Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.
I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?
I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose.
|
I got what you meant in your pink comment, sorry my reply was misinterpreted I ws trying NOT to imagine you with a gun . . . crazy. . . in a tutu . . . anyway.
Apples and oranges in MY argument. I'm trying to eliminate them in the pro gun arsenal. I stated I meant only to address an earlier post that seemed to posit that this country's efforts to curtail unwanted deaths would be better served if we addressed traffic fatalities as if we were not doing so. I think even the posterchild would agree (then again, probably not) that there has been, continues to be, and we can expect in the future, significant and intrusive efforts by all levels of government, law-enforcement, non-profits -- my MOM for cryin' out loud!!! to TRY and further reduce traffic fatalities within the context of the beneficial purpose of vehicular traffic. I continue to see a link between the 1st amendment right of assembly as supporting ones access to the highways and byways and the various modes of accessing them . . . alas the founders could not envision anything but a walk, a horse or wagon ride. I'm working on it and when I'm a Justice . . . well I don't want to tip my hand.
Insurance. I concede there are no Bill of Right Amendments that require insurance. But, that doesn't mean there is no liability involved. I am responsible for what I say (BINGO!) What my comes of my assembly (conspiracy to commit) Watch what happens to the government when it violates MY rights (Mr Gideon?)
You are correct ,we are not required to have insurance for most things things. Usually, insurance is required by a lien-holder to protect their interest, after the bill is paid, the final mortgage payment made go ahead, cancel the insurance. When the house burns down or is swept away in the flood se la vie! Except for vehicles. Regardless of who has a financial stake if we want to access the public byways -- a minimum Liability insurance is required by law. And the reason why is because of the greater possibility of catastrophic damage and the potential for loss of life.
I am not required to have liability insurance for my knives, lawn-mower, dog. But I do and I am protected against the financial damage anything I have on my property can cause because my (bank required) home-owners policy is a good one. I have general coverage and I have specific additional coverage. My agent did a risk assessment and advised me in certain situations to get rid of stuff (Insurance companies hate trampolines -- if you have one check your policy injury on a trampoline might not be covered) or add specific coverages. It's prudent. Furthermore, I and my family are at a point in our lives and careers that we have nonspecific coverage.
Dead is dead. Since the potential for destruction, mayhem and innocents suffering -- as you say, "dead is dead" Sandyhook does raise the level of suffering endured in both magnitude and scope it seems intuitive that with rights must come responsibility. Thus my suggestion that 100% background checks (because I concede only crazies and criminals do bad things with guns so they have to be denied access. Mandatoy 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 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.
Are those three things -- two of which TR points out are already available and required in many case -- and the acceptance of personal and unlimited liability for tightly defined preventable misuse a possible solution?