Tweet
What a waist of time and money. Why can't these politicians spend there time and our money and improving the horrible public school system.
-
Rights modified on a "need" basis, IS the root of tyranny
Its not the Bill of Needs. Its the Bill of RIGHTS -
Well, mandating health insurance is constitutional, so mandating firearms insurance is good to go.
So is pit bull liability insurance.Originally posted by SilverTauronOriginally posted by loose_electronComment
-
It's nearly obvious this bill is intended to protect the criminals. You shoot a gang banger in self-defense, they're going to want you to pay for his/her medical bills via insurance and so forth. It's perfect if you're an anti gunner. Criminals protecting criminals.Comment
-
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."Comment
-
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)Comment
-
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)Comment
-
This law is unconstitutional on it's face, and is yet another effort to make sure the "wrong people" (read poor people) cannot have guns.
Sheriff McGinnus (hope I spelled his name right) pointed out today that there is no requirement to have insurance simply because you own a car. It is triggered by the operation of the vehicle on public roadway. Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to drive a vehicle.
A better analogy is a law which required newspapers to obtain insurance that would cover damages if they commit liable. Or religious groups to have insurance to cover damages if their clergy should molest children. No lawyer, or even lay person, would ever think such laws would be constitutional.
Personally, I think that the kind of laws being passed in New York and probably California, are so far out of line that SCOTUS just might - in spite of Justice Roberts opposition in principle - issue a very sweeping decision that just may contain a whole lot that the gun grabbers won't like.Comment
-
Not surprising coming from the democrats in Sacramento. Just incredibly stupid.Comment
-
It's a trap. It's another form of registration.Comment
There are currently 6068 users online. 56 members and 6012 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment