Requiring Gun Insurance Will Increase Safety

[Bama13]

Without the qualifier you are right, but as the supreme court seez, the reason to uphold the possession (notice, not the bearing, 'cause that can only be done with a carry permit) is history and 'cause the second amendment does not mandate that the use of arms is exclusive to the militia. Not because it seez that everybody can pack iron until he can't walk anymore.

Requiring insurance is an infringment, therefore unconstitutional. As Archie Bunker would say "Case closed."

[questionmark]

Requiring insurance is an infringment, therefore unconstitutional. As Archie Bunker would say "Case closed."

I guess you will be as right with that as the claim that mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional.

[Bama13]

I guess you will be as right with that as the claim that mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional.

It is. Just the current USSC, apparently, doesn't understand the Constitution. Their ignorance isn't my fault and doesn't change the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain English, it doesn't need to be interpeted, just read, to be understood. The only way the USSC could allow mandatory health insurance is to claim the fine isn't a fine but a tax, which the sponsors claimed it wasn't. Go figure.

[questionmark]

It is. Just the current USSC, apparently, doesn't understand the Constitution. Their ignorance isn't my fault and doesn't change the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain English, it doesn't need to be interpeted, just read, to be understood. The only way the USSC could allow mandatory health insurance is to claim the fine isn't a fine but a tax, which the sponsors claimed it wasn't. Go figure.

Then, the constitution, in plain English seez that you may bear arms with the purpose of belonging to the militia. Not that you can bear arms for the hell of it. You can't have it both ways.

[Frank Merton]

Aren't people required to have insurance when they drive a car? I know when I rent one, since I don't own a car in the US, I have to buy it.

[Michelle]

Aren't people required to have insurance when they drive a car? I know when I rent one, since I don't own a car in the US, I have to buy it.

In most states they do, but there are still a lot of people who don't carry it or even have a drivers license. They count on the odds they won't get caught.

[Bama13]

Then, the constitution, in plain English seez that you may bear arms with the purpose of belonging to the militia. Not that you can bear arms for the hell of it. You can't have it both ways.

The militia consists of "every free able-bodied white male citizen" between 18 and 45. I guess women, non-whites, and older folks are screwed.

However, that is not what it says. I am not going to argue with you but suggest you have an English major explain it to you.

[questionmark]

The militia consists of "every free able-bodied white male citizen" between 18 and 45. I guess women, non-whites, and older folks are screwed.

However, that is not what it says. I am not going to argue with you but suggest you have an English major explain it to you.

I suggest the same to you.

[Bama13]

I suggest the same to you.

Been there, done that. You?

Look up District of Columbia v Heller (no. 07-290)

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

( The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Bama13

[questionmark]

Been there, done that. You?

If the right to bear arms was unconditional it would have a period (or full stop) at the end of the first sentence, not a comma. And the article would have to consist of two sentences, not one, As you see, yes.

Edited February 8, 2013 by questionmark

[Bama13]

If the right to bear arms was unconditional it would have a period (or full stop) at the end of the first sentence, not a comma. And the article would have to consist of two sentences, not one, As you see, yes.

Edited my perevious post to include District of Columbia v Heller. Even the USSC says it is an individual right. This is so simple that even they got it right.

[AsteroidX]

The english language has changed in 200+ years. FACT.

This form of writing can be seen throughout the documents of the day. It was intentional.

[aztek]

actually ussc said, anyone (who is not prohibited) has a right to bear arms, no militia service reqired. on what grouds ussc mabe that desision, for whatever reasonm is totaly irrelavant. this is how it is, all i need to know.

pretty simple concept, and yet some still can't get it. is it stupidity, arrogance, or they just have no arguments left?

Edited February 8, 2013 by aztek

[questionmark]

Edited my perevious post to include District of Columbia v Heller. Even the USSC says it is an individual right. This is so simple that even they got it right.

]

and, that court that does not know the constitution argued that it did not rule so because the constitution seez so, but because the constitution does not say the contrary (see under a) and because several states include the right to bear arms (without the militia limitation) in their constitution (see under c). Not because the constitution guarantees an individual right.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

[AsteroidX]

Yes and if they infringe many of those States will cease to be part of the Union and return to a Republic at best. Most States take there Constitutions as seriously as the National one.

[F3SS]

It is. Just the current USSC, apparently, doesn't understand the Constitution. Their ignorance isn't my fault and doesn't change the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain English, it doesn't need to be interpeted, just read, to be understood. The only way the USSC could allow mandatory health insurance is to claim the fine isn't a fine but a tax, which the sponsors claimed it wasn't. Go figure.

I've often said the same thing. It isn't that freaking hard to understand. People who want to circumvent it often say it needs interpreted like it's some ancient Sumerian script. Sure, English has changed a little over the years but not that much. I see it as pretty cut and dry.

Aren't people required to have insurance when they drive a car? I know when I rent one, since I don't own a car in the US, I have to buy it.

Yes, but cars aren't a guaranteed right and neither were horses and carriages when the constitution was written. Cars are an optional purchase that comes with strings attached and that's ok. We weren't granted the rights to any materialistic items except firearms. We were only granted the rights to use our abilities to pursue anything we like.

[Bama13]

]

and, that court that does not know the constitution argued that it did not rule so because the constitution seez so, but because the constitution does not say the contrary (see under a) and because several states include the right to bear arms (without the militia limitation) in their constitution (see under c). Not because the constitution guarantees an individual right.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Seems pretty straightf forward to me.

[questionmark]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Seems pretty straightf forward to me.

history demonstrate

why did you not highlight that too? No it is history, not the text. The text has a main clause and a operative clause as the court well denotes, but they fail to say that the operative clause is meaningless without the main clause as it is delimited by a comma, not by a period.

it seez:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

And not

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, you are in the militia again as denoted by your same quote (or better said, the part you failed to mention): The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

But maybe you are right above, this USSC does not know the constitution.

Edit: and the court also affirms that the right to bear arms is limited by the state requiring carrying licenses.

Edited February 8, 2013 by questionmark

[Bama13]

history demonstrate

why did you not highlight that too? No it is history, not the text. The text has a main clause and a operative clause as the court well denotes, but they fail to say that the operative clause is meaningless without the main clause as it is delimited by a comma, not by a period.

it seez:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

And not

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, you are in the militia again as denoted by your same quote (or better said, the part you failed to mention): The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

But maybe you are right above, this USSC does not know the constitution.

Edit: and the court also affirms that the right to bear arms is limited by the state requiring carrying licenses.

For the same reason I didn't highlight "operative clause’s text". Why did you ignore that part and point out the "history demonstrate" part?Both the text and history say that the right to bear arms is an individaul right. Seems like a slam dunk.

[questionmark]

For the same reason I didn't highlight "operative clause’s text". Why did you ignore that part and point out the "history demonstrate" part?Both the text and history say that the right to bear arms is an individaul right. Seems like a slam dunk.

Because as they say, the operative clause is neither limited nor expanded. In plain English: Makes no sense without the main clause. Therefore it cannot be interpreted as separate from the militia.

In fact,if you ask me, there is a part in the second that was omitted during the discussion, either that the last comma should be a colon(then it makes sense) or there is a word missing. As is makes anything with arms conditional to the principal clause. Just historically it has not been interpreted thus.

That is why I wonder why you forgot to highlight that part.

As far as limitations, many limitations to keep and bear arms are pointed out as legal under 2. So I don't see why you claim that insurance would not be.

[F3SS]

I think the constitution is a bit excessive with commas and semi-colons. I was just breezing through the amendments and it seems that several things could've been a solid sentence without all the punctuation.

Here's what I think it should look like...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state guarantees the right the of the people to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

The words I italicized were not included because they were implied by the purpose of the constitution. The founders likely found it redundant to include those words and phrases. I guess. Either way it does seem that they used commas more often than needed.

[questionmark]

I think the constitution is a bit excessive with commas and semi-colons. I was just breezing through the amendments and it seems that several things could've been a solid sentence without all the punctuation.

Here's what I think it should look like...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state guarantees the right the of the people to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

The words I italicized were not included because they were implied by the purpose of the constitution. The founders likely found it redundant to include those words and phrases. I guess. Either way it does seem that they used commas more often than needed.

Ehm yes, that would have been the way if there would have been an agreement among all 66 Congresspeople at the time. But I suspect that there was quite a fight about the second amendment and just like the 2 before it was about to end in the trash can. Rhode Island and Virginia were pretty much opposed to a federal government to start with, so this thing was no easy sailing. Given that even then several states did not look kindly on the arms thing I would suppose that it was one of the most debated items at the time.

[F3SS]

As far as limitations, many limitations to keep and bear arms are pointed out as legal under 2. So I don't see why you claim that insurance would not be.

The same reason people argue about $10 ID cards for voting (even though they're free if needed). Attaching a further cost to a constitutional right in inhibiting, deterring and infringing. Insurance is ongoing for the entire time of ownership. It's a big cost. However I do think there is room for common sense expenditures like a$10 ID card every 4+ years even though ID requiring states have kindly and sensibly made them free if needed thereby nullifying any argument against the requirement.

[questionmark]

The same reason people argue about $10 ID cards for voting (even though they're free if needed). Attaching a further cost to a constitutional right in inhibiting, deterring and infringing. Insurance is ongoing for the entire time of ownership. It's a big cost. However I do think there is room for common sense expenditures like a$10 ID card every 4+ years even though ID requiring states have kindly and sensibly made them free if needed thereby nullifying any argument against the requirement.

I think that there is quite a difference between exercising the right to vote and the potential of causing a damage without having the means the compensate the damages.

Lets take our so beloved caliber .223. Even if you shoot somebody accidentally into the foot the bullet can end up in any part of the body, complete of fragmented. That can cause a permanent incapability of that person. Do you have the hundreds of thousands to pay for the hospital and then enough money to pay the guy a disability pension? Well, that applies to 99% of the 88+ million gun owners.

So why should others be at risk because you exercise a "right"? Or do you think you can just turn around, shrug, say: "second amendment" and the whole story is over?

[Stellar]

Lets take our so beloved caliber .223. Even if you shoot somebody accidentally into the foot the bullet can end up in any part of the body, complete of fragmented. That can cause a permanent incapability of that person. Do you have the hundreds of thousands to pay for the hospital and then enough money to pay the guy a disability pension? Well, that applies to 99% of the 88+ million gun owners.

But how far do we take this? What if I'm playing baseball and I let go of the bat and it breaks someone's spine?

I don't like the idea of an insurance for everything. It just doesn't sit well with me on this issue because I feel like the whole "insurance for guns" thing came about as a way to make money, not to actually help anyone.

Edit to add:

And also, I feel that injuries and health related issues should be a service provided/payed for by the government. We pay thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes in order to get certain services (police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance, etc.) and I believe that healthcare should be part of those services provided. That would fix the whole "who pays for his healthcare if the gun owner doesnt have insurance" issue.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Stellar