No you are wrong, Wvit!

All my experience with democrats tells me they lie, cheat and steal to get what they want!

Stripping people they don't like of their rights is nothing new for democrats!

It would seem to me...the Government would salivate at the ability to kick down a law abiding citizens door in the dark of night, throw them to the floor and confiscate their legally owned weapons...once the knowledge of who does and who doesn't have said firearms.


All the Feds need is a list of gun owners and those who have not bought their "insurance" for probable cause in a "no-knock" warrant.   


California lawmakers are also pondering a move to make violence liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners.   So are a few other very liberal states.



How does violence liability insurance work?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792

You guys are nuts.  Nobody seriously wants your guns.  Nobody is trying to create legislation that takes your guns away from you. 

A couple of hundred dollars a year for insurance isn't going to bankrupt you or put any pressure on your to sell your guns.

No one can trust you either, wvit.   Wonder why?

Nobody is trying to create legislation that takes your guns away from you. 


They already have, idiot.

not on any federal level and not all guns.   has anyone tried to take your guns away from you sweaty?  Nobody's tried to take mine.

(http://offgridsurvival.com/wp-content/themes/church_10/images/2014/02/firearmconfiscationletter.jpg)

Gun Registrations always leads to Confiscation.


The letter demands firearm owners:

• Render their firearm permanently inoperable.
• Sell the firearm to a licensed gun dealer.
• Remove the Firearm from the State.
• Or make arrangements to turn their firearms over to the Connecticut State Police.

It goes on to tell residents they must dispose of any magazine that do not comply with the newly passed law as well.

The law bans the sale of any magazines that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition, and makes it a felony to own any so-called “assault rifle” that was manufactured after 1994.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with insurance requirements though. 

You never answered.  As a responsible gun owner do you have liability insurance on your guns?

I agree with the Connecticut law.  Nobody needs an assault style gun, grown men playing soldier does not lead to responsible gun ownership.

Since you won't answer the question I'm sure you haven't bothered to get any insurance on your guns.  That leaves you and your family open to huge losses if you to shoot somebody.  That's not a very responsible way for a grown man to behave.

 Banning over 160 specifically named firearms.    Unconstitutional.

Do you have Violence Liability Insurance on your firearms, wvit?  Of course not.   That is what the insurance is about not your bs umbrella policy.

no, it's not unconstitutional.  various weapons have always been banned, it's never been unconstitutional.

and you still continue to evade the insurance question for some reason.

I'm not sure what violence liability insurance is.  I have liability insurance on them though.

How does violence liability insurance work?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792


Posted several times.

no, it's not unconstitutional.


Yes it is.   Banning any semi-auto rifle is unconstitutional, never mind 160 by liberal political scum who are clueless...

Some attorney's always out there looking for a reason to sue.  If you own a gun and use it then it is irresponsibly of you not to protect your family and yourself against a lawsuit.




Liability for Gun Accidents & Injuries

If you've been injured in a gun accident, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. If a friend or loved one died as a result of a gun accident, their estate may have a valid wrongful death claim.

Common causes of gun accidents:

Inadequate training
Poor gun range management
Lack of parental supervision
Reckless firearm handling
Alcohol or drug consumption
Accidental discharge
Manufacturer's or sellers' defect (product liability)

Liability: Whose fault is it?

The law recognizes a difference between accidental and negligent discharges. It's more difficult to succeed in a personal injury claim when the discharge was accidental rather than negligent. Therefore, the more evidence you have showing someone's negligence was responsible, the stronger your claim.

Accidental discharge can occur even when the gun owner had proper training and took all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of others. For example, as an owner placed his gun in a locked cabinet, it slipped out of his hands, fell to the ground and discharged. In another example, during a training session, a student's finger slipped off the trigger guard onto the trigger, causing the gun to discharge.

In both of these cases, the responsible parties can argue they took all proper safety precautions, so the discharges were accidental.

Negligent discharge occurs when the gun owner or shooter fails to exercise reasonable care and precaution when handling the gun, thereby endangering the safety of others.

For example, prior to placing his gun in a locked cabinet, a gun owner consumed several beers. Then the gun slipped out of his hands, fell to the floor and discharged. When the police responded, they administered a breath test, which showed the gun owner was under the influence.

Personal Injury Attorneys

Unfortunately, most gun injuries are quite serious. Only an experienced personal injury attorney should handle gunshot wounds, bone fractures, etc. Attorneys can file lawsuits and cut through insurance company red tape by issuing subpoenas. They can take depositions (recorded statements) from uncooperative witnesses and request company records showing instructor training deficiencies.

There's just too much at stake in serious injury cases. An experienced personal injury attorney will almost certainly settle your claim for a substantially higher amount than you could representing yourself.


http://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/gun-accidents.html

Family of woman accidentally shot at restaurant files lawsuit against gun owner


The family of a woman who was accidentally shot as she ate dinner at a restaurant has filed a civil lawsuit against the gun owner.

The shooting happened as Diana Baker, 71, and her husband were having dinner with friends at Raffa s in January. A diner sitting next to them had a loaded derringer in his jacket. The gun fell to the floor and fired.

Barker was shot in the buttocks, but the bullet bounced around to many of her organs and is still lodged inside of her. The Kingwood grandmother spent weeks in the hospital and is now recovering at home.

Barker s family is also taking a stand against a bill that would allow students and professors to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. On Tuesday, Barker s husband and son will head to Austin to testify against SB 354 in front of the Committee on Criminal Justice. The bill has already passed a Senate Committee.

11 News is not releasing the man s name because he has not been charged with a crime.

The Houston Police Department and Harris County District Attorney s Office are still investigating.


http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/15/11454624/



Victim's Dad Sues, Says Gun Owner Negligent In Boy's Shooting

''I don't want to be the heavy in this situation,'' Hyland said. ''But something should happen because of the reckless way these guns were laid out.''

Hyland's son Mathew was shot in the head Feb. 16 by his friend, John Kallok, 14, who was showing off a pistol, Orange County deputy sheriffs said.

The sheriff's office is reviewing possible charges and expects to send the case to the state attorney's office in the next several days, a spokesman said.

Mathew is still in serious condition at Orlando Regional Medical Center. He has made steady progress. Hyland said his son sat up in a chair for the first time over the weekend and ate his first solid food - half a hamburger - since the shooting.

The lawsuit was filed against James Kallok, John's father. He could not be reached for comment.

According to a sheriff's report, John said he and Mathew were talking about guns on the way home from Glenridge Middle School. When they got to John's apartment, they went to his parents' bedroom.

There, the report says, John picked up a rifle lying on a table, showed it to Mathew and pulled the trigger. The rifle was not loaded.

John then took a .32-caliber pistol from a closet shelf and did the same thing. But this gun was loaded, and the bullet passed through Mathew's head.

Because John did not know that the pistol was loaded, deputies have ruled the shooting accidental and said they will not charge him.

The question is whether Kallok will be charged under the new state law, state attorney's spokesman Randy Means said.

The Legislature passed the law last summer in the wake of a rash of accidental shootings involving children. The law makes it a felony to leave a gun ''within reach or easy access of a minor,'' if the child uses it to injure or kill himself or anyone else.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-02-28/news/9002282839_1_hyland-mathew-loaded

Mother of accidental shooting death victim files $1.5M lawsuit in Blount


The mother of a Heritage High School wrestler accidentally shot and killed days after he graduated in May 2013 has filed a $1.5 million lawsuit against the man charged Friday as a juvenile in the her son's death and three other individuals.

Amy Boring on Tuesday filed the lawsuit in Blount County Circuit Court against Dennis C. Dinwiddie, of Clarksville; Cedrick C. Grindstaff, of Maryville; Donald R. Wilson, of Walland; and Daniel L. Bishop, of Memphis.

According to the lawsuit, Dinwiddie was the individual who accidentally shot and killed 17-year-old Skyler Boring, Amy Boring's son.

Because Dinwiddie was 17 at the time of the May 28, 2013, fatal shooting, his name was not released when he was arrested, Blount County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Marian O'Briant said.

Dinwiddie was charged in Blount County Juvenile Court with delinquency by criminally negligent homicide and booked into the Blount County Juvenile Detention Facility. He was scheduled to appear for arraignment in front of Blount County Juvenile Court Judge Terry Denton this week.

According to the lawsuit, Skyler Boring was on property owned by Wilson and Bishop at 4529 East Lamar Alexander Parkway (U.S. 321) when Dinwiddie retrieved a loaded model 1300 Winchester 20-gauge pump action shotgun from the property.

"Dinwiddie failed to act with due care in the handling of the firearm, thereby causing it to discharge, striking Skyler Boring in the upper right chest. As a result of .... Dinwiddie's negligent conduct, Skyler Boring suffered fatal injuries," according to the lawsuit.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/mother-of-accidental-shooting-death-victim-files

Keep Your Guns Locked Up or Face Lawsuits


If you don’t lock up your guns – or at least keep them unloaded – when you have guests, you could be sued when something goes wrong.

One Vermont family is finding out just how horribly wrong things can go: They are being sued for wrongful death in the wake of an accidental shooting between two house guests, which left one of them dead. The suit alleges that the family was negligent, because the weapon involved in the incident was loaded, unsecured and belonged to a family member.

Tragic Facts

Jeffrey Charbonneau, 24, and his friend Nick Bell, 25, ran into their friend Jim Goodwin at dinner on the night before Thanksgiving 2010. Because their homes were crowded with family members in for the holiday, Jim invited the two friends to stay at his family’s house for the night while his parents and brother were away with family.

The next morning, Bell came into the room where Charbonneau was sleeping to wake him up and get going back to their own families for Thanksgiving. The bedroom belonged to Goodwin’s brother, Charlie, an avid hunter. Bell found what turned out to be a loaded .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle with no safety engaged hanging on the wall and, in what he likely meant to be a joke, Bell walked around Charbonneau’s bed holding the gun. It discharged, and a bullet entered Charbonneau’s heart from his side, killing him almost instantly.

Bell pled no contest in May to the felony of manslaughter, and to the misdemeanors of assault with a weapon and reckless endangerment, according to a local news report. He was sentenced to a year in jail.

Family Responsible for Dangerous Conditions

“The owner of the gun, Jim’s brother [Charlie], wasn’t even there,” explains David Cleary, a  lawyer with Cleary, Shahi & Aicher in Rutland, Vermont, who is representing Charbonneau’s family in a lawsuit against Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin, as well as the two sons. “But Jim should have known his brother’s room had something dangerous about it.”

That’s the heart of the case against the Goodwins: “It’s a typical premises liability case,” says Cleary. “If you ask a guest over, you have a duty to maintain your premises in reasonably safe condition. If he slips and falls on your icy stairs, it’s the same thing.”


Second Amendment Long Shot

The Goodwins are relying on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, according to Cleary, but it’s not likely to be a successful defense, as they still must defend against the negligence charge. Plus they weren’t even bearing the arm that killed Charbonneau.

Cleary says the constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t negate a gun-owner’s legal obligations to use and store weapons in a safe manner. “They might as well have pled freedom of religion.”

If you’re out in the woods hunting, and you negligently shoot someone in an accident, you can’t use the Second Amendment to get out of it, Cleary says. “This is not a field of combat situation where the enemy wouldn’t have a cause of action against you for shooting him,” he adds.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/12/gun-death-lawsuits/

I'm not sure what violence liability insurance is.




How does violence liability insurance work?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792)


Posted several times.


The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.

Owning and using a gun without liability insurance is like rolling the dice with your families future.  You could loss your home, your savings, and most of your future income in a lawsuit over an accident.

Responsible adults don't risk their families future like that.

That's the same as any other liability insurance policy sweaty.  If you think it isn't then what's the difference?  It's just protection for you from liability in an accident.

Hawk,
Great news...now employers cannot deny me the open display of my Christian Crucifix!

Violence liability insurance premiums will be calculated using several factors. Insurance companies in the private sector would have their own criteria for gun insurance ownership.

Gun violence liability insurance would impose fewer charges on an antique Civil War rifle owner who keeps his or her firearm on a wall display and very high premiums for someone who owns a semi-automatic rifle deemed scary or unworthy of ownership by ignorant anti-gun fanatics.


The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.

you still keep dodging the question of whether you are risking your families home and future by not taking out insurance on your guns.

and you didn't say why this gun insurance would be any different from other liability insurance.

when I took out liability insurance for my boat they asked me how big it was, how many people would it hold, how many horsepower the motor was, whether I'd taken a safe boating class,  etc. 

(https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/01-gun-nut.jpg?w=800&h=520)

(https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/01-gun-nut-cartoon.jpg?w=1000)

Most home/renters insurance provide liability coverage wvit.  An umbrella policy just adds to it.

Hell, I even have liability on farm ground.

renter's insurance isn't required and most people don't carry it.  and even if you have renters or homeowners insurance it only covers what happens on the property.  If you ever take the gun off your property it isn't covered.


Survey Shows Only A Third of Renters Have Insurance

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/survey-shows-renters-insurance/story?id=18685618

You are an anti-gun nut, wvit.   Your insane little cartoons prove that fact.

Let us know when you have to buy Violence liability insurance for your firearms that you "claim" to own...

The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.    Keep trying, wvit...

I'm not anti gun.  I'm anti gun nut though.  I like guns and own a bunch of guns, I grew up hunting and using guns and have been around guns my whole life.



Owning a firearm is a big responsibility. Because of the risk involved, it’s critically important for gun owners to make sure they understand how guns and insurance interact so they can take appropriate steps to protect their property as well as themselves.

https://news.leavitt.com/publications/guns-and-insurance-a-firearm-owners-guide/

sweaty you still haven't told me the difference between violence liability insurance and regular standard liability insurance though.

What a crock of shit, Vit.  Who is the carrier on YOUR fire arm insurance?

SafeCo


http://www.safeco.com/

You are an anti-gun nut, wvit.

Let us know when you have to buy Violence liability insurance for your firearms that you "claim" to own...

The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.    Keep trying, wvit...

Your insurance btw, does not qualify for what the anti-gun nuts are proposing not that you will eve have to buy violence liability insurance for any guns...unless you own one and it passes the House and Senate.   It is already DOA.

Anyone could be forced to buy violence liability insurance as more people are murdered with hands, clubs, etc than with "assault" semi-auto rifles.

no, I like guns sweaty and have always been around them.

I don't like wacky gun nuts like you though.

why doesn't my insurance qualify sweaty?  you just keep dancing around the questions.

you still haven't said whether you have any insurance on your guns.  responsible gun owners wouldn't risk their home, savings, and their incomes by not having it.

Unless you can show me specific language in you policy regards fire arm Liability I can only assume EVERY one with general homeowners insurance has the same Liability coverage..

Get off this bull shit augment

Time t pull the plug on this screwed up thread..  you've had enough attention little boy.

I'm not posting my insurance policy byt.  that would be a stupid idea.

I didn't ask for you Policy.  Just the clause that covers fire-arm  liability by name.  Get it little man.

You do try so hard.  I feel sorry for you....always losing.

don't be stupid byt.  your firearms are covered against theft by your homeowner's policy and/or your auto policy.

you liability insurance covers anything accidental that happens in your home.

the umbrella coverage covers property liabilities outside the home or car or above those policy limits connected with the property.

now if you intentionally shot somebody in self defense or because you were pissed off they cut you off in traffic then the insurance company would most probably refuse the claim.

you'll have to check with your particular insurance on self defense because most policies will deny the claim if the act was intentional.  But if you claim the gun going into the policy then some policies won't deny an act of self defense.

If it was ONLY about liability, they would only require you to have a general policy that covers liability for firearms, period.

But, they want to know what kind you have and the serial numbers.

That's not INSURANCE, that's REGISTRATION!!!!!

REGISTRATION is the first step to CONFISCATION!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the various countries of the world that have now banned guns started to implement their programs, they ALL started with REGISTRATION.

They said, don't worry, we're just simply having all guns registered as a paperwork procedure. You can keep them, no problem. (Sounds like SOBama
  saying you can keep your health insurance plan if you like it!!!!!)

Then, after the guns were all registered for a while, they said that everyone was required to turn them in "for public safety". The law-abiding people
  that had registered their guns in compliance had no choice but to turn them in since the Govt already knew about them. That left the ONLY guns
  in the hands of the folks that broke the law by NOT registering their guns, aka CRIMINALS!!!!!

The law-abiding folks were now sitting ducks with no protection against the armed criminals. This has happened in EVERY country that banned guns!!

The saying is TRUE and FACTUAL: WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.    Keep trying, wvit...                                                                                                                                       

Reliably anti-gun Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has introduced two new rights-restricting bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.
May 15 saw the introduction of
H.R. 2380
 (http://tinyurl.com/pbqzrvk), the so-called “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015.” This bill would require background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows. In the 1990s, gun control supporters began claiming that criminals were acquiring firearms at gun shows without having to go through background checks. However, repeated surveys of prison inmates who possessed firearms at the time of their offenses revealed that less than one percent acquired their firearms at gun shows.




This bill would do nothing more than burden lawful firearm transactions and take us one step closer to a national gun registry. Less than a week later on May 21, Maloney introduced
H.R. 2546
 (http://tinyurl.com/ongdtsp), which she calls the Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015. While the text of this bill has not yet been published online
, an article in The Hill
 (http://tinyurl.com/ndjlj9m) described it as requiring gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being “allowed” to purchase a firearm, and imposing a fine of $10,000 on those who do not comply.



H.R. 2546 is merely another thinly-disguised attempt at imposing firearm registration, as well as making firearm ownership more expensive and thus less obtainable for low-income Americans, the ones most beset by violent crime.

(http://community.ebay.com/ebay01/attachments/ebay01/2124/198536/1/JustInCase%20-%20Copy%20(3).jpg)

Even the nra says you should have liability insurance on your guns and endorses it for their members.

Violence liability insurance premiums will be calculated using several factors. Insurance companies in the private sector would have their own criteria for gun insurance ownership.

Gun violence liability insurance would impose fewer charges on an antique Civil War rifle owner who keeps his or her firearm on a wall display and very high premiums for someone who owns a semi-automatic rifle or handgun deemed scary or unworthy of ownership by ignorant anti-gun fanatics.


The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.

you keep repeating yourself sweaty.  why are you against protecting your family and your future from lawsuits arising from using your gun or an accident involving your gun?

and you still haven't answered the question of whether you have insurance on your guns sweaty. 

the NRA endorses liability insurance on your weapons.

gun nuts are such chickenshits!!  but we knew that.  i bet the relationship between low IQ, racism and being a gun nut are incredibly intermixed and co-dependent.  it is hard to be intelligent AND be a racist or gun nut.  it is hard to be a racist and not be a gun nut with a low IQ.  is is hard to be a gun nut and not be a racist with a low IQ.  like wd-40 and hk-47 and jerkwater prove here all the time. 

Personal Firearms Liability Insurance for NRA membersMost homeowner's policies fall far short of adequate protection for liability claims. We recognized this gap in coverage and created a custom plan to protect National Rifle Association members.

NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance protects you against liability suits up to $1,000,000 for any injuries you unintentionally cause while hunting or trapping on public or private land. This coverage also covers you while shooting in competitions or at private shooting ranges.
The NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance provides:

• Coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by the use of a firearm, air gun, bow & arrow, or trapping equipment when you are legally obligated for damages
  
• Most defense costs in addition to the liability limit—even if the lawsuit is false
  
• Liability limit options from $100,000 up to $1,000,000

[/SIZE][/FONT]Annual Liability Limit Options:
$47 annually:$100,000 combined single limit:
$67 annually:$250,000 combined single limit:
$100 annually:$500,000 combined single limit:
$200 annually:$1,000,000 combined single limit



This NRA-endorsed insurance offers peace of mind that your personal assets are covered.
Protect yourself with Personal Firearms Liability Insurance. Buy online today!

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

Like most insurance the above NRA endorsed insurance say "unintentionally" caused injuries.

This is where you have to buy an rider for self defense.  Since shooting someone breaking into your home or threatening you isn't "unintentional".  Intentional shootings aren't covered in most policies.

NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance protects you against liability suits up to $1,000,000 for any injuries you unintentionally cause while hunting or trapping on public or private land. This coverage also covers you while shooting in competitions or at private shooting ranges.


It is not violence liability insurance Democrats want to require of all gun owners that will be calculated using several factors.  The NRA is in opposition to requiring gun owners to buy gun violence policies.

Gun violence liability insurance would impose fewer charges on an antique Civil War rifle owner who keeps his or her firearm on a wall display and very high premiums for someone who owns a semi-automatic rifle or handgun deemed scary or unworthy of ownership by ignorant anti-gun fanatics.


The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.


http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

Still won't answer a simple question eh sweaty. 

You do know your an idiot don't you.

NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance protects you against liability suits up to $1,000,000 for any injuries you unintentionally cause while hunting or trapping on public or private land. This coverage also covers you while shooting in competitions or at private shooting ranges.


It is not violence liability insurance Democrats want to require/force on all gun owners.  The NRA is in opposition to requiring gun owners to buy gun violence policies.   So am I.


You are a fool, wvit.

As an NRA member, you are eligible to receive $2,500 ArmsCare Firearms Insurance. This insurance is available at no cost to you but it must be activated to take effect.
 (https://nrainsurance.locktonaffinity.com/ArmsCareActivation/activation)

 (https://nrainsurance.locktonaffinity.com/ArmsCareActivation/activation)
 
ArmsCare Firearms Insurance provides NRA members with protection for their firearms and accessories include scopes, rings, mounts, slings and sling swivels, which are attached to the insured firearm.

 
With ArmsCare Firearms Insurance, guns and accessories are protected from the following:
 

• Direct physical loss
• Damage
• Fire
• Theft (Theft from a vehicle is covered when it is the result of breaking and entering a locked vehicle or locked portion of the vehicle.)

Firearms do not need to be scheduled and serial numbers are not required.


http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/ArmsCare.htm

Do you carry insurance on your guns sweaty?

 That is none of your business, Thug!

Using over regulation to strip people of their constitutional rights is what a savage would do!

The legal implications of being involved in an act of self-defense could cost you as much as $100,000.

Self-defense Insurance protects you and your assets.

This NRA-endorsed Self-defense Insurance bundles both Self-defense and Personal Firearms Protection coverage, and provides Civil Defense and Liability, Criminal Defense Reimbursement, Concealed Carry Liability and Bodily Injury or Property Damage if you are involved in an act
of self-defense.

Cost:

$400 annually:

$500,000 combined single limit with a $100,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit.

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/defense.htm

I am an NRA member wvit, are you?

I wonder if the poster who advocates gun violence insurance has researched and found a Company and Underwriter willing too issue a policy of this nature?  Oh wait...the Government will be willing (much like Flood Insurance) too issue that policy as long as I tell them what kind of weapon(s) I own, serial numbers and if and when I sell any.  BTW..if a bad guy(s) break into my home and I dispatch them with a golf club...will my home owners umbrella policy cover me if I am sued by the dead guy(s) family? 

Home insurance covers both theft and vandalism.


That is what wvit and most of us who own a home have...   It is not what the Democrats are pushing with violence insurance policies for gun owners if wvit is even a gun owner....

what's the difference in these violence insurance policies and regular liability policies sweaty? 

And I have more than just homeowner's insurance sweaty.  I also have an umbrella policy which covers liability beyond regular insurance limits and covers all my possessions whether at home or anywhere.

Sweatwater,

Exactly...dems want you unable to afford the insurance...and force you to dispose of them

So, your saying your policy(s) cover liability from Criminal Acts?.  After all, if not a criminal act, you have no liability to insure, and I'll put $100 on the line that says your Policy(s) do not cover liability from a Criminal Act.

No, not criminal acts. No policy covers you if you are purposefully doing something illegal.

If it was ONLY about liability, they would only require you to have a general policy that covers liability for firearms, period.

But, they want to know what kind you have and the serial numbers.

That's not INSURANCE, that's REGISTRATION!!!!!

REGISTRATION is the first step to CONFISCATION!!!!!


(http://dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/confiscation-590x300.jpg)

(http://bloviatingzeppelin.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Obama-Gun-Confiscation.jpg)

Why then would anyone need "Insurance" for their Fire Arms?

accidents.  say you shoot somebody in some confrontation while out one night and they decide to then sue you or their relatives decide to sue you if you kill them.

who is paying for your attorney? 

what if you get into a confrontation with someone and have to shoot them but one of your shots hits someone down the street who you didn't even see.  who is going to pay for the medical bills to that person?  who is going to pay for your attorney when they sue you?

what if your down at the range and you inadvertently shot someone with an accidental discharge, it happens all the time.  who is paying for there medical bills and your attorney when they sue you?

I see the poster advocating this insurance has not identified a Company and Underwriter willing to write a policy of this nature?

What Normal Person goes out and ends up in a "confrontation" that ends with gunfire? ? ? ? ? ? ?

wet-xxxx.....  What kind of places do YOU go to? ? ? ? ? ? ?  Do you live in the ghetto? ? ? ? ? ?

Oh, and BTW......  Gun Ranges are posted with signs that say "Enter At Your Own Risk".  No suits happening there!!!

yeah I did, you'll have to look back.  or you can check on the NRA website, they have policies you can purchase and that they endorse.

I didn't say me.  I don't carry a gun.   I said you.

No lawsuits at shooting ranges? 

Man shot in both arms at shooting range files lawsuit

http://q13fox.com/2013/07/16/man-shot-in-both-arms-at-shooting-range-files-lawsuit/

Widow sues Modesto club in skeet shooting death
The widow of a man who was shot at the Old Fishermen's Club in July has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the club, the club's landlord and the man she says killed her husband.

The lawsuit identifies Vincent Giovaniello of Riverbank as the man who shot Herrmann. Authorities have declined to name the shooter, but people familiar with the club confirmed it was Giovaniello.

Stanislaus County sheriff's Detective Ken Hedrick said the men were standing in an area between the skeet range and the parking lot when the shooting happened.

"He was showing the weapon to another club member when it went off," he said.


http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/article3114752.html

Clubs and ranges carry business liability insurance as do most businesses.   What is your point?

Agreed, the foam partitions were absolutely inadequate.  The other issues are just political chicken-shit.

In each of the lawsuits above not only were the gun ranges being sued but also the people who fired the shots were personally named in the lawsuit for negligence.  Who do you think is paying for their attorney bills?  Who's going to pay for their part of the damages awarded to the victims?

If they don't have insurance the shooters will have to come up with the money personally for their negligence.

Personal Firearms Liability Insurance for NRA members


Most homeowner's policies fall far short of adequate protection for liability claims. We recognized this gap in coverage and created a custom plan to protect National Rifle Association members.

NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance protects you against liability suits up to $1,000,000 for any injuries you unintentionally cause while hunting or trapping on public or private land. This coverage also covers you while shooting in competitions or at private shooting ranges.


The NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance provides:

• Coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by the use of a firearm, air gun, bow & arrow, or trapping equipment when you are legally obligated for damages
  
• Most defense costs in addition to the liability limit—even if the lawsuit is false
  
• Liability limit options from $100,000 up to $1,000,000

[/SIZE][/FONT]


Annual Liability Limit Options:
$47 annually:$100,000 combined single limit
$67 annually:$250,000 combined single limit
$100 annually:$500,000 combined single limit
$200 annually:$1,000,000 combined single limit

This NRA-endorsed insurance offers peace of mind that your personal assets are covered.
Protect yourself with Personal Firearms Liability Insurance. Buy online today!

http://www.nraendorsedinsurance.com/

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

The legal implications of being involved in an act of self-defense could cost you as much as $100,000.

Self-defense Insurance protects you and your assets.

This NRA-endorsed Self-defense Insurance bundles both Self-defense and Personal Firearms Protection coverage, and provides Civil Defense and Liability, Criminal Defense Reimbursement, Concealed Carry Liability and Bodily Injury or Property Damage if you are involved in an act
of self-defense.

Cost:

$400 annually:

$500,000 combined single limit with a $100,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit.

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/defense.htm

NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance protects you against liability suits up to $1,000,000 for any injuries you unintentionally cause while hunting or trapping on public or private land. This coverage also covers you while shooting in competitions or at private shooting ranges.


It is not violence liability insurance Democrats want to require of all gun owners to purchase.  The NRA is in opposition to requiring gun owners to buy gun violence policies.   So am I.


The proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence," particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law.


It will never pass the House so the point is moot.


http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm (http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm)
                                                                                                                                       

what is violence liability insurance sweaty?  and how is it different that plain old liability insurance?

you've never answered that question.

and sweaty - where'd you get that term, Violence Liability Insurance anyway?  it's not part of the proposed legislation.





Summary: H.R.1369 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Introduced in House (03/21/2013)Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) prohibit the purchase or sale of a firearm unless the purchaser presents proof to the seller and the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy, and (2) require any person who purchases a firearm on or after this Act's effective date to be covered by such a policy. Exempts the purchase or sale of a firearm for use by a federal, state, or local agency.

Defines "qualified liability insurance policy" to mean a policy that: (1) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser, and (2) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the state in which the purchaser resides.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1369

Yes, I left a link several times in this thread...

How does violence liability insurance work?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792


It will never pass the House so the point is moot, wvit.

(http://www.advancedtissue.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gunshot-wound.png)

Someone must have just made up that term sweaty since it doesn't appear anywhere in the proposed legislation.  Is this blog post all you have?

I went back and read the story referenced in the blog post you showed me.  I don't see anywhere in the original story where the writer said anything about violence liability insurance either.

Maybe you should stop getting your news from blogs sweaty as it is just adding to your ignorance.

Here's the original story referenced in the blog you posted. 


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/274547-insurance-policy-against-gun-violence

California lawmakers are pondering a move to make violence liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners. If the measure passes, California would be the only state with the requirement, according to the Associated Press . Similar bills have been introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.

How does gun violence liability insurance work?

Much like health insurance and car insurance, violence liability insurance premiums could be calculated using several factors.

Attorney Tricia Dunlap, writing for The Hill , lists similar criteria. A free market system for gun violence liability insurance...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792


It will never pass the House so the point is moot, wvit..

so you're sticking with the blog post instead of the actual story?

you do know you're an idiot don't you sweaty.


hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaa

Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance, California Democrats say

Published February 06, 2013

Associated Press


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/own-gun-time-to-buy-violence-insurance-california-democrats-say/



It will never pass the House so the point is moot, wvit.. 


 You will have to cheer for another anti-gun nut scam...


Ha ha ha ha ha ha...

hahahaahahhahahahaha.   Sweaty is such a moron.

No problem, Obama will simply issue an executive order mandating all citizens do so whether they own guns or not!

If this is an anti gun scam sweaty then why does the NRA support and endorse liability insurance for your guns?

how could he do that D2.  An executive order requires the president have the authority to do it already, and that authority only comes from Congress.

Hasn't stopped him in the past why should it stop him now?

so you're just making things up again.

What gave Obama the right to unilaterally declare amnesty for illegals?

From the Left:


California lawmakers are pondering a move to make violence liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners. If the measure passes, California would be the only state with the requirement, according to the Associated Press . Similar bills have been introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.

How does gun violence liability insurance work?

Much like health insurance and car insurance, violence liability insurance premiums could be calculated using several factors.

Attorney Tricia Dunlap, writing for The Hill , lists similar criteria. A free market system for gun violence liability insurance...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792


It will never pass the House so the point is moot, wvit..

still sticking with the blog post over reading the actual story sweaty?

hahahahahahahahahahaaa.    you are a moron.

Still haven't seen anyone identifying a Company willing to write/underwrite a policy of this nature?

you keep missing it faxy.  check the NRA website -


Personal Firearms Liability Insurance for NRA members


Most homeowner's policies fall far short of adequate protection for liability claims. We recognized this gap in coverage and created a custom plan to protect National Rifle Association members.

NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance protects you against liability suits up to $1,000,000 for any injuries you unintentionally cause while hunting or trapping on public or private land. This coverage also covers you while shooting in competitions or at private shooting ranges.


The NRA-endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance provides:

Coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by the use of a firearm, air gun, bow & arrow, or trapping equipment when you are legally obligated for damages

Most defense costs in addition to the liability limit—even if the lawsuit is false

Liability limit options from $100,000 up to $1,000,000

Annual Liability Limit Options:
$47 annually:$100,000 combined single limit
$67 annually:$250,000 combined single limit
$100 annually:$500,000 combined single limit
$200 annually:$1,000,000 combined single limit

This NRA-endorsed insurance offers peace of mind that your personal assets are covered.
Protect yourself with Personal Firearms Liability Insurance. Buy online today!

http://www.nraendorsedinsurance.com/

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

I wonder how the Castle Doctrine affects a civil lawsuit?

http://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=86&Issue=5&ArticleID=10836

My interpretation says I am exempt from any libility for killing an uninvited intruder. Thus the need for violence insurance is a moot point. Case closed.

wet-xxxx......

Why are you trying to make things difficult for Law-Abiding Citizens to own guns as guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights?

You constantly come up with all kinds of negative things regarding guns that rightfully should belong to CRIMINALS and NOT Law-Abiding gun owners.

How about coming up with ideas to lessen the violence by CRIMINALS with guns?
 

How about coming up with ideas to lessen the violence by CRIMINALS with guns?

 Violence by criminals benefits his group--they like dead kids and criminals with guns --It Makes calling for gun control easier..

The only thing they want is--gun control and ultimately confiscation......Just Like England !

Why are you trying to make things difficult for Law-Abiding Citizens

Thanks for not saying "Your fellow Americans" these lefties are everything BUT AMERICAN!

I guess my being a responsible gun owner nags at you guys.

Nope, democrats are sneaky!

They will add on so many conflicting requirements it will cost thousands of dollars a year!

Yes, that is how democrats operate they ban by regulating what they don't like to death!

When trying to require insurance doesn't work, they'll try TAXING guns out of existence!!!

Then, they'll require a usage permit that is only issued after attending classes for EACH gun you own (they'll record the S/N when you bring it!!).

Is it constitutional to require someone to buy violence liability insurance to exercise a constitutional right?

If they don't address it in committee, I'll guarantee they'll have to address it in court if it even makes it through the House.   Same with any state that passes such a bill which have all failed since 2003. 

What is violence liability Insurance?  I don't see that in the proposed legislation anywhere. 

From the Left:


California lawmakers are pondering a move to make violence liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners. If the measure passes, California would be the only state with the requirement, according to the Associated Press . Similar bills have been introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.

How does gun violence liability insurance work?

Much like health insurance and car insurance, violence liability insurance premiums could be calculated using several factors.

Attorney Tricia Dunlap, writing for The Hill , lists similar criteria. A free market system for gun violence liability insurance...

cont @

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172108792


Google: violence liability insurance...


https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-006&ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-yff38&p=violence%20liability%20insurance&type=

This discussion is over now. It's obvious that you can't honestly debate this issue since you keep insisting on using made up terms.  it's as shame, you guys try to hold yourselves up as responsible gun owners and yet you can't even talk about this issue without resorting to dishonesty.

Google: violence liability insurance...


https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-006&ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-yff38&p=violence%20liability%20insurance&type=



You are not that incapable or biased to lie are you, wvit?


The best part about the Democrat's scam is that it will never pass Congress...  DOA.

we went over this sweaty.  you got this term from someone writing on a blog.  the actual legislation doesn't contain this term, violence liability insurance, does it?

Here's the text of the actual bill introduced in Congress.  I don't see "violence liability insurance" in it anywhere.  Do you?


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1369/text

The best part about the Democrat's scam is that it will never pass Congress...  DOA.


Google: gun violence liability insurance...

Do you have insurance on your weapons sweaty?  Responsible gun owners, like myself, do.


The NRA Endorsed Insurance Program

One of the many benefits of membership in the National Rifle Association is having access to a broad selection of insurance products through the NRA Endorsed Property & Casualty Insurance Program. Together with the NRA, we've developed a wide range of products that offer the insurance solutions NRA members are looking for.

From member-specific coverages like Gun Insurance, Self-Defense Insurance and Personal Firearms Liability Insurance, to customized plans for NRA-affiliated hunt and gun clubs, instructors and businesses, we've got you covered.


http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/

https://home.nra.org/membership/list/insurance

Yes, I have insurance on my firearms the same as you do, wvit.    It is not the same insurance the Democrats are pushing for nor is the NRA insurance you keep posting.

you have liability insurance when you carry your gun away from your house sweaty?  are you sure?

Still haven't seen information on Companies willing to issue a policy of this nature...and since there are no co-sponsors to House bill 1369...I highly doubt it will go further than a trash can.

I've posted companies endorsed by the NRA that sell this insurance faxy.  why do you not want to acknowledge that?

since there are no co-sponsors to House bill 1369...I highly doubt it will go further than a trash can.


Exactly...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)


Do you have insurance that protects you from a criminal suing you if you have to use your firearm legally in self-defense in the home or in public, wvit?    That is what the Democrats want is for all gun owners to carry insurance when they have to use their gun legally for self-defense or not and may be sued by the perp or their family.   Maybe we need more laws to prevent legal self-defense firearm users from the abuse of lawsuits which would be a step in the right direction.   It is hard enough to go through the unavoidable trauma of using lethal force with a deadly criminal without being abused a second time in a court of law by criminals and their families.  Why are Democrats so blind?

yes.  my insurance will protect me in all legal or accidental shooting situations. 

now if I go out and intentionally shoot somebody as an illegal act then I'm on my own.

since we were talking I decided to contact my insurance about my policy and asked him some questions.  these are my question and his responses -



Are my guns and any liability for them covered?  Yes they are


I know they are covered from theft but if someone was accidentally shot would the costs be covered?  Yes for something like a hunting accident

How about if it was self defense and someone was intentionally shot? Would anything coming from that be covered, like if the intruder was to file a lawsuit for shooting him?
That would be determined more by law enforcement and their report..  States have different interpretations on this

How about it the gun was away from the house, say target shooting on another property.  Would any liability be covered?
Target shooting and a poor aim would be covered under the liability section of your policy

The law would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon and imposes a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have the required coverage; service members and law enforcement officers are exempt from this insurance requirement.

Attempts to pass similar legislation requiring liability insurance in several states have failed.


So you will have to buy whatever insurance they require, wvit.   Yours probably does not qualify anymore than what ACA did to millions with healthcare insurance that was voided by the act.

The sponsors of the gun bill are loons and have been for a long time.   It will not go through the House and you know it wont, wvit.   


http://ifawebnews.com/2013/04/03/n-y-va-d-c-representatives-propose-federal-gun-insurance-law/

That was a quick call, wvit.  Less than 6 minutes from being asked.   They must be desperate...

I'm sure my insurance is sufficient.  It's a million dollar policy, which is way more than the proposed legislation was calling for.

that that was an email from the other day sweaty when we started this thread.





I put the answers to your questions below.

Thanks
Mike
Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:10 PM

I'm not trying to trick you or confuse you sweaty.  This is an important topic.

 Nope, democrats will make sure there are so many conflicting requirements no affordable insurance will be possible!

where did you see conflicting requirements D2?  Here's the proposed legislation -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1369/text

You forget under Obama legislation isn't needed!

Only an executive order from Obama is needed!

All you have to do is look at how democrats in Chicago, Washington DC and New York City treated legal gun owners to know abused is inevitable if democrats create the law!

a person should be responsible in his life, not only to himself but to his family.  if you choose to own guns you should purchase liability insurance on them.  if you don't you are risking your home and savings, this would be a huge loss for not only you but for your family if something tragic were to happen and you were sued and lost.  or just being sued and having to defend yourself in a lawsuit can cost 10's of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees.

with or without a government requirement having liability insurance on your guns is the responsible thing for all concerned if someone decides they want to be a gun owner.

Is knife insurance next?

What about baseball bats, hammers, rope, axes, anti-freeze, scissors, etc.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Where does it end?

kinda hard to accidentally kill someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, even with a knife.

This isn't about "accident" insurance, wvit...   Grow up...

 That isn't the purpose of the proposal!
If someone steals your baseball bat, hammer or knife and injures or kill someone with it under liberalism the victim of that theft becomes liable!

Absolute foolishness!

what's it about sweaty?  Insurance won't cover intentional criminal acts.

Where did you read in the proposed legislation that it said anything about insurance covering guns that had been stolen from you?

That is the purpose of the legislation!

To make the victim of gun theft liable for any acts perpetrated with the stolen weapon!

Here's the proposed legislation.  Show me where it says you would need insurance to cover something that happens with your gun if it is stolen from you.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1369/text

Democrats are never straight forward about any legislation they propose as Obamacare so ably proves!

The end result will be to establish liability for victims of gun theft!

I don't need no stinkin' insurance...I got Wisconsin Castle Law and that precludes civility liability from me killing and or injuring an intruder

yes it does, but what if your bullet travels past the intruder and across the street and strikes your neighbor?   who is going to pay for that when the neighbor sues you?


or what if you're out at the shooting range practicing and you accidentally discharge the gun and the bullet strikes someone?  who is going to pay for that lawsuit?

 Who every has the deepest pockets!

Life is filled with risks and no one can afford insurance to cover every risk possible!

This is nothing more than an attempt to make the victims of theft liable for what a criminal does with stolen weapons!

Should mandatory weapons insurance be imposed, lawyers will begins suing victims of theft and insurance companies as is their nature will pay out thereby establishing liability!

since there are no co-sponsors to House bill 1369...I highly doubt it will go further than a trash can.


Exactly...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

if you leave your gun laying around in an unlocked car and someone opens the door and steals it are you liable?  that would be up to the courts.

you, as a responsible gun owner, have some responsibility to make sure your gun is secure.  would a jury consider leaving your gun in an unlocked car something a prudent and responsible gun owner would do?

this all comes down to a legal question of proximate cause.


Proximate Cause

An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred.

Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury. Proximate cause produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the intervention of any independent or unforeseeable cause. It is also known as legal cause.

To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the "but for" or "sine qua non" rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant's act establishes that the particular act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish liability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions.

Some jurisdictions apply the "substantial factor" formula to determine proximate cause. This rule considers whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm. If the act was a substantial factor in bringing about the damage, then the defendant will be held liable unless she can raise a sufficient defense to rebut the claims.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/proximate+cause

Wvit finally admits the true nature of the bill!

How sad!

since there are no co-sponsors to House bill 1369...I highly doubt it will go further than a trash can.


Exactly...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)


Let us know when it comes up for a vote in the House, wvit, LOL...   You and the anti-gun nuts lose again.

with or without this legislation a responsible gun owner should carry insurance on their guns.  wouldn't you agree sweaty?  The NRA endorses insuring your weapons.

proximate cause is why someone who leaves a loaded gun under the bed is found negligent if a child finds that gun and shoots someone.  The proximate cause of the shooting was leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.

Wvit, what if the "child" finds it in the process of burglarizing a home?

that would be up to a jury.  but whatever the jury found your having insurance on the gun or not wouldn't make any difference with their finding.

Wrong, as having insurance would mean it would be settled out of court establishing liability for all!

If a person steals a car and kills several people with it is the owner of that care liable?

so now your back to guessing again.   It would be up to your attorney and you whether it would be settled out of court or not.  If they were suing you for monetary damages it would be a civil suit.

if you leave your car running in front of the gas station while you go in to pay and someone jumps in and drives off with it then hits someone is it your fault?

that question would be up to a jury to decide, whether you had insurance or not wouldn't enter into their decision.

A Florida bill, HB255 (http://www.myfloridahouse.org/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=209053.docx&DocumentType=Amendments&BillNumber=0255&Session=2014), introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-D4) would allow citizens to sue insurance companies over discriminatory practices directed at those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

In its language, it aims to make insurance companies in the state responsible if they raise rates or refuse policies to residents because they own firearms.

Currently this type of discrimination is already policed by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. But this new bill, which was introduced in November, would allow individuals to sue the companies directly if they feel they are victimized.

“It just gives greater access to courts,” Rep. Gaetz said  (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542155)to the Jacksonville Daily Record.

It would make it unlawful to for insurance companies to “charge an unfairly discriminatory rate in this state based on the lawful use, possession, or ownership of a firearm by the insurance applicant, insured, or a household member of the applicant or insured.”

We would strongly oppose any effort by insurance companies to discriminate against the lawful exercise of a fundamental civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment.


If an insurance company says, we don’t need this bill because they are not discriminating against customers, then why are they fighting against something they say they don’t do anyway?


Chris Eger

         
Now that is what Congress needs to pass for all 50 states.

now sweaty, why are you trying to deflect?

Wrong, Wvit, having insurance virtually guarantees it will be settled out of court establishing liability!

you and your attorney would only settle out of court if you thought you were going to loose.  it is your decision on whether to settle or not in a civil trial.

To Settle or Not to Settle? That Is the Question


In today's litigious society, more often than not cases end up being settled before going to court and getting a judgment. Settling means both parties resolve the issues outside of court without a trial.

Typically one offers a payment or award of some sort to the other, possibly less than the initial amount asked. Why do so many people choose to settle their cases instead of leaving their fate in the hands of a jury or judge? Is settling a case more beneficial?

Benefits of Settling a Case

There are many benefits to settlement rather than undergoing a full trial, for instance:

-Expense. Trials involve attorneys, expert witnesses, extensive depositions during discovery, travel and time. If a case settles before going to trial, then most of these expenses can be reduced or eliminated
-Stress. Settlement may reduce some stress that a trial creates. Sometimes it's hard for people to undergo the process of trial. They fear getting on the witness stand and telling their story to a judge and jury, then cross-examined
-Privacy. Details of the case can be kept private when settled. When you take a case to trial, the court documents become a public record and anyone can look at them. When you settle a case, most of the details are kept out of the court documents, and aren't a public record. Many settlement agreements also have confidentiality agreements as part of the settlement, so the case won't be talked about in public
-Predictability. A jury decision is very uncertain. A settlement is much more predictable than having to wait for a jury to reach a decision
-Time. Many trials can last from 1-3 years, sometimes even longer if there's an appeal. Settlement shortens the time frame
-Finality. The losing party can appeal a court (judge or jury) decision, dragging out the process even longer. Settlements can't be appealed and ensure the dispute is over
-Flexibility. During trials, there are strict guidelines and rules about what can be said in court (for example, rules of evidence and procedural rules). When you settle a case, there's more flexibility during discussions and how topics are tackled. Furthermore, in a settlement, one party can even ask for an apology, which wouldn't be possible in court
-No "Guilty" Verdict. In a trial, there's usually a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, but in a settlement the defendant, person or party on the defensive, may not want a record of guilt. Settling a case is a way to pay for a mistake, but not admit wrongdoing


When It Doesn't Make Sense to Settle

Sometimes lawsuits are filed to make an important point that affects society. For cases challenging Constitutional limitations or other rights, settling wouldn't be a good option because it doesn't create precedent and won't affect public policy.

Also, sometimes the settlement terms are so unfair to one side that settling isn't the better option.

Who Decides?

When considering a settlement, lawyers need to examine if the settlement is actually in the client's best interest. Many times, a side offers settlement terms which don't fully compensate the other side's injuries and damages. However, lawyers seeking a quick finality to the case may pressure the client to accept it. The decision whether to settle or not belongs to the client.

Current Affairs: The Outback Settlement

You may have heard some talk of settlements in recent news. Outback Steakhouse has recently agreed to pay $19 million to settle a sex discrimination suit against it.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against the restaurant chain back in 2006. They claimed female workers were denied favorable jobs which prevented them from advancing to profit-sharing management positions.

While refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, The Outback justified its settlement decision because the company decided it was better to settle than to spend time and money on litigation. The company also agreed to institute an online application system for managerial positions and hire a human resources executive.

It also agreed to hire a consultant to monitor its compliance with the settlement and report back to the EEOC on how it's doing every six months. The settlement terms offered the women both money and better working conditions.

Settling a case isn't always advantageous for both parties, and it may seem like an easy way out. However, it is an acceptable way to resolve a dispute.

Insurance for guns is merely an attempt at controlling black people from accessing guns (thus, an attempt to negate a tool blacks can use in crime).

And, of course, why many more white people are so excited about protecting their 2nd Amendment rights -- to defend their life, liberty, and property from the people most likely to use guns in a malicious manner.

can you not have a serious discussion sweaty? 

House Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) is serious about the black guy who murdered her husband.

This is the second time Maloney, who is one of the biggest gun control advocates in Congress, has introduced the legislation.

Maloney noted that liability insurance coverage would “ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

This might make sense in a perfect world. But, as gun grabbers don’t seem to realize, our world is far from perfect. Good, honest people are less likely to commit violent crime, and bad people, i.e. criminals, are less likely to obey laws. Accidents are far less frequent than crimes, and criminals aren’t going to bother paying for insurance when they can simply buy a gun off the street (or use a knife instead).

Even if they wanted to follow such a law, could they really afford it? Most gun violence occurs in low-income neighborhoods. Why would someone who can barely afford necessities want to buy “gun insurance”?

As is the trend with gun control legislation, this bill robs law-abiding citizens of their rights, while only empowering criminals. But like most gun grabbers, Maloney has no time for reality. Gun control resonates with her constituency and makes her feel warm and fuzzy inside.


Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose family tragedy in the Long Island Rail Road massacre 20 years ago led her to become the face of gun control in Congress, said Wednesday she will not run for re-election -- a decision reached after health struggles.


(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6756833.1389206780%21/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpg)

Like car insurance is a requirement.  However the last couple of accidents I've been involved in the person who hit me didn't have insurance so my uninsured motorist coverage had to pay, the insurance company then persued the responsible person to get their money back.
 
 
 
 

a question for you sweaty.  Why would you want to risk your home, your savings, your future income, your family's security by not having liability insurance on your weapons?

I have insurance on everything I own.  I have insurance on my boat even though it's not required because I see the results of accidents and the lawsuits that follow.  I have insurance on my vehicles.  I have insurance on my home.  I have insurance on my guns. 
 
for the small amount that it costs it is worth not taking the risk of something happening that could cause me to lose everything.

FBI data show that Negroes are most likely to commit gun violence while engaged in criminal activity.

Does any Normal Person think those folks would be getting INSURANCE? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Would they be using the money from their JOB? ? ? ? ? ?  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

Would they have a firearm that they legally purchased after getting a background check? ? ? ? ? ? (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

Seen any flying pigs lately?

insurance won't pay for the results of any criminal activity.

If you get shot by someone comitting a crime you can sue them in civil court and win a judgement against them.  that doesn't mean you'll ever see any of the money you won in court though.  first off criminals usually don't have much money and secondly they will most probably be in jail. 
 
Even if they had liablilty insurance on their guns their insurance company would probably deny the claim because insurance won't pay for things that happen during commission of a crime.

It's obvious that the people MOST likely to need the ins would NEVER be buying it!

SO.........?

who are the people most likely to need it? 

 Criminals!

But not a one of them will ever buy insurance!

How about as a condition of parole criminals be forced to buy crime insurance?

Then they will have to rob a Liquor Store every month to pay their premium.

Do you guys try hard to be stupid or does it just come real natural to you

 Wvit, admits he lost!

Reality is hard for you to understand isn't it, Vit.  Were you Educationally challenged as a child?  Or, could it be you are still a child?

Lost what?   I'm not the one arguing against being a responsible gun owner   

Responsible Gun Owners don't NEED insurance. They only need the opportunity to shoot criminals!!!

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yCQf7t36aYU/VVIFkkcAmUI/AAAAAAAA9tw/zW0pGJfty0A/s640/Black-unarmed-Warning-True-News.jpg)

http://nowanews.blogspot.com/2015/05/chicago-police-alert-residents-of.html

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPeI6DTET6wOIOz-YiG2xs9crFe9fDdHe1AP5ZpSC8Zu4eJ0GihA)

Nope, you'll have to kill me first!!! Let's see you try to take them from the folks
in TX, WV, AL, NC, SC, FL, GA, MS, AR, TN, NV, AZ, NM, ID, etc.!!! Ain't gonna happen!!!!!

doan worry

if cas wanted to take them they would get taken

cass-hole......  Speak English, you IDIOT!!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjM8eQEIUAA_8Ax.jpg)

caserio is one of those East Coast rubes...that was obviously educated under LBJ's Great Society!

(http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2014/01/gun-confiscation.png)

What governments are you saying confiscated their peoples guns

Wow, Wvit truly is ignorant!

And totally incapable of doing a search on his own to get the answers...He must think only Genius know it all's are here.




BUT,,,,Because YOU don't know the answer he wants,,, makes YOU an idiot without him doing a thing but type the words.

Right nitwad.  What grade did YOU graduate? What advanced degrees in any field can you lay claim to. Test to follow!!

What governments are you saying confiscated their peoples guns


No one can be that ignorant...  Then again consider the source.   

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.


Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2013/04/militia-opens-fire-on-government-forces-2470884.html

WACO Tx.  under order of Janet Reno was to confiscate alleged illegal weapons at the compound.

Suspected "illegal" weapons as none were found in the aftermath of the government slaughter.  Perhaps that is why Reno tried to destroy any evidence with tanks firing CS flammable canisters that crashed through the walls and set the buildings on fire.   

So nothing?  You guys can't find anything to go with your. Confiscation bullshit.

(https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/554084_445606282178340_1945191951_n.jpeg)

What exactly is it thatchers bitching about wavvy? 

wet-xxxx just sits around asking stupid questions and tries to make Normal People do research for her.

Don't fall for that scam!!!

(https://andelino.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/gun-confiscation-05.jpg)

Sheriff Clarke is a Pretty colorful guy!!  and hes a democrat!   Bloomburg put up thousands of dollars to see him defeated and He won his last election by a large margin !!

I saw him on the FOX News Channel the other day discussing how the Police have been demoralized in Baltimore and NYC by the Lib Mayors
  and how crime has skyrocketed. Why would they risk their lives for an administration that hates them? ? ? ? ?

So you piss and moan about registration and confiscation but really youre just know nothing goofs.

We are?  And, your not ???????

No, I base my ideas and opinions on reality. I'm not sure what you use.

wet-xxxx....  The reality of Libs/Dems is Fags & Lezzies, baby-killing, Climate scams, Socialism/Marxism, Moo-slime loving and America-hating!!!!

wavy, you seem to only base you ideas and opinions from goofy emails and cartoons your buddies send you.   

 Yet your reality is not reality!

Reality proves you wrong every day!

Gun control only controls the law abiding!

You know this to be true but still insist on doing what you know is wrong!

From the Duke Univ. website:

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

(http://truthfrequencyradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1525222_613441242026489_832566703_n.jpg)

From the Duke Univ. website:

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

(http://truthfrequencyradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1525222_613441242026489_832566703_n.jpg)

Sorry goofy but this isn't from duke university

 Excerpted from Townhall Magazine's April cover story, "10 Myths About Guns and Gun Control," by Mark Kakkuri:

Myth #3: Civilians do not need a certain type of gun.

“Need is irrelevant,” says Richard Mann, author of the upcoming book “Handgun Training for Personal Protection” and contributing editor to several firearms magazines. An award-winning pistol shooter, Mann has served in law enforcement and the military and has trained personnel in both in defensive shooting.

“Need?” he asks sardonically. “With speed limits at 70 mph we don’t ‘need’ a car that goes any faster, we don’t need iPads, DVRs or microwave ovens. When we start limiting the rights guaranteed by one amendment based on ‘need,’ they will all soon suffer.”

Beyond Mann’s philosophical point, a practical matter that often arises in firearms discussions is that of ammunition capacity, whether for rifles or pistols. How many rounds, for example, does a civilian need for his or her pistol for a typical self-defense situation?

Civilians have occasional need for high-volume magazines for pistols, such as when thwarting the attack of multiple assailants, says Ayoob, but most self-defense encounters will not require much ammunition.

“However, you’ll never hear anyone who’s been in a gunfight say, ‘I wish I was carrying less ammunition than I was,’” he says.

Ayoob says civilians consider police officers to be the resident experts on firearms and naturally like to do what the officers do in terms of choosing guns: “So if police carry a polymer pistol that holds 16 rounds of .40 such as a Glock 22, that’s what they will think is best. The cops must know what are the best tools to defeat the bad guys in the area.”

....

Myth #5: An AR-15 is inherently more dangerous than other semi-automatic firearms.

No firearm gets more attention than the ubiquitous AR-15. Although made by multiple manufacturers in a myriad of configurations with scores of accessories, these “black rifles” or “modern sporting rifles” are both praised and condemned and usually the first target of liberal gun control legislation. As such, the myth persists that they’re more dangerous than other semi-automatics.

“Reporters and activists sometimes write this because they don’t know better,” says Mike Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown, Conn.-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Some activists don’t know better or they may actually want to confuse matters in the public mind in pursuit of their public policy objectives. Rifles of any kind are rarely used in criminal activity.”


cont @

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2013/03/20/10-gun-myths-debunked-n1537939

That's better. Attribute this goofy shit to the actual goofs that wrote it.

It was not written by the NRA, not the article I posted.   And, btw, it isn't goofy, only factual.

The NRA appears to be falsely claiming Duke Univ is the author of "Ten Myths About Control"


Now there is a myth as the NRA never falsely claims anyone else for their copyrighted material.   They stand behind their facts.

Ill Tell you One thing---I have followed this thread and I have come to the conclusion that trying to discuss with Wvitte is a total waste of time -----You could take a time machine back to the 17Hundreds and bring the founding fathers here and he would argue with them about what they meant when writing to Constitution.. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

.

yeah HK.  you and your kind can't have a real discussion without bringing dishonesty into it.

Yet, you can point to no dishonesty on HK's part!

Why is that?

Anti-gun/liberty activists like wvit cannot help but be dishonest whether it is through ignorance or pointed deceit.   Sad.

D2 speaks up with his usual idiotic rambling. 

and then sweaty starts again with the calling me anti gun.  Which is not true at all.  I am all for responsible gun ownership.

There are some 300,000,000 privately held firearms in the United States...and since only about 11,000 Americans are murdered with a firearm each year...that represents only 0.034% of those 300,000,000 firearms used inappropriately.  So I would say 99.9% of firearms owners are quite responsible.

So for you being responsible only means that you didn't kill someone with your gun?

wet-xxxx......

The source of the article is:

http://people. (http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm)duke.edu (http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm)/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm (http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm)


Do you see on the URL that it came from DUKE UNIV.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?      DUH!!!!!

Misleading at best outright dishonest.  Stuff like this a why people look at you a s a tub wacko.

wet-xxxx....

OK, go to www.duke.edu and tell me that's NOT Duke Univ.!!!!!!

I haven't shot at anyone in years... But my life isn't over yet.  Stay low and keep your oversized head down Wvit.

Ken....  I hope you didn't get caught up in that fake CCW Instructor problem in NE OH!

I am all for responsible gun ownership.

About as much as Bloomberg is, wvit...

DOJ Memo on plan for Gun Confiscation:

http://www.examiner.com/article/doj-internal-memo-confirms-obama-plan-for-gun-confiscation

(http://www.kennethballard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/306804_v1.jpg)

(http://unionresourcecenter.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GOV-USE-THIS-ONE7.jpg)

When the Govt has all the guns, what happens to the people?

(https://littledixiedynamite.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-gun-confiscation-dhs-450-million-round-ammo-purchase.jpg)

(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/1a/fe/1353947016_3629_priceless1280.jpg?itok=raxnthDQ)

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/0e/f8/740ef8046ee9f0917108ba5eabcaa662.jpg)

(http://american3rdposition.com/wp-content/uploads/Gun-Registration.jpg)

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003390489/471986991_gun_control_xlarge.jpeg)

Chicago gun control proven to NOT WORK. So, Mayor Emanuel has decided to institute MORE gun control!!!!!!

Dos it make any sense whatsoever? ? ? ?  If something doesn't work, DO MORE OF IT? ? ? ? ? ?  IDIOCY!!!!!!!!

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rahm-emanuel-epic-failure-of-chicago-gun-control-proves-more-gun-control-needed_052015

why do you say that gun control doesn't work?  The rate for violent crime has been dropping for years in Chicago.


http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html

The rate for violent crime has been dropping for years in Chicago.


Slowly and not because of any gun laws that have been the same for years.    The police assault on gangs, incarceration, curbing the black market in the South Side, etc do help.   NYC stop and frisk policy also helped in NY.   Gun laws have not helped Chicago's crime but has put innocent people in harm's way.

Isn't that just your opinion sweaty?  I mean it's backed up with nothing more than your idiocy.

Chicago crime finally began dropping when Concealed-Carry was approved!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all

It had already been dropping hadn't it wavy?  According to the police statistics violent crime had been dropping since the early 90's.

Attempting to insure all Guns in America is an asinine idea, as there are not enough insurance companies to carry the burden...just like the Government must cover flood insurance...the government would have to cover guns, there in giving them the ability to disarm "law abiding" citizens.

so now you're just making thing up again faxy?

Let us know when the House moves on this asinine "bill" for a vote, wvit...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif) 

you do know that you can buy private flood insurance don't you faxy?  I'm not sure why you continually try and make up your own facts.



PRIVATE MARKET FLOOD-A SIMPLE ALTERNATIVE TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE

Evan Hecht, CEO of The Flood Insurance Agency, announced today that their Private Market Flood™ program now insures more than $1 Billion of property value. Now operating in 34 States, the agency issues one flood policy every six or seven minutes. "That is a testimony to the public acceptance of our program as an alternative to FEMA flood insurance," said Hecht.

http://www.privatemarketflood.com/




The federal government's flood insurance program is deep in debt, and the financial burden is flowing to its policyholders. Consumers in coastal areas who feel they're getting soaked by surging premiums are anxiously searching for relief. And some are finding that less expensive private flood insurance options may be available.

First, some background
The government's National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, is administered by FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. NFIP offers coverage that protects property owners from damage caused by rising water -- a hazard not covered by a standard home insurance policy.

Homeowners in high-risk flood zones have been trying to keep their heads above hefty flood insurance rate hikes that took effect in 2013 as part of a law overhauling the NFIP. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was meant to shore up the program after it took major financial blows from recent natural disasters.

So what else is there?
Private companies that provide flood insurance are few and far between, and their premiums may not be considered affordable when compared with the federal flood coverage, says Don Griffin, vice president of personal lines for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

This goes back to why the federal flood insurance program was created: Many private insurance companies stopped offering coverage for flooding following massive and expensive floods that plagued communities along the Mississippi River in the 1960s.

Griffin says his group conducted a study in 2011 that found that for private insurers to offer flood insurance, they would have to charge two to three times what the government charges.

Florida insurer takes the plunge

One private flood insurance option is offered by a Florida-based company, Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Co. It recently began to offer flood insurance policies in the Sunshine State that are said to be "priced similarly to what Florida residents were paying before the Biggert-Waters Act," according to a statement.

For example, a property owner in a high-risk flood zone seeking $250,000 of building coverage and $100,000 of contents coverage could get a premium for nearly $3,000, says Kevin Mitchell, a vice president of HCI Group Inc., which owns Homeowners Choice.

Big insurance name wades in
Lloyd's of London, the insurance giant based in the United Kingdom, also underwrites flood policies, through another Florida-based company called The Flood Insurance Agency. The coverage is available in more than 20 states, including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas.

However, if you have a mortgage, there's no guarantee that your lender will approve of flood insurance outside of the federal program.

"Even though there might be a private market solution on a very limited basis, even then the banks may not accept that as acceptable flood insurance," Marlett says.

If purchasing a private policy does not work in your favor, "self-insurance" -- setting money aside to cover a potential loss -- may be another option, although it is not recommended.

"While most people can sustain a partial loss to their property, if their home is indeed washed away, then they have nothing left," Griffin explains.

Softening the flood reform law

In March 2014, President Barack Obama signed a new law that reformed the Biggert-Waters flood reform law. The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act has:

Dialed back the rate hikes on some policies.

Prevented some future rate increases.

Imposed a $25 surcharge on all flood policies to help keep the program financially viable.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/private-flood-insurance-options.aspx

Federal Firearm Insurance for individuals is DOA in the House.

It'll NEVER reach the floor for a vote since it will NEVER come out of Committee.

DOA!!!

Eventually it will.  I'm sure the republican House won't advance it.

But in 2016 lots of republicans in the House are up for re election.  And after the last couple of years I don't see anyway that republicans will be able to hold their seats.

Don't bet your burial farm on it Wvit!

You've got a mighty thin bench in Hillary to lead a party that has lost its way and consists mainly of labor union members, LGBT's and those who suck from the government teat.

Gun confiscation will be part of the upcoming Jade Helm exercise this Summer. They also plan "Dissident Extraction". It sure is looking like a big
   practice drill for Martial Law!!!!

http://conspiracyanalyst.org/tag/gun-confiscation/

(http://libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/jade-helm.jpg)

I wouldn't put anything past dictator obama, harry reid, chuck U schumer and nancy pigloski

(http://conservativehideout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pro-vs-antigun.jpg)

Gun control and banning guns has NOT lessened gun violence in ANY country that has tried it!!!!

Facts have repeatedly shown this and Libs/Dems will not admit it.

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows


Stanford research reaffirms that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. This debunks – with the latest empirical evidence – earlier claims that more guns actually lead to less crime

Recently published scholarship updates the empirical evidence on this issue. Stanford law Professor John J. Donohue III, Stanford law student Abhay Aneja and doctoral student Alexandria Zhang from Johns Hopkins University were the co-authors of the study.

He explained that prior research based on data through 1992 indicated that the laws decreased violent crime. But in 2004, he noted, the National Research Council issued a report that found that even extending this data through 2000 revealed no credible statistical evidence these particular laws reduced crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted. The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

Perhaps they should tell the feds their numbers are wrong.
(http://www.buyagunday.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/more-guns-less-crime.jpg)

I like how you cherry pick the data and make it seem to agree with you local.  Except that it doesn't.  I notice you also don't provide a link to that steaming pile.

Where locals chart really came from -

http://www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/


haahahhahahahahahaahh.  what a mindless rube you are local.

Why do the anti-gun loons continually deny facts that guns in the hands of the good guys has made this Country safer?

You can look it up wvit. It's easy.

(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime-offense-figure)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

I'm not sure why you want to cherry pick numbers local.  violent crime has been decreasing for decades in our country.




(http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/crime-600x403.jpg)



All this reduction in crime as the rate of gun ownership in our country has been declining.


(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif)

and if you go back further you can see that the number of people owning guns has been decreasing since the 70's.



(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-04-27-shrinking.GIF)

All this reduction in crime as the rate of gun ownership in our country has been declining.

Are you sure?

Firearm background checks

(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/50cf525869bedde16f00000c-459-378/screen%20shot%202012-12-17%20at%2012.10.43%20pm.png)

http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-guns-sold-in-us-each-year-2012-12

yeah I'm sure local.

the people who own guns own more guns now, but the number of gun owners just keeps decreasing.

why do you insist on using dishonesty in your debates?

WET-xxxx doesn't accept the facts published by the FBI!!!!!  What a SCHMUCK!!!

youse gun puzzies are frightened pathetic losers in our society. 

you said it yourself - your guns.  just like me you own multiple guns.  I have over 15 guns myself.  How many do you own?

with less and less people hunting in our country the number of people owning guns continues to decline.

why did you get rid of all your guns local?

wet-xxxx......  Nerf-guns don't count!!!

nerf guns?  is that what local owns?

wet-xxxx probably went to the Police Station to register her guns whether it was required or not!!!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/drag-queen-gun-27377385.jpg)

there is no registration in my state.

Only a very few States require registration of Handguns and even fewer require registration of long guns...which is something the neocoms like chuck u schumer and nancy pigliski desperately want too change

SOBama and his gestapo want all guns registered so they know where they are and who has them. Then, they will find all kinds of "reasons" to take them away!!

That will only leave the criminals with guns and Normal People defenseless!!!!!

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/004305621/47815082_The_Gestapobama_answer_5_xlarge.jpeg)

That's a pretty big order with only a little over a year to go.  He'd better get busy, the isn't even any proposed legislation like that yet.

Who says Obama will give up power?


The Constitution is meaningless to him!

Now you're just being stupid again.

Poor people have been voting democrat for 50 years and they are still poor.

Now that's stupid.

Guns banned in Britain.  Gun ownership guaranteed by Constitution in the US.

MUCH MORE violent crime in Britain after guns were banned!!!

(http://theblacksphere.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Violent-crime-stats-US-v-Britain-e1367536844471.jpg)

More places where Gun Registration HAS led to GUN CONFISCATION:

http://www.examiner.com/article/activists-outraged-registration-does-lead-to-confiscation

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/58135406.jpg)

Govt uses "Wellness Checks" to enter homes and confiscate guns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxjejCD3d4

(https://littledixiedynamite.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-gun-confiscation-poster.jpg)

This is Chicago since they began their strict "Gun Control":

(https://pumabydesign001.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screenshot-gun-confiscation-australia-003.png?w=423&h=306)

that's not true wavy.  are your ideas and opinions so weak that you have to post dishonesty to prop them up?  Violent crime has been going down in Chicago and across the country for decades.
 
 
 
 

Here are some real statistics for you wavy.  you should really educate yourself and stop operating on bullshit like you do.
 
 
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html (http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html)

Gun Confiscation is beginning on the East Coast!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHeNyTExv4

Infowars. Hahahahhaagggagagg

wet-xxxx......

What, exactly, is your problem with InfoWars?

Is it just the Negro Anchorman?  Or, is it something else?

SOBama seeks repeal of 2nd Amendment apart from Congress and vote of the States via Executive Order. That would be in
  DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!  What's with this POS? ? ? ? ? ?

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/06/obama-admin-seeks-to-repeal-second-amendment-apart-from-congress-via-executive-order/

Alex Jones can't fart without blaming it on a conspiracy of bean producers.

Normal People believe he CAN!!!

hahahahahahhahaaa.  normal people listen and read his stuff because it's funny, it's a satirical look at how completely nutty the far right really are.

Normal People are your Parents and Grandparents. And that is true since Fags and Lezzies weren't allowed to have children
  back when America was a Normal Place.

Gun Control - A clear record of failure:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/01/06/1-gun-control-has-a-clear-record-of-failure.html

(https://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gun-control-policy-miserable-failure-battaile-politics-1358485123.jpg)

(http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun-control-welcome-to-chicago-highest-murder-rate-in-nation.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OjmtdiVHZ1s/UA7TvtGOX9I/AAAAAAAADWY/xISSkeiDgug/s1600/if-guns-kill-people.jpg)

Juan Williams, a black commentator, wrote an interesting article and points out, although more than half the “gun problem” can be laid at the feet of blacks, the gun debate never seems to mention this. If it were mentioned, the obvious thought that might occur is maybe it’s blacks that need to be regulated and not guns.

Why is this happening? According to Juan Williams, the out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is now 72%. This leads to more than 70% of black mothers being on welfare raising more than 70% of black children without fathers.

That’s part of the problem. Another part, Williams says, is:

    “a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.”

So now we have black culture of violence financed by the welfare system producing what are – by any measure – distorted values. One might think this needs to be addressed.

Race, unfortunately and tragically, factors into gun death at the metro level. The share of the population that is black is positively related to both the overall rate of gun deaths and even more so with gun-related homicides. The pattern is similar for the share of the population that is comprised of young black males which is also positively related to the overall rate of gun death and murder by gun.

?

A good start would be to ban guns from any Black that does not have a H.S. Diploma.

Maybe if they had some kind of education they might not be so prone to criminal and violent behavior.

How about if we force them to have their tubes tied or a vasectomy or no welfare?    I hear the racist charges warming up.

Founder of Planned (un)Parenthood and Mother of Abortion, Margaret Sanger, advocated the forced sterilization of Negroes. She
  was a devout Liberal and Democrat.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger05.html

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3f/7d/16/3f7d16e5fcc45f0d33b4e8a621c6e6fb.jpg)

Libs/Dems/Negroes love Margaret Sanger and her Planned (un)Parenthood Abortion Factory while having NO IDEA that she advocated the elimination
  of Colored People. If she was still alive today, she would favor the total banning of guns.

In typical Lib fashion, she has no problem killing off defenseless innocent babies and demanding that Law-Abiding Adult Citizens be stripped of the
  ability to protect themselves!!!  IDIOCY!!!!!

you forgot to mention which party nominated and elected a black man to the presidency

Who would that be aserio,,, Not Obama ,,,EVERYONE but the terminally stupid know he is not Black. Half white half arab is not Black in the US definition of the races.

 Caserio admits racist democrats nominated and elected a man based solely on race!

Can democrats be any more shallow?

but

you said democrats abort black babies

see

whne a baby is aborted it cannot run for president

Still more racism from Caserio!

Shouldn't what the man stands for be what determines votes and not his race?

In New York City black abortions outnumber live births!

I see

yer just dumb

this was about the charge that democrats abort black babies

why did you change the subject ?

((you forgot to mention which party nominated and elected a black man to the presidency - Cas))






It’s not the kind of history Barack Obama planned on making — but Americans now rate him as the worst president since World War II.

But he can take solace in the fact that presidents usually see their numbers rise after they leave office.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

From the left leaning Quinnipiac University in CT.

the question was who nominated him?

doan try to be fuckin' cute with me , ok?

Still more racism from Caserio!

Shouldn't what the man stands for be what determines votes and not his race?

In New York City black abortions outnumber live births!

Caserio, who is the dominant party in New York city?

you forgot to mention which party nominated and elected a black man to the presidency


The point is your party nominated Obama - Americans rate him as the worst president since World War II.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

From the left leaning Quinnipiac University in CT.

no

you said democrats are racist and cas merely asked who nominated obama

yer attempts at weaseling is just that waeseling

Still more racism from Caserio!

Shouldn't what the man stands for be what determines votes and not his race?

In New York City black abortions outnumber live births!

Caserio, who is the dominant party in New York city?

oh shit

you can't read

no wonder yer a republican

fuck off

There are so many Negro/Negro gun murders in Chicago that the City is contemplating closing the ghetto abortion clinics since they are no longer needed!!!

....and, Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the US!!  (Looks like they are working real well.  DUH!!!)

Instead of bitching about the NYC abortion rate you think you'd be for sex education in schools and easier access to birth control. But the same people who are against abortions are also against those things.

The actual numbers are 66% of white pregnancies end in abortion, 74% of black pregnancies end in abortions.  In neither case do abortions outnumber births.

wet-xxxx.....

If 74% of Negro pregnancies end with abortions, how can births outnumber abortions? ? ? ? ? ? ?

That makes no sense!!!

The remaining 26% must mean there are an awful lot of pickaninnies with twin, triplet and quadruplet brothers and sisters!!

(http://beachpackagingdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/boxvox/6a00e54f0014bd8834014e60e375ce970c.jpg)

The actual numbers are 66% of white pregnancies end in abortion, 74% of black pregnancies end in abortions. In neither case do abortions outnumber births.



You care to explain your math, wvit?

If 26% of blacks who are pregnant give birth and 74% have abortions, abortions outnumber births...


That must explain why you are so F'n wrong about firearms and the 2nd Amendment in the U.S.

wet-xxxx is Math-challenged. That's why she flunked her GED!

She refuse to say what the last grade she passed was,,, as she calls everyone an IDIOT.

Those were birth and abortions for teenagers. Overall the rate was lower. In hyc there were about 125,000 births versus about 75,000 abortion per year. That rate has remained about the same since the 90's.

pickaninny candies,

but,

yer not racist

Yet you are the one saying race is more important than policy position for political candidates!

That's not my candy. Send a complaint e-mail to Whitman's, cASS-Hole!

wet-xxxx caught lying and back-pedals!!


 (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See  Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

Table 1 of the report presents the total number of live births, spontaneous terminations (miscarriages), and induced terminations (abortions) for women in different age brackets between 15 and 49 years of age. The table also breaks that data down by race – Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black – and also by borough of residence: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island.

The numbers show that in 2012, there were 31,328 induced terminations (abortions) among non-Hispanic black women in New York City.  That same year, there were 24,758 live births for non-Hispanic black women in New York City.  There were  6,570 more abortions than live births of black children.

sea... Thanks for revealing the actual facts that the Libs always try to distort.

(https://gritartisan.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/23793596.jpg)

The best way to register a gun is to put it in a cash register.LOL

ttop.....  Cute. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

(http://americandigest.org/sidelines/aaklansman_m1c.jpg)

The Dems tried it then and are trying it again now!!!!

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/97/ca/9f/97ca9fc86a69e8869d950272db7c6618.jpg)

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/fc/fcedca64578bd09e9d564c3ca70d5ed5c5a92bfc71dc38d14f09515fd7610997.jpg)

(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/featured2.jpg)

(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GunNuts-620x330.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bm5DoE9CAAEz_oF.jpg)

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--wS88MMUE--/gyuzo0cbuejigo9a5snr.jpg)

(http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Indians-Gun-Control.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/OJ80ypV.jpg)

(http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1303/gun-nut-logic-gun-nuts-politics-1364378269.jpg)

(http://www.artizans.com/images/previews/PHAN349.pvw.jpg)

(http://truthsite.org/imgs2/WhyGuns.jpg)

(http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130415-gun-nuts-accuse-white-house-of-exploiting-grieving-sandy-hook-parents.jpg)

(http://www.kenlaws.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Apaches.jpg)

The anti-gun nuts are losing thanks to our Constitution...   Semi-auto rifles or any rifle is not a problem in the U.S.  Culture is a problem with crime.   More are murdered each year with hands and fists than all rifles combined. - FBI.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

losing what?  there are no serious proposals or legislation to ban guns on a federal level.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150605/stop-obamas-planned-gag-order-on-firearm-related-speech).

“This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf), is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop.


“Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.

The anti-gun nuts are losing thanks to our Constitution...   Semi-auto rifles or any rifle is not a problem in the U.S. Culture is a problem with crime.   More are murdered each year with hands and fists than all rifles combined. - FBI.

The problem isn't with Law-Abiding Citizens and their guns. It's with Criminals and THEIR guns.

So, why are all the Gun Control, Gun Registration and Gun Confiscation efforts only affecting LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

(http://freememegenerator.com/wp-content/themes/viralimagehub/images/memes/d01a02ce4498c8f7701fda8f2bc6396e.png)

losing what?  there are no serious proposals or legislation to ban guns on a federal level.

This blind devoted moron would have to come up several levels to be a "special" kind of stupid, It appears as he runs around with his head should deep up Obama's ass he can't seem to find the REAL FACTS from many sources, the problem is that the ultra left anti-American sources used by ultra left anti-American liberals like WVIT try to stay away from FACTS since it scares them.

Yes, To get right down to the nitty gritty... Liberals are a special sort of stupid.  They think that by ignoring things and doing nothing, it will get better.  I know of nothing that works like that.

I understand that Obama released some more Gitmo Al Qaeda chiefs again.

There is still a major war going on in the middle east... Just where and what does he really think that these dudes are going to do or go?

Yes, he is a special sort of stupid.  He thinks that because he is keeping his campaign promises (serious promises or hyperbole) that the world will see him as some sort of genius. 

His legacy is secure... a step below Carter...and that is as low as it can go.

so baretta, you can't find any real legislation or serious proposals to ban guns?  all you've got is bullshit?

Barry sez,

"I don t need the Congress to make no law,

I have a pen and a phone!"

What a moron!

SOBama has been true to his expectations.  He has proven to display all the experience and capabilities of a ghetto "Community Organizer"!!!!

He's been a complete FLOP as leader of America for the people and on the international scene!!!!! What a FAILURE!!!!

Liberal Logic = Oxymoron

(http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/liberal-logic-101-310.jpg)

point and squeeze obviously considered by the right as a major accomplishment

it only takes minimal strength and even less intelligence

cas was doing it when he was nine years old......piece o' cake

less intelligence


cASS-Hole.....  That's YOU, for sure!!!

This gun would simplify things for everyone!!

http://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:4fb153c58d835edacee289ebcecd1230&type=mp4&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0

Without guns, the rich and powerful and the Govt can do whatever they want and the average American can do NOTHING about it!!!

On top of that, the criminals and thugs will always have guns to do with you whatever they please and whenever they please.

Without guns, we are defenseless from both above and below!!!

(http://t.qkme.me/3t38l8.jpg)

(http://midmichigancpl.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_large/public/524373_266340700169375_319260616_n.jpg?itok=OiUXBCai)

how many deer you see in a year ?

how many thugs ?

wavy is just a nut who thinks that someone is out to get him.  Never mind that his chances of ever being involved in a violent crime are about zero..

how many deer you see in a year ?



lots of em,

and you in your confined sanitarium, how many?







how many thugs ?

Hard to say, toting firearms can be a powerful deterrent to crime!

Probably more of them than I realized then!

Deer stroll across my property all the time. My wife and I toss apples and carrots out for them. Sometimes they come right up to our patio.

So what? What about it?

My acreage is in an unincorporated area, so I can hunt on it and fire guns if I so please. But, I don't hunt here. We love watching the animals.

And.....  Our area is well-patrolled by Police and Sheriff Deputies. Anyone that isn't recognized as a local or that looks thuggish will almost always
   be pulled over for some basic traffic issue and be checked out thoroughly. Rarely do they think about returning and the word gets around that
   strangers are watched very closely. Crime around here is almost ZERO and we intend to keep it that way by keeping outsiders out.

and you see nothing wrong with yer mean spirited selfish attitude?

no wonder you vote republican

well, you see nothing wrong with your blatant

and ridiculous lies you constantly post here.

no wonder you vote Democrat,  Kommie!~

What is selfish about owning property and living in a lovely and safe area?

Any Normal Person would want that.

you are the basic "I got mine" greedy person

worry only about yerself

and proud of it

and you are a jealous leftard dependent

on the Govt dole to survive who cant even help himself

much less help others!

We have had a few deer cross our property from time to time.  We had about a dozen wild turkeys that used to come thru the back yard on a regular basis to eat the birdseed that have fallen from our bird feeders.. Alas, no more, according to what a neighbor said one of the residents about 6 blocks away shot them during hunting season (we do have a turkey season here) and we no longer see them. It's a shame, it would have been like shooting a chicken. 

The MetroPark where we walk has quite a few wild turkeys living there and it's amazing how big they get. They are very docile as long as you stay away
  from their chicks and nests. I can't imagine roasting and eating one!

(http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/surveys/images/turkey-henry-zeman.jpg)

(http://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2012/11/family_adp.jpg)

(http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun-control-angelina-jolie-gun-ownership.jpg)

What?  Nobody wants to beat this dead horse anymore?

(http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/646491/resized_service-meme-generator-gun-laws-are-for-victims-05cf7d.jpg)

WWV10MHZ,

That picture and quote sums up this whole debate... (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

The end of America begins this October.

A False Flag terror event will be unleashed as a pretense for ordering ALL civilian firearms to be turned in to Collection Centers established by
   Homeland Security in each County.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/06/21/world-war-iii-walmart-fema-camps-jade-helm-a-clergy-response-team-insider-reveals-what-lies-ahead/

They will need many body bags...

no guns........no gun deaths

very simple

The Nazis and other criminals have tried to convince the public of the same.   Guess what?   Someone will always have guns or worse.

guess what?

they had guns

it's not about punishment

although sees why yer uncaring attitude brings the need to be punished

it's a matter of fact

no guns no shootings

I will surrender my weapons when the Government surrender theirs.(maybe)  It just that simple.

Who is asking you to surrender your weapons?

Who wants us to surrender our weapons?

Without firearms, crossbows work just fine. They make large and handheld ones that are as effective as guns in most cases, especially close range.

(http://www.ruralking.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/b/a/barnett_crossbow_jackal.jpg)

(http://www.weapons-universe.com/Archery/Bows/Crossbows/Crossbow_Pistol-50_Pound.jpg)

(http://www.bestcrossbowsource.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Recurve-Crossbow-Construction.jpg)

(http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00cMoTCLGrnjqO/Pistol-Crossbow-B6-1-.jpg)
Many tips are available that facilitate rapid bleed-out.

Are you guys afraid of the world?  You seem to be.

Do you Libs/Dems/Fags see all this stuff happening in OUR COUNTRY and are NOT concerned about it? ? ? ?

- Gun Registration/Confiscation/"Control"

- Jade Helm with large scale Military Exercises on American soil, detention & internment centers, martial law

- Pandering to Moo-Slimes at the expense of Christians/Jews

- Voting without valid ID & by non-Citizens

- Open Borders, massive illegal immigration

- etc.

 

 Wvit, do you use seat belts?

Jade Helm starts soon.

Part of the exercise is to practice Gun Confiscation.

Other parts include detainment of dissidents, detaining opposition persons in internment camps and instituting Martial Law.

http://lisahavennews.net/2015/06/21/wwiii-is-literally-seconds-away-china-prepares-for-war-against-us-as-russia-edges-on-nuclear-catastrophe/

Another thing for you to be afraid of.  God, will the things that scare you never end?

Wvit, do you use seat belts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thing for you to be afraid of.  God, will the things that scare you never end?

You seem to be terrified of the 2nd amendment and climate change, witless!

(http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Charleston-600-LI.jpg)

It's NOT about guns, it's about CONTROL!!!

next, outlawing of jade helm

you mean we should be outlawing our military's ability to train our soldiers on conflict and combat? 

you would think that the conservonuts would want our military trained since they are always pushing for more military spending.

it's hard to make heads or tails out of the whinings of the conservonuts.

it's hard to make heads or tails out of the whinings of the conservonuts.










unlike being easy to make out your whinings by reading your ridiculous posts here, nutcase!~ (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

sine, if I was you I wouldn't be calling other people's posts nuts.  (If you know what I mean)

Since you are a nutcase, nitwit

you could never be me

but I understand your fantasy to be

and be free of your nutcase reputation here. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Sine,

Our two resident loons...certainly do not practice what they preach? 

SOBama is chomping at the bit to declare Martial Law!!!

(http://allnewspipeline.com/images/obama-ia-m-the-law-here.jpg)

(http://www.theroot.com/content/dam/theroot/articles/news/2015/03/georgia_12_year_old_who_criticized_obama_kicked_off_of_facebook/screen_shot_20150304_at_12.10.50_pm_2.png.CROP.rtstoryvar-large.10.50_pm_2.png)

http://conservativevideos.com/black-12-year-old-takes-obama-to-task-for-pushing-anti-gun-agenda-in-wake-of-charleston-tragedy/

good for him, he seems like a smart boy.  evidently his parents are a little misguided though.

By misguided, do you mean the family should be Libs/Dems just because they appear Black?

You're a freakin' RACIST!!!!!

wet-xxxx.....  We're waiting for your answer.

no misguided in their opinions and the way they are teaching their child.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the constitutional regulation of weapons in our country though wavy.  What does your idiocy have to do with the topic?

Wvit, would you want to register your name, address and Phone number with the Federal government before being allowed to comment on this or any other political board?

nitwit, the lefturd America hating kommie lover

has the lefts consumate slave attitude.

The founders fought against his type and brought us and the world

a country founded on individual freedom for the first time in history

Why the lefturds would want to destroy all that can only be logically explained by

a mental disease, ignorance or just plain stupidity!~ (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

there's nothing wrong with gun regulations, none of your mythical rights are being violated.

Abortion and gay "marriage" is a mythical right not the 2nd Amendment, wvit.

There is ONE thing between Freedom & Liberty in America and Marxism & The Worldwide Socialist Agenda.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!


(http://sonomachristianhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/constitution2-1000.jpg)

THANK GOD!!!

nitwit doesnt know the difference between  a "right"  and a "privilege"

do you kommie loving slave mentality, leftard?

Wvit, would you want to register your name, address and Phone number with the Federal government before being allowed to comment on this or any other political board?
 Then why do they only abuse the law abiding?

Why do they only kill the law abiding?

By FAR, most of the homicides occur in urban settings by criminals for all kinds of reasons (drugs, robbery, gang-related, vendettas, macho-ness, etc.).

Every now and then, some wacko that never should have had a gun for many reasons creates a tragedy by shooting random innocent people.

So, how does it make ANY sense whatsoever to punish the millions and millions of LAW-ABIDING Citizens who own and properly use/store
  hundreds of millions of firearms in a completely safe manner? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Libs/Dems want to treat Law-Abiding Gun Owners just like their teachers treat Second Graders - when one kid gets in trouble, then the WHOLE CLASS
    has to stay in from recess to be punished.

So, when one mentally disturbed wacko goes nuts with a gun, then ALL LAW-ABIDING Gun Owners must have their firearms confiscated!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  (maybe to Libs/Dems/Fags)


 

Why not make Gun Registration voluntary?

The Libs/Dems/Fags would love doing it!!  They would "feel so good about themselves".  Their world revolves around "feeling good".

Will the Bloods and the Crips register their guns?

Will the Hell's Angels register their guns?

Will the Latin Kings and MS-13 register their guns?

Will the Aryan Brotherhood and Skinheads register their guns?

Will Illegal Aliens register their gubs?

Will the Italian, Russian and Mexican Mafia register their guns?

Will the Drug Cartel guys in America register their guns?

Will the ghetto thugs register their guns?

Will pimps and prostitutes register their guns?

Will sleeper cell Moo-Slime terrorists register their guns?

So, WILL these folks register their guns? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Absolutely NOT!!!!   The only way that gun registration will ever work is for the criminal element to sign on.  Sure the honest citizens being honest and law abiding will sign on or what ever the government asked them to do.

But it is nutzy to think that street thugs and drug dealers will do anything but refuse to cooperate,  Congress could probably fix that if they mandated a federal 10 years in jail to displaying a gun in commission of a crime and 20 years if they fire it.  Kill someone and it is mandatory 50 years.

Murders don't pay attention to the laws against murder.  Shouldn't we just get rid of our murder laws?

since when is murder a 'right',  nitvit?

nobody's saying you can't own a gun sine.   however gun regulations have always been upheld by the courts.

Cant answer? 

yep, your question was stupid as usual nitvit!~ (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)



gun regulations have always been upheld by the courts




despite being forbidden by the Constitution, eh?

Marbury vs Madison, which has never been overturned says,

 we dont have to obey unconstitutional laws, nitwvit!

You come up empty and short again, child! 

So, since it's obvious that the worst criminals would NEVER register their guns, what would be the purpose of even HAVING
  gun registration at all? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Lib/Dem/Fag Logic 101 -

Force all Law-Abiding Gun Owners to register their guns in spite of the agreed-upon fact that those folks are no risk to the
  general public.

Wvit, if the mandatory sentencing (Federal) would  go  into effect, Perhaps some of the idiots will not CARRY a weapon to
commit a crime where a weapon would not have been necessary, but used because something went wrong.

If those using guns while committing a crime, faced life in prison with no chance of parole...might make the criminals think twice, before committing a crime using a firearm!

If a mandatory life sentence was imposed on anyone committing a felony using a gun, eventually all male Negroes would be in prison.

Then, the problem would finally be eliminated since the race could no longer replenish itself.

you can always count on wavy for a daily dose of racism and bigotry.

There are few things more powerful than the TRUTH!

http://www.quotegarden.com/truth.html

(http://www.political-humor.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the-government-will-not-only-have-to-outlaw-guns-but.jpg)

who do you think is trying to seriously take away your guns wavy?  you do know that regulation of your ability to stockpile whatever weapons you want to own has always been a part of our culture don't you?

you can't own a working anti-aircraft cannons, land mines, functioning tanks, mortars, sawed off shotguns, etc.

(http://www.cassandratimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Gun-Registration.jpg)

(https://ajmacdonaldjr.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gun-confiscation.jpg)

(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/773458/22018655/1361797246767/australia+ban.jpg?token=i2guFx3OZTHmw04rDVl1ua1vhns%3D)

(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screenhunter_105-jan-30-09-34.jpg)

There is a practical reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Courts including the USSC have held that neither the state nor the police owe a duty to protect the individual.

The law is, and remains, that if you want to be protected you must protect yourself.

Think about it...

who do you think is trying to seriously take away your guns wavy?  you do know that regulation of your ability to stockpile whatever weapons you want to own has always been a part of our culture don't you?

you can't own a working anti-aircraft cannons, land mines, functioning tanks, mortars, sawed off shotguns, etc.

Poor nitwit!

Regulated to diddling with crumbs when the main course passed him by! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

you can't own a working anti-aircraft cannons, land mines, functioning tanks, mortars, sawed off shotguns, etc.


None are small arms that one can bear as described in the 2nd Amendment except for the sawed of shotgun which was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment.   Yes, courts make mistakes as they did repeatedly in the 20th Century.  What needs to be done is reverse the violations and prevent future violations/infringements.  As a gun owner you should be pushing for the end of these violations, wvit.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/33/45/fe/3345fe1b73059b0f466852e9b7b94639.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSn6BovRSPRhGwYQ8AQGPqRzWwF8bWJuZr39VZwMTQw-VTlfAxt)

(http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/second-amendment-640x801.jpg)

I don't remember the Constitution describing them as small arms and the militia of the day had cannon and mortars, along with explosive shells amoung their other modern arms of the day.

This is why Normal People need to be armed!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-teens-ransack-walmart-caught-video-155528681--abc-news-topstories.html

If they want to ransack the Walmart I'll get out of their way.  I wouldn't use a gun against anyone to protect Walmart.

the militia of the day had cannon and mortars, along with explosive shells


No they did not, wvit.   They were required as citizen soldiers to have a rifle and ammo, period.   They did not belong to the state the feds.   The founders have spelled out clearly who the militia are in the U.S.

 Wvit admits he would do nothing to defend the rule of law!

Says allot about him!

If this young couple had been armed, this horror might not have ever happened to them:

https://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/the-knoxville-horror/

But, the Libs/Dems/Fags here would rather have us unarmed and defenseless and allow us to be victims of horrible crimes than allow Law-Abiding
   Citizens to have the means to protect themselves!!!!

If this couple had been armed, this unimaginable tragedy may not have happened.

The horrific torture murders of a young White couple by 4 Negroes and 1 Negress:

https://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/the-knoxville-horror/

Horror isn't a strong enough word to describe what these ANIMALS did to these innocent and harmless young college students.


(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f5/e1/ba/f5e1ba47bb9b0f41ae28f8f0e9a0b8a4.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QS8Re5tdTp4/Ue-Sgn_GcLI/AAAAAAAARyo/fkn81YP0Nvs/s1600/clip_image005-705714.gif)

An armed robber with an illegally-possessed gun entered a motel room and ended up being shot and killed by a Law-Abiding Citizen holding a CC Permit
  using his lawful gun. BRAVO!!!!

(https://lintvkrqe.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/tomorio-walton.jpg?w=240)

The POS robber (Tomorio Walton) who had the illegal gun.  (RIP)

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3840237.shtml#.VZbjQvlViko

Man Charged After Stepson Dies from Accidental Shooting

Jul 03, 2015

HAMPTON, Va. (AP) --  Hampton police have charged the stepfather of a four-year-old boy who died after accidentally shooting himself.

Police tell media outlets that Chris L. Palmer accidentally shot himself Thursday night with a loaded handgun he found in his parents' bedroom. The boy was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Palmer's stepfather, 26-year-old Lashawn D. Stephenson, was charged with felony child neglect.


http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Man-Charged-After-Stepson-Dies-from-Accidental-Shooting-311579861.html

D2 says he would kill someone to protect Walmart.   hahahahahhahahahaha, even Walmart isn't willing to kill anyone for ransacking their stores. 

 And ineffective as a fighting force. Before the spring of 1775 they were said to be "untrained, unarmed and uninterested"

http://www.historyisfun.org/yorktown-victory-center/militia-in-the-revolutionary-war/

Who said they were protecting Walmart? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

They would be protecting THEMSELF from the wild rampaging Negroes running through the store like savages from the jungle!!!!!

(http://breaking911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/maxresdefault.jpg)

I didn't see where anyone was hurt.  It was more like a bunch of kids playing a poor prank.  You seem to want to live out your wet dream of shooting someone for something wavy.

The civilian militia was primarily effective as snipers in irregular Guerrilla warfare which the British considered not gentlemanly, even though it raised hell with killing British officers and troops, except when the CA needed them in their ranks and many volunteered.

Massed forces, British and patriot, in the linear formations at which Cosby’s monologue pokes fun, fought the battles of Long Island, Brandywine, Monmouth Courthouse, Hobkirk’s Hill, White Plains, Germantown, Camden, and Cowpens, to name a few. Sometimes, as these engagements evolved, one side or the other retreated in disarray, and some soldiers sought protection behind fences or trees or other defensive barriers. But the battle plans developed by the generals relied on linear tactics in the European fashion that dominated eighteenth-century warfare.

American officers with prior military experience had learned the art of warfare under British commanders in the French and Indian War and other North American actions. Certainly, this was true of George Washington and many of his staff. Others, including Horatio Gates, were Englishmen who had served in the British army. When these men studied the art of warfare, they naturally were drawn to the writings of British tacticians and historians. The American foe of the Revolution had once been comrade and teacher.

But that just puts the question at one remove.

The answer is in the arms the armies used. The smoothbore military musket—the English version came to be known as the Brown Bess

Even so, both sides used companies of riflemen as skirmishers sent forward to engage the enemy in advance of the bulk of the force. One or two such companies often were attached to each regiment. They proved effective as light infantry, companies with speed and mobility, carrying little equipment and used for scouting and rapid deployment over great distances.

Then there is the romantic mythology surrounding the American militia, those intrepid citizen-soldiers whose battlefield heroics faced down the finest army in the world. Problem is, as Washington himself knew from the beginning of the conflict, militia was undependable, poorly trained, and generally ineffective on the field of battle. They came armed with civilian weapons ranging from fine rifles to cheap trade muskets to fowling pieces—known today as shotguns.

Washington called the militia “a broken staff” and consistently pressed the Continental Congress to authorize the recruitment of regular troops. These recruits became the Continental Army with which he prosecuted the Revolution. He worried that militiamen possessed “an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes” and that “shameful and scandalous desertions” might harm the morale of the regulars.


http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter08/tactics.cfm

the first battle was won by the rebels using indian tactics and benedict arnolds

military skills

but we doan need no more rebels we got a representative government

The civilian militia was primarily effective as snipers in irregular Guerrilla warfare which the British considered not gentlemanly, even though they raised hell killing British officers and troops, except when the CA needed them in their ranks and many volunteered where they saved the South from British supremacy.   The British were probably racists...

Then there is the romantic mythology surrounding the American militia, those intrepid citizen-soldiers whose battlefield heroics faced down the finest army in the world. Problem is, as Washington himself knew from the beginning of the conflict, militia was undependable, poorly trained, and generally ineffective on the field of battle. They came armed with civilian weapons ranging from fine rifles to cheap trade muskets to fowling pieces—known today as shotguns.

Washington called the militia “a broken staff” and consistently pressed the Continental Congress to authorize the recruitment of regular troops. These recruits became the Continental Army with which he prosecuted the Revolution. He worried that militiamen possessed “an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes” and that “shameful and scandalous desertions” might harm the morale of the regulars.

The American Revolution could not have been won without the civilian militia.

Washington and some of his generals, notably Daniel Morgan and Nathanael Greene, learned to use the militia as auxiliary troops around a core of regulars with triumphant effect at battles such as Cowpens. At Saratoga the militia poured in after the Continentals had proved they could fight the British army to a standstill. Their raw numbers convinced General John Burgoyne that he was hopelessly surrounded. When the British invaded New Jersey in 1780, the militia, knowing the Continental army was in nearby Morristown, fought vigorously.

When the war shifted to the South and the southern Continental army was virtually destroyed by successive defeats at Savannah, Charleston and Camden, the militia under the leadership of those such as Thomas Sumter, carried the brunt of resistance.

At Bennington and Kings Mountain, the militia, again led by experienced officers, scored victories without the help of Continentals. When Washington marched to Yorktown, he left New Jersey completely in the hands of the militia. The conclusion seems inescapable: the militia could not have won the war alone but the war probably could not have been won without them.

After the battle of Springfield, two voices summed up the appeal of both types of soldiers. One of Washington’s officers, who remembered the starvation and neglect the regulars had endured during the brutal winter of 1780 in Morristown, wrote:”l cherish those dear ragged Continentals, whose patience will be the admiration of future ages, and I glory in bleeding with them .”


(http://allthingsliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Journal_of_the_American_Revolution_logo2.jpg)

Our historical research and writing has been featured by (http://allthingsliberty.com/about/as-seen-on/) TIME, Slate, Smithsonian, Bloomberg, UPI, AHA, Huffington Post, History News Network, MSNBC and National Public Radio.

Wvit, There is NO ROMANCE about getting shot at, by those who are trying to kill you.  You put on the uniform because your country requires (note I did not say requests) you to do so.  And you follow the dictates of those appointed over you.

If they say, "Go here," or "go there"  Except for some R&R in Bangkok, I recall no romance in wearing the uniform.  And that kind of romance depended on how much money you had to spend.  Other than that, it was just trying to make it thru another day.

If the Law-Abiding Citizens of America saw any benefit from Gun Registration, they would be petitioning the Govt to do it!!!

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6d/32/e4/6d32e4d17ad1a23ef84bebe6c4083a13.jpg)

Happy Independence Day to America, where we used to have many freedoms!!

(http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/gun-control-665x385.png)

(http://survivopedia.s3.amazonaws.com/BIG%20July%201.jpg)

I have plenty of guns wavy and I don't feel like my rights to own them are under siege at all.

wet-xxxx......  Your guns don't count.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Toy_popgun.jpg)

(http://www.gizmoandwidget.com/images/banggun.jpg)

my guns are just as good as yours wavy

(http://www.chuckhawks.com/krag_sporter.jpg)


(http://armedforcesmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Model-1100-12-gauge-copy2.jpg) (http://armedforcesmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Model-1100-12-gauge-copy2.jpg)

(http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/images/1103.jpg)

You probably live in a red state, wvit and have never applied for a CCW permit nor own a center fire semi-auto modern sporting rifle.

I do sweaty.  Red as red can be, but things are changing here.

So Wvit, are you ready to give up the Ruger 10-22?

Its ban has been proposed by democrats many times!

Just the magazine capacity laws proposed would make it a banned weapon!

(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Guns/gun_rally_register_AP.jpg)

(http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/we-will-not-be-disarmed.jpg)

nobody is trying to disarm you wavy, it's all in your puny little mind.

here's something for you and your comment D2 -



The SAFE Act was recently amended. The amendments include the following changes to the law:

Suspending the requirement that only magazines that can contain 7 rounds or less can be purchased. Going forward, magazines can be purchased that can contain up to 10 rounds. Magazines may only contain up to 7 rounds regardless of their capacity, unless you are at an incorporated firing range or competition, in which case you may load your magazine to its full capacity.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/bd/26/6c/bd266c58808d7eb9379a5df493f77dbf.jpg)

(http://www.usacarry.com/forums/attachments/firearm-politics-2nd-amendment-issues/8833d1360153484-joe-biden-gun-control-laws-won-t-work-but-we-ve-got-do-something-biden_zps2c9b2968.png)

no criminals won't obey gun laws.  criminals don't obey laws against theft or murder either but I don't hear you saying that those are bad laws that should be abolished.

And gun regulations have been upheld by the USC.

What does the Univ. of Southern California have to do with illegal gun laws? ? ? ? ? ?

Nothing, but the US Supreme Court has lots to do with guns.

That's not what you said.

So now that you know you've lost and are wrongheaded on your bullshit you resort to games. Sorry I left an "S" out of that post goofy

Yep, you are a pretty sorry individual alright!

(http://cdn2.epictimes.com/richardebeling/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2014/10/turn-in-your-weapons.jpg)

wvit,
 
Maybe you and hawkie should turn in your guns, so that you might sleep better.  Just make sure you do it for hawkie, since a felon in possession of a firearm is against the law! 

Why would j want to turn in my guns?  I just think that guns should be severely regulated.

yea, witless got it, typical lib, only they are qualified to have guns.

First, they had voluntary gun registration. It was more like a party with food and beverages. People were given "Good Citizen" badges to "show their
  patriotism"(!!!).

Then, they said the voluntary gun registration went so well that they wanted ALL gun owners to register their guns. Many people complied, but many
  did not.

Then, they announced that anyone found with an unregistered gun would be fined for "Disrupting Public Order" and "could" have their guns seized and
  many more people complied with the registration - quite a few did not.

Once nearly all guns were considered registered, confiscation began.

They start with little friendly baby-steps and end up with a jack-boot on your throat. Everyone WILL comply!!!  (except criminals)

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/large-scale-gun-confiscation/

(http://wettechdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gunlaws.jpeg)

Those who think firearms should be severely regulated, should probably not own one themselves.

Why would Libs/Dems/Fags want to leave innocent people unprotected? ? ? ? ?

(http://www.securitytrainingconcepts.us/freedom0818.jpg)

you guys are funny with your old recycled bullshit.

We wouldn't lie.  Why would we lie?  We've never lied before.  We are your friends.  Friends always help each other.  That's no lie.  OK?

(http://wearethevoicesinyourhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JustInCase.jpg)

wavy seems constantly scared that someone is going to take away his guns even though nobody is seriously even discussing it.

(http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/comrade-registration-confiscation-extermination.jpg)

Those who think firearms should be severely regulated, should probably not own one themselves.


Agreed and most do not...  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

I own a car and it's well regulated.  Isn't that part of the constitution?  Well Regulated.

in spite of the facts the right insists that more guns for everybody is the answer to gun violence

proving

that facts do not influence the right

I own a car and it's well regulated.  Isn't that part of the constitution?


No, it isn't...  No wonder you are so confused...

The phrase "well regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a
century thereafter. It referred to the property of some
thing being in proper working order.

Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.




The meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen
halonen@csd.uwm.edu

my car is well regulated and registered and insured.

Good for you and you do not have any protection from infringement on your car ownership in the Constitution.   The government can ban your use at anytime as a pollutant.    You do not have any rights with it whether it is running properly or not. 

sweet...   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Just wondering, is there a reason why this topic never moved over to hot topics?

see the thing is the Constitution doesn't prohibit regulations of firearms.  In fact they have just about always been regulated and no court has held regulation of this right to be un Constitutional.

True, but the Constitution does prohibit regulations so onerous as to be effective bans like those in Illinois!

Not moved because it would just start all over again.  So, might as well just leave this going here due to its popularity.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fe/7b/68/fe7b68d9c19455e3f5e968110a0d3d70.jpg)

(http://img1.owned.com/media/images/1/5/1/9/15191/gun_logic_540.jpg)

Evidence of a shriveled brain.

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/c9/c9c908499afd5ecb70625a446c918e2a1129c47a3a20d32eb1047a3cea551dc6.jpg)

Actually, pot protects the brain among other things wonderful ... (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2ke7dece0afd.jpg)






US Government Holds Patent on Cannabis as a Neuroprotectant ...

www.livetradingnews.com/ us-government-holds...

Apr 12, 2015 ... Awareness is beginning to shift, and many people are now starting to recognize the medical value of Cannabis.


(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2k77030666ef.jpg)

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/e0/e053e2c410efffcfed25781d740d29fea27608cc6e290be83bdbb044116e2bfa.jpg)

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/c6/c64b74d3f5e1465137665df2c1f960124840a7b203ec925b22dd53ff88985750.jpg)

(http://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/wp-content/uploads/Color-Obama-exec-orders-g.jpg)

Is this you or maybe you son wavy?

(http://www.forwardprogressives.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/idiot-with-gun.jpg)

Your attempt at posting a picture failed!!!!

Is that shed your house wavy?

Your picture DIDN'T POST!!!!!   DUH!!!!  Find a way to post it and I'll look at it.  Did you see it on "Preview" prior to clicking on "Post"? ? ? ? ?

no, the picture posted.  You must have one of the ancient computers.  Upgrade your browser dummy.

Why do I see EVERY other one except THAT one, dickwad? ? ? ? ?

Is this you or maybe you son wavy?

(http://www.forwardprogressives.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/idiot-with-gun.jpg)

This what I get on 3 different computers (of my 6).

Who wants to go shooting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OxNzwn2QxE

Gun Registration violates the Fifth Amendment? ? ? ? ?  It could!!

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

you should file a lawsuit wavy.

Lawsuits are filed all of the time over infringement on the Constitution.   DC was a good example as well as Chicago, etc...

(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/pd/77374810001/77374810001_2319334967001_video-still-for-video-2319457530001.jpg?pubId=77374810001)

what Obama gun ban are you referring to wavy?

On the day the Senate voted down a series of gun control bills, the National Rifle Association made false and misleading claims in opposing a measure to expand background checks.

• Online ads from the NRA wrongly claimed that “80% of police say background checks will have no effect” on violent crime. The survey cited in the ads by the NRA says nothing of the sort.
  
• Before and after the vote, the NRA said the measure “would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms” and required “lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission” to exchange guns. The measure didn’t expand background checks to such private transfers. It applied to sales by unlicensed individuals at gun shows and on the Internet.

[/HIGHLIGHT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]


The ad, along with a video version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dAmsYO3QHkM), urged readers to “tell your senator to listen to police” instead of President Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The Senate vote held late that afternoon fell six votes short (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0) of the 60 needed to move the bipartisan measure forward. If anyone did follow the NRA’s directive and call their senator, it was under false pretenses.


The ad includes an image of a police badge with a reference to a March survey (http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf) by a group called PoliceOne.com (http://www.policeone.com/about/), a news and resource site for law enforcement officers. The survey wasn’t a scientific poll that aimed to gather responses from a random sample of the nation’s police officers. Rather, it was a self-selected Internet poll (http://www.policeone.com/police-gun-survey-methodology), in which more than 15,000 of PoliceOne.com’s 400,000 registered members chose to respond, either because of email solicitation or a link to the survey on the PoliceOne.com website.


http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/

wavy like to use misleading and outright bullshit information to support his goofy ideas for some reason.

SOBama preparing to use our own Military to confiscate guns in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the 2nd Amendment!!!

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/04/proof-the-military-is-transitioning-from-drills-operation-jade-helm-to-martial-law-2702022.html

The SOBama Regime using "Executive Orders" against Law-Abiding Citizens.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dhMqTq6wt2w/UW6jo4TRGrI/AAAAAAAAI5k/P3_vIsLpiRw/s1600/ty+4.jpg)

Obama's gun ban was shot down and DOA.

UN-backed gun confiscation to begin as part of Jade Helm Phase 2!!!

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/phase-2-of-jade-helm-15-is-emerging-un-backed-gun-confiscation/

(http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2014/43/6732354a54a5136802abeb52f9f1af9cba9861f1.jpg)

(http://www.apisanet.com/nnh-content/uploads/le/lets-talk-about-gun-control.jpg)

(https://i0.wp.com/www.politifake.org/image/political/1212/gun-control-racist-vik-battaile-politics-1356382337.jpg)

Dems love black slaves...that is why they still keep them down and poor. 

(http://36.media.tumblr.com/180b1cb61babba1907bd1baf861ac7c2/tumblr_mfptu63eUL1qi5ugyo1_400.jpg)

(http://www.gunnuts.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/IMG_0472.jpg)

wet-xxxx.....

So, overweight people are not allowed to collect firearms or have them for protection of Family and property and self? ? ? ? ? ? ?

(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y530/idahospud30/Gun_cartoons/GUN_NUTS/Gun_window.jpg)

(https://harfobama.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/la-na-tt-sequester-shenanigans-20130320-001.jpg)

Wwv10mhz,

I wonder if that poster realizes the AR-15 in that photo is a plastic replica?