1090
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1090 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1199 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here's the problem...
We can require automobile insurance because driving a car isn't a right.
Now, owning a gun is a right, and you could argue that wearing or carrying the gun is not, but then you have to go back to New York vs Bruen:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
New York used to require special permission to wear or carry a gun. You had to provide special justification for your need to carry and "because I don't feel safe" or "I want to defend myself" wasn't good enough.
Supreme Court ruled:
"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense."
Given that, I can't imagine they would hold an insurance requirement to be constitutional.
Should Alex Jones be forced to have liability insurance before spouting off conspiracy theories on InfoWars? Yeah, probably. But that's not the way the first amendment works either.
I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don't see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first. They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly. The government can make you get a permit in order to hold a demonstration on public land. There are "free speech zones", and things like protests of pipelines are broken up by the government all of the time.
I know we shouldn't expect consistency from this bunch of looney tunes, but I still think it's worth pointing out that they're not being consistent at all.
Well, the 2nd is restricted similarly. For example, even with a permit, you can't carry concealed in a courtroom. The waiver is for "in general".
And you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater if there isn’t one.
Unfortunately, the highest law of the land disagrees with your interpretation at this time. They have this whole "plain meaning of words" mindset. The typical 3rd grader reading the 2nd Amendment would think "oh ok, I can have a gun". Therefore, that's what the 2nd Amendment means now.
Yeah, that's covered by jurisprudence based around the needs of the country. And the law is right that the First Amendment doesn't say the freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt (preventing people from going to their destination, vandalizing property, etc). But if you needed to buy Free Speech Insurance, that would get shot down as unconstitutional.
None of those other amendment rights are an inherent physical danger to innocent people. The Second Amendment is.
Disagree fundamentally. First amendment is absofuckinglutely WILD right to be able to speak freely without legal repercussions
Hilter built the Nazi war machine from speeches to semi-drunk veterans in beer halls Cult/political/spiritual grifters and can ply their trade unmolested as long as they skirt around fraud laws Political speech, criticism of leadership and government, 4chan, art, etc etc all can have far more power and influence over everyone
Sure, but that's not a physical danger. A weapon, in its very nature, poses a physical danger. Like a car. Insurance makes sense.
But it's not like insurance is going to help. If you buy a gun that gets used in a shooting, it's still used in a shooting. The only difference is that someone might get money, but it doesn't actually solve any problem.
What it does do is place a regressive tax on gun ownership.
Monetary compensation for harm is very common in our society. E.g. that why a person who commits sexual assault pays compensation to the victim. Didn't solve the problem, but it compensates an innocent victim. Same in a shooting.
The insurance should encourage responsible gun ownership. Insurance companies can easily adjust premiums based on training/licensing and premiums would be higher or lower depending on their risk calculation for the given type of weapon. Insurance can place extra requirements on storage and transport that might go well beyond the scope of what's allowed by law.
A cheap insurance plan would likely have more restrictions than an expensive one, plus your premiums would skyrocket after an incident, further encouraging responsible behavior
There's literally FUCKING LAWS requiring you to be responsible.
You're a fucking idiot if you think INSURANCE PREMIUMS are the solution to violence.
Like anybody who has murder in their heart will think twice because of an extra fee tacked on.
Insurance can have additional requirements beyond the law. For example my homeowner's insurance does not allow trampolines on the property. There's no law against trampolines but my homeowner's insurance made the determination that a trampoline is too big of a risk for them.
This is why I said:
Uhm…next one sort of is. Unless you want to open your home to strangers with weapons and training.
Bro there's so many tools that can be used to kill people. Can't legislate all of them out of reach of everyone.
The core issue doesn't lie with what tool is used.
A gun or an assault rifle is specifically designed to harm and kill people. At a distance no less. A sword? Maybe. But it's not nearly as deadly and efficient, so it could be insured at a lower rate.
Go live in whatever dystopian hell hole you want. Insurance is not the answer. Insurance is a fucking scam, propped up by corporate lobbyists.
Guns aren't tools. People with guns are the tools.
You're an idiot if you think a gun isn't a tool.
You're an idiot. Period.
Carrying concealed does not pose an inherent danger to anyone either.
In fact:
"Combining Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers.
Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463357
A weapon poses an inherent danger no matter how it's carried or not carried. It's the very nature of a weapon. Having insurance makes sense.
Hopefully the criminals who typically commit robberies, murders, etc will forgo that lifestyle when they remember they don't have the insurance to do it. I can't see anywhere this law would not he a benefit to all.
This way you get only criminals carrying a gun, not criminal and idiots. Sounds like a small win to me
Problem. That entire ruling was based off the idea that there was no such regulations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Except it was an extremely common regulation. And even in that paragraph they lie. Try having a protest without a permit. Ask them how many times the government is allowed to put someone on trial. Ask them about the 4th amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, specifically Civil Asset Forfeiture, where you have to request the government to give you your stuff back that was seized without any due process. I could keep going.
A SCOTUS that lies to itself and the world for ideological purposes is not an authority on our rights.
Just because you don't recognize their authority doesn't mean they aren't the authority though, at least until the composition changes again.
This is why it's going to be so important to have a Democratic President in when Thomas and Alito leave the court, they are the two oldest members and it could happen in either the '24 or '28 terms.
Well yeah, granted. It just chafes me every time someone uses SCOTUS as an authority after Robert's court has spent that last couple decades chipping away at our rights.
Roberts always struck me as partially reasonable. He has a huge blind spot when it came to the voting rights act and Citizens United, but he's not that extreme all the time.
The court didn't REALLY turn until the Trump appointees, who all need to be removed.