this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
221 points (77.1% liked)

Liberal Gun Owners

594 readers
1 users here now

A community for pro-gun liberals.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Just like the constitutional right to free speech, you’re not free of the consequences of your speech. Be a responsible owner and your. Insurance rates stay low but when you’re not, you’re the one paying for your mistakes

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Ok... I didn't say you were free from consequences, I said by adding insurance to the equation, you're putting an unnecessary financial burden on the poor amd minorities to practice a constitutional right, all while creating an opportunity for some middleman to get obscenely rich off something that won't change gun violence at all. By adding mandatory insurance, and letting insurance companies handle all of it, you're taking rights out of the hands of minorities and the poor alike. And there are already consequences for improper gun ownership: they're called prison sentences, so maybe focus more on your elected officials who aren't prosecuting irresponsible gun owners instead of adding insurance premiums and costs to an equation that doesn't need them.

If there is an unreasonable monetary barrier for an individual to practice a constitutional right, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege. So congratulations, you've taken away the rights of minorities/poor folks, and allowed those who already have the means to face no consequences continue to face no consequences. Just like the firearm's stamps: the prices are high enough to keep those weapons out of the hands of the poor, but not out of the hands of the wealthy, so only the wealthy have the privilege to own more dangerous weapons.

And once again, all you are interested in, clearly, is just taking firearms from people. You proposed an idea (firearm owners insurance), I pointed out why that may be a bad idea, and you immediately doubled down on it while making a comparison to another constitutional right that doesn't have any financial barriers like you describe.

Plenty of people have been hurt and/or killed by the speeches/words of others, yet not once have you said there should be speech insurance, so your premiums can go up the more inflammatory your speech is, that would be fair, right?

You also completely dismissed everything I had to say about subsidizing firearms training for those who want/need it. So let's not try and educate our populace, no no, we'll just create another privilege for the wealthy and the poors can just deal with it. 🙄

[–] AA5B 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If you’re not agreeing to any regulation or safety standards, then insurance is a non-government way of minimizing the burden on responsible owners while ensuring the irresponsible ones have consequences for their recklessness, and ensuring at least some recompense/justice for their victims

[–] thejoker954 1 points 6 months ago

Look, like a lot of things - this works great on paper.

However, reality is a whole different beast.

This doesn't "minimize" the burden of responsible owners.

A responsible owner wouldn't 'need' insurance in the 1st place, so any premium they pay would be a burden.

Plus - just look at insurance rates.

I guarantee you that little old black lady who has never been in a car accident is still paying more than the little old white lady who lives next door and also has been in an accident.

Nevermind that rich folk technically don't even need to pay for insurance because there are multiple loopholes those with money can access.

Its the same ole shit - nickle and dime the less fortunate while bending over backwards to let the rich get richer.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)