BlitzoTheOisSilent

When I was a carrier, I had a business road on my route, all the mailboxes were at the curb for every business. On two or three separate occasions, I'd get to the last box and it looked rougher than it did the previous day. Business owner came out and told me the box had been broken into again, along with several others on the road, and wanted to know what we could/would do about it.

I called my postmaster and explained and asked if USPIS would be getting involved (as the business owner also asked). I was told no, they don't get involved in those sorts of things, the owner would just have to file a report with the police, and we'd stop delivering on Saturdays since none of the businesses would be open.

I never got a further explanation than that, so I couldn't say why USPIS doesn't get involved, but they don't seem to anymore. 🤷‍♀️

Got it, so gun ownership is for the wealthy and privileged only, according to you, got it. Insurance will not solve this problem, full stop. Auto insurance doesn't stop people from driving illegally or without licenses, and driving is a privilege, so let's apply the same logic and standard to a constitutional right.

It'd be a lot faster if you just said, "I don't think anyone should own guns," instead of parroting this fake altruism that insurance will make people face consequences. There are already laws in place to issue consequences to those who are reckless, and I would say that should constitute recompense and justice for their victims. So instead of introducing some useless middleman that, again, will only impact the poor and minorities, go after your state AG's for not prosecuting gun crime.

Or, as I've said repeatedly, subsidize firearm training and make it required twice per year to maintain your licensure. That's on top of the required class to get your conceal carry license, and everything else associated with it. Insurance providers will only make those requirements and monetary hurdles worse, so again, you're making a constitutional right a privilege for only those with money.

Make our current medical insurance providers (y'know , the ones who don't provide the services you pay for when you need them for arbitrary reasons) actually pay for mental health care so maybe people can have healthy ways to deal with any issues they have instead of shooting up a school/mall/whatever. Get rid of the social stigma around mental health in general, and require background checks before every gun sale.

There's literally a myriad of other directions we could and should take gun control, but introducing and requiring insurance for something that is a right makes it a privilege for those with money. This reeks of the same justifications people used to pass the first big wave of gun control laws when the Black Panthers started showing up to rallies with firearms. It even reminds me of the voter ID laws being pushed, since the only people burdened by them are those who can't afford to get an ID, y'know, the majority of whom are minorities.

The person you're responding to is right, though: adding insurance costs takes a constitutional right and turns it into a privilege only for those who could afford it. We've seen what the insurance industry does with medical insurance, homeowners insurance, and every other type of insurance: they fuck the little guy over every chance they get. So you're just telling gun owners to throw money at a company that is just going to keep it, rather than tell them to take that money and attend biannual (twice a year) firearm safety training to remain in compliance with their license.

Not a single person in this thread has talked about subsidizing firearms training and making it mandatory, you all just want less guns in the hands of fewer people. So just say that, instead of hiding behind this false-altruist "Well, it'll only affect the bad eggs," yep, that's why good people are never denied medical treatment from their insurance, because it only effects the bad eggs.

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. 🙄

You're just creating a tax on the poor for them to practice a constitutional right. Insurance providers 1. Aren't going to pay out anyway, that's their whole thing, so much like health insurance, it's money being thrown away every month, and 2. You're adding another middleman from an industry most people think is greedy/corrupt AF, and why would that ever be a good thing? Plus, you know damn well once the insurance companies get involved, all of a sudden minority gun ownership numbers are going to drop because, mysteriously, all of their premiums shot up overnight for totally ~~racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic~~ unknown reasons.

I'm all for requiring more training, or licensing, background checks should be required for every gun sale, I'm just saying this to show I fully support gun control measures.

Require more training, but it needs to be made affordable. Every gun control bill is just banning firearm models, or limiting magazine capacities, or whatever. None of them every talk about subsidizing firearms training for those who need or want it. Even my blue state only requires one 8-hour class and one live-fire test to get your conceal carry permit, and the instructors even talked about how people ask about taking further training, but when they hear the cost and time (almost all the classes require taking time off work, which some can't do) involved, they just say they can't afford it and they'll just watch YouTube or whatever.

Edit: Not sure how "creating an unnecessary monetary barrier turns a constitutional right into a constitutional privilege for the rich, all while enrichening a corrupt industry that will absolutely fuck this up" is such a controversial take, especially when I've added that training courses should be mandatory and subsidized so that finances aren't a barrier...

So they can come out and, best case scenario, they tell you there's nothing they can do? Or show up and wait on standby for the criminal to finish what they're doing a la Uvalde?

Or would you prefer the come out to a potential burglary call and end up shooting the woman who called the police in the head?

Good thing we have so many of them to keep us safe during all these crimes. 🙄

They have churros on my local subway menu, as well as a pizza, and a footlong pretzel stick.

We're in New England...

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

~~Richard Cranium~~

Edit: someone beat me to it 😆

So then explain to me why it was ok for God to order his followers to destroy the Tower of Babel and slaughter those building it? I believe God's logic was, "If they complete this tower, it'll show the world they don't need me, and we can't have that."

How exactly was that ethical? Or should we discuss being allowed to beat your slave, so long as they don't die within three days, you haven't commited murder because they are your property? Is that the ethics and morality you're speaking of?

Or maybe it's the "an eye for an eye" part, where revenge is completely justified? I believe it took a Hindu nationalist to add "makes the world blind" to actually make that statement ethical.

Or maybe you're trying to discuss one of the many, many instances of rape that occurs in the bible, but it's completely justified and ethical because God said so?

Personally, if you base your morals and ethics off of the Bible, you're a piece of shit who justifies their immoral behavior using an outdated text as some kind of shield because you think, so long as you repent riiiiiiiiight before you eat the big one, you're good. 🙄

Right? He kinda looks like Gru, with hair 😆

They wouldn't have had their lives upended if we weren't doing everything in our power to prolong the war!

They wouldn't have had their lives upended if Russia didn't illegitimately invade their homeland. Twice, in the last decade, I believe. I also don't know wtf you mean when you say prolong the war, if Ukraine stopped fighting now you don't think Russia wouldn't just go at it again?

So you understand making the world a worse place isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is right?

So you understand that this discussion is about OPC and their view on Ukraine and the Russian invasion? I told you I served to answerbyour initial question as to why I don't go fight in Ukraine: I've already done my time in the service, was the implication you seemed to miss.

Trying another subject change isn't the gotcha you think it is, kid.

The one who suspended elections after he got elected on a platform of peace and failed to end the civil war?

The one who's following Ukrainian law and listening to the general vibe of the country and the situation with the war?

Or the Zelensky who is open to the idea of having elections, but does not think it's a good idea based on both the law and I assume logistical decisions, like having mass groups if people located in small areas for extended periods of time during, say, a war.

Not being literate on the world stage isn't the gotcha you think it is, bud.

How many Ukrainians living in Ukraine do you know? I'm certain it's less than the actual Ukrainian right here telling you what the situation is.

None, as does the very obvious Russian bot who's, like I said before, just propagating the same Russian State Media talking points that you've somehow fallen for. Sad, really.

You really don't give a shit about actual Ukrainians beyond their willingness to bleed for the profits of the military industrial complex.

Mm, no, I do give a shit about a sovereign nation defending themselves from a foreign aggressor, and reclaiming any illegally held territory going back to, idk, 2013-ish. 🤷‍♀️ If it was so important to the military industrial complex, why did the GOP actively fight to stop it? That's taken money out of the wealthy's purse, can't have that.

You also never answered why you're defending a Russian troll, so let's try again in a language you may understand:

Почему вы защищаете русского тролля?