Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves.

Does the NRA know this?

http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

Richard

[alelks]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

TR, thanks for the research and graphs. Learned something.
Was there a total (deaths and injuries) to link the percentages to?
And what the heck are people falling from to cause that much damage?

Probably trampolines.

We should outlaw those suckers.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by alelks

Probably trampolines.

We should outlaw those suckers.

Well according to Flo: http://www.geico.com/information/abo...ent-accidents/

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Richard

Does the NRA know this?

http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

Richard

Yeah, the title of the YouTube vid not my words - prolly gave more credit than due.

Hope you enjoyed the vids.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Mandato(r)y gunlocks to prevent crazies and criminals from getting the guns of law-abiding citizens and unlimited liability for the damage done by 1) a gun owner who switches side(s) and becomes a crazy or a criminal and the damage done by a gun that a criminal gained access to from a legal owner because it was not properly locked.

That's actually not unreasonable. I can see a mess with regard to the classification process (definition of "crazy" and "criminal") and with legality regarding the lock system (does DHS get the spare key?), but- those solutions could conceivably reduce the potentiality of the SH, Aurora and Columbine-style crimes.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Dusty

That's actually not unreasonable. I can see a mess with regard to the classification process (definition of "crazy" and "criminal") and with legality regarding the lock system (does DHS get the spare key?), but- those solutions could conceivably reduce the potentiality of the SH, Aurora and Columbine-style crimes.

CALL 911, I'm having a heart-attack!!

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

CALL 911, I'm having a heart-attack!!

Don't get carried away. I'm not saying it's practicable, but it's hard to deny the logic in your premise.

Many would look at it from the standpoint that it's an incremental aspect of an overall attempt at total gun control, but if it could be made viable, and were in effect, it would obviously be preventive.

[tonyz]

Some food for thought on the subject of firearms insurance at the link to the blog at the end of my post below.

Just off the top of my head I have a few of my own questions:

If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want? That is, would there no longer be firearm, magazine or ammo restrictions? After all, we (firearms owners) would theoretically all be paying to insure against the risk of any misuse of all firearms in existence.

If we are required to insure our firearms against misuse - would we receive a credit for proper use in a lawful self-defense situation? What if a shot is not fired but the bad guy just runs away? How much credit? Since the underwriting of risk by a private firm is essentially a business decision, what are the variables that factor into cost? Is the perceived "lethality" of an EBR more expensive than a mint WWII era Garande? Should a fit octogenarian pay more than a twenty something unemployed OWS kid? What medical records would need be disclosed to underwriters? What about the uninsured motorist, I mean firearm owner? Fear not, I suspect that the actuaries already have the software "loaded."

Finally, would insurance have stopped Adam Lanza?

Some consideration of similar and other legitimate issues at the link below.

Should People Be Forced to Buy Liability Insurance for their Guns?
by Megan McArdle Dec 28, 2012 9:35 AM EST
DailyBeast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...heir-guns.html

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tonyz

If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want?

I don't think I can swing a vintage Ferrari 275 GTB, but on this other thing you're talkin' about...

What would my lease options be over 3 yrs on an M249? Please submit your proposal both baseline, as well as with extended warranty, and please include a schedule for consumables.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Badger52

I don't think I can swing a vintage Ferrari 275 GTB, but on this other thing you're talkin' about...

What would my lease options be over 3 yrs on an M249? Please submit your proposal both baseline, as well as with extended warranty, and please include a schedule for consumables.

I can hear it now...

"...gotta close that insurance loophole..." !

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Some food for thought on the subject of firearms insurance at the link to the blog at the end of my post below.

Just off the top of my head I have a few of my own questions:

Originally Posted by tonyz

If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want? That is, would there no longer be firearm, magazine or ammo restrictions? After all, we (firearms owners) would theoretically all be paying to insure against the risk of any misuse of all firearms in existence.

From post # 305 "If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me) I will grant that only crazies (I want to amend this part to "crazies and criminals") kill innocent people. So, I'm for allowing any law-abiding US citizen over the age of 18 to own any and as many semi-automatic weapons as they want as long as 1) they undergo a background check to prove they are a law-abiding US citizen 18 years or older and 2) with the purchase of any (I want to amend this part from semi-automtic to "all") weapon they are required to also purchase an effective gun lock, and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
No change to the number or types of weapons currently allowed.
I'll throw in no magazine restrictions, too.

Originally Posted by tonyz

If we are required to insure our firearms against misuse - would we receive a credit for proper use in a lawful self-defense situation? What if a shot is not fired but the bad guy just runs away? How much credit? How about a tax deduction every year regardless of the legal use? Just tied to having mandated liability insurance.

That is a valid concern, your proposal might be a little unwielding. How about a tax deduction every year tied to legal use?

Originally Posted by tonyz

Since the underwriting of risk by a private firm is essentially a business decision, what are the variables that factor into cost? Is the perceived "lethality" of an EBR more expensive than a mint WWII era Garande? Should a fit octogenarian pay more than a twenty something unemployed OWS kid? What medical records would need be disclosed to underwriters? What about the uninsured motorist, I mean firearm owner? Fear not, I suspect that the actuaries already have the software "loaded."

Fear not, for sure. I would not push a government insurance program similar to Flood Insurance -- which is government sponsored because in flood situations the cost of the multiple damages is usually so great that independent insurer cannot cover the potential claims. We probably want to limit to the minimum degree .gov's involvement. In a competitive market underwriters and actuaries will accurately assess risk and assign premiums. The information needed for underwriting the policy would be subject to the "invisible hand" if one didn't like certain underwriting criteria they would go elsewhere and then make a decision based on factors like price. I imagine the more help a consumer provided to accurately assess the risk would be rewarded.

Originally Posted by tonyz

Finally, would insurance have stopped Adam Lanza?

Insurance alone? No. A lock? Probably. Would unlimited liability exposure been a factor in the first victim's decision to secure her weapons. The marketplace would say, "yes".

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Don't get carried away. I'm not saying it's practicable, but it's hard to deny the logic in your premise.

Many would look at it from the standpoint that it's an incremental aspect of an overall attempt at total gun control, but if it could be made viable, and were in effect, it would obviously be preventive.

For a minute there I thought you were hitting the lightening..

Maybe when S&W perfect that electronic thingy and it can be installed on older weapons, that could be a good tool to keep the wrong persons from using them.

Though it would cause some tactical issues

[fng13]

Insurance alone? No. A lock? Probably. Would unlimited liability exposure been a factor in the first victim's decision to secure her weapons. The marketplace would say, "yes".[/QUOTE]

Please see attached videos from a quick qoogle search of "how to pick a trigger lock" neither one of them even requires an actual lock pick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P397UsoyNBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6W1Lef9To


The idea that even if my guns are in my locked home that is not good enough is ridiculous, even banks know that you can't have 100% security. If someone wants what you have bad enough they will find a way to get it.

I can't be liable for everyone else in the world.

If someone broke in and stole my ginsu knives and went on a stabbing spree should I be liable because I didn't have a sheath lock?

And as far as Lanza is concerned, if I am willing to kill my own mother I'm probably willing to force her to open the gun cabinet first.

[pcfixer]

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939.
Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected.

Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45)

Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900.

In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him.

Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

[The Reaper]

This is the way all 20,000 of the firearms laws we enjoy today started.

With a few "common sense" solutions from people who didn't understand the problem, if there even was one.

In 1913, the ratification of the 16th Amendment formalized the Federal Income Tax, which at first, was a very small percentage on most people. The majority of Americans supported it then. And Congress set the rates. Look at what we pay now. Relatively painlessly extracted monthly or bi-weekly since 1943. If Americans had to stroke a check for the full balance in one check annually, accountability might return.

One day in the not too distant future, when you are paying $500 per background check, a 100% tax on arms and ammunition, and $5,000 per year for liability insurance, you will be able to say, "Wow, I remember when it started out as a few "common sense" fees." It is all "for the children," of course.

Right off of the Brady Campaign's wish list.

They "allow" you an ever decreasing portion of a God given Right, while in reality restricting it further, and you are expected to be thankful. Death by 20,000 cuts and counting.

TR