You're correct. I missed the requirement for a constitutional amendment to enable those laws. Please tell me about it.Crackpot wrote:You obviously don’t listen to insurance and helmet law debates.
That actually reinforces my case. The auto clubs have not opposed those laws nor said they were part of a slippery slope towards confiscation. The laws are in place. If there are still a few nutjobs who oppose them I have no interest in listening to them.Crackpot wrote:You obviously don’t listen to insurance and helmet law debates.
Why would insurance companies be opposed to mandatory firearms insurance? It would instantly create a brand new and highly profitable line of business for them.Crackpot wrote:Yeah those lone nutcases like the insurance companies.
Since when has an insurer ever paid out their premium collections? (Okay, Meade, shut up about mutual insurance companies.) You ever heard of policy limits? Put a million dollar cap on payouts, charge $100/month per weapon in insurance premiums and you have just made the insurance industry tens of billions of dollars in annual profit.Crackpot wrote:As long as they don’t have to pay out thier collections nothing.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been calling for outright repeal of the Second Amendment since Sandy Hook, when it finally became glaringly obvious that complete repeal and highly restricted access to firearms is the only rational course for any sane society. I am not trying to move any window; I mean exactly what I say. It is morally perverse and objectively stupid to constitutionally enshrine an individual "right" to gun ownership in 21st Century America in light of the consequences. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Heller, the Second Amendment is the fundamental impediment to enacting the common-sense gun restrictions that EVERY OTHER DEMOCRACY IN THE WESTERN WORLD has. This shouldn't even be a debate, but there's is something seriously disordered about American culture and guns.Econoline wrote:I've got to think that calls for repeal of the 2nd Amendment (by Sue, Justice Stevens, Wonkette, Rolling Stone & others—notably *NOT* including the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS survivors, as Prof. Tribe points out) are more about moving the Overton window than about any realistic attempt to actually amend the Constitution.
Sue U wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been calling for outright repeal of the Second Amendment since Sandy Hook, when it finally became glaringly obvious that complete repeal and highly restricted access to firearms is the only rational course for any sane society. I am not trying to move any window; I mean exactly what I say. It is morally perverse and objectively stupid to constitutionally enshrine an individual "right" to gun ownership in 21st Century America in light of the consequences. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Heller, the Second Amendment is the fundamental impediment to enacting the common-sense gun restrictions that EVERY OTHER DEMOCRACY IN THE WESTERN WORLD has. This shouldn't even be a debate, but there's is something seriously disordered about American culture and guns.
)Sue not all policies have caps. Such is the case in Michigan with our catastrophic disability automotive coverage. The insurance groups howl and complain that they are loosing money because of this but those same companies that run the fund pays for that coverage will not disclose the amount in the fund or how much is paid out. (we pay through the nose for this coverage BTW)Sue U wrote:Since when has an insurer ever paid out their premium collections? (Okay, Meade, shut up about mutual insurance companies.) You ever heard of policy limits? Put a million dollar cap on payouts, charge $100/month per weapon in insurance premiums and you have just made the insurance industry tens of billions of dollars in annual profit.Crackpot wrote:As long as they don’t have to pay out thier collections nothing.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been calling for outright repeal of the Second Amendment since Sandy Hook, when it finally became glaringly obvious that complete repeal and highly restricted access to firearms is the only rational course for any sane society. I am not trying to move any window; I mean exactly what I say. It is morally perverse and objectively stupid to constitutionally enshrine an individual "right" to gun ownership in 21st Century America in light of the consequences. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Heller, the Second Amendment is the fundamental impediment to enacting the common-sense gun restrictions that EVERY OTHER DEMOCRACY IN THE WESTERN WORLD has. This shouldn't even be a debate, but there's is something seriously disordered about American culture and guns.Econoline wrote:I've got to think that calls for repeal of the 2nd Amendment (by Sue, Justice Stevens, Wonkette, Rolling Stone & others—notably *NOT* including the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS survivors, as Prof. Tribe points out) are more about moving the Overton window than about any realistic attempt to actually amend the Constitution.
To make any meaningful reduction in gun violence, the first fundamental objective must be a meaningful reduction in the number of guns in circulation. Mandatory training, licensing, registration and insurance are all burdens and barriers to gun ownership that do not affect the dumbass "right" to own a gun. I don't really want a liability compensation system that pays for gun injuries/fatalities; I want to reduce the number of gun injuries/deaths in substantial and absolute and terms by discouraging people from owning guns in the first place. A one-time tax on sales is not sufficient; there must be recurring costs.Big RR wrote:sue--other than an increase payments to insurance companies, what would mandating insurance on firearms do?
***
A better solution would be to set up a nationwide liability compensation system, funded by a tax on guns and related sales which could be used to compensate those who are injured by gun violence, but I wouldn't hold my breath of that passing.
This seems much, much, MUCH more likely to happen than outright appeal. (And moving the Overton Window would make it even more doable.) I still don't see much chance of it happening very soon, but eventually is better than never.Burning Petard wrote:On the other hand, it only takes 5 Supremes to change it. It would be very reasonable to look at the US Constitution and say the framers, those divinely inspired creators of this sacred document, carefully distinguished between individual rights and collective rights by the use of the words 'person' when directing attention to individuals and the word 'people' for entireties. Thus the Second Amendment, by decree of five Justices, would strike down the evils of the NRA.
Yup. And given the SC's statements on regulating firearms, all this would be doable without a constitutional amendment or a new SC ruling.Sue U wrote:Mandatory training, licensing, registration and insurance are all burdens and barriers to gun ownership that do not affect the dumbass "right" to own a gun.
Yup, again. And we'll have to make it clear and keep repeating over and over, ad nauseam, the obvious fact that "discouraging" is *NOT* a synonym for "banning" or "outlawing" or "confiscating".I don't really want a liability compensation system that pays for gun injuries/fatalities; I want to reduce the number of gun injuries/deaths in substantial and absolute and terms by discouraging people from owning guns in the first place.
while I agree in principle, since the right to gun ownership is a fundamental right, the purpose of any law or regulation must not be stated to be discouraging people from executing those rights. Just as statutes that tended to restrict free speech (e.g. high fees for demonstration permits) were struck down, so will statutes that are primarily intended to discourage gun ownership. We will need to design statues that achieve important governmental purposes first, even if they affect the exercise of the right. IMHO, setting up a compensation system for those injured funded by a tax on sales of guns and ammo (there's your recurring costs) is a step toward doing just that. At least it's possible IMHO, repeal of the second amendment is not going to happen (at least in our lifetimes); politics is the art of the possible.Yup, again. And we'll have to make it clear and keep repeating over and over, ad nauseam, the obvious fact that "discouraging" is *NOT* a synonym for "banning" or "outlawing" or "confiscating".
