Breyer retirement

[mchammer]

Libtards, out yourselves:

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm at a point of tit for tat and fight fire with fire with the dims. Playing nice gets us nowhere.

I didn't used to think that but that is where we are at.

For me it isn't about being nice. But until I know who the nominee will be, I just don't have much to work with.

 

[horninchicago]

For me it isn't about being nice. But until I know who the nominee will be, I just don't have much to work with.

Dem playbook is, it doesn't matter. They would have tried to block Garland if trump nominated him.

 

[Seattle Husker]

As you might guess, I tend to accept the NRA's view that the well-regulated militia clause isn't a limitation on the right to bear arms. However, I don't accept their application of the Second Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment. As I've indicated before, I think a state has the right to ban handguns unless they limit it by their own constitutions or laws.

Yeah, I think the "well-regulated militia" clause is 100% ignored in current legal doctrine. The NRA was very successful in changing the nations interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

There are more guns than cars. However, I think you also have to consider use, exposure to the public, and likelihood of accidental injury. Obviously gun accidents happen, and every one of them is a tragedy, but auto injuries and fatalities are much, much more common even though there are fewer cars. For example, in 2018 there were 458 accidental gun deaths in the United States. There were about 36,000 traffic fatalities that same year.
The bottom line is that driving a car is just a hell of a lot more dangerous than carrying a gun, because it's far more likely to be lead to injury or death. It's much easier to accidentally cause a car wreck than to accidentally fire a gun.

I recognize that guns aren't to the level of danger of traffic fatalities. My original premise is that they had demonstrated to be dangerous enough. Part of my belief is that you'll see more gun accidents/deaths in public as states pass open carry laws.

Why do I not consider intentional injuries and deaths in this equation? Because liability insurance protects against negligence and gross negligence torts. It doesn't cover intentional acts.

That's a valid point that I'll need to mull over. Certainly Insurance companies would have similar clauses to protect themselves against someone intentionally using the weapon to harm someone.

I also can't speak for every state, but at least in Texas, a car doesn't have to be insured if it's not driving on the roads and therefore exposing people to harm. A car that's just sitting in your garage doesn't have to be insured. I don't see much need for a gun that's sitting in a safe to be insured. Could I be convinced to require it for those who get carry licenses? Perhaps. Should gun ranges have to carry insurance that covers the shooters inside? Absolutely. But do I think a guy who keeps his gun in his home and uses it only for home defense should have to carry a special liability insurance policy? No, and there's a good chance his homeowners policy would kick in if an accident occurred.

And of course, you can see where the skepticism is going to come from. States have the power to set insurance rates. Will the State of California set rates at something reasonable, or will it gouge gun owners just because it can? Gun owners aren't going to trust states like that not to make insurance premiums do to the right to bear arms what a poll tax did to the right to vote.

Again, it's a valid point that using it on your own property may not need liability protection. Still, most gun accidents occur on private property and unsecured weapons are commonly stolen from said private property. My original premise was hoping to capture those scenarios.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

I'll do ya one better - insurance for gun ownership won't be needed anywhere as this crap idea has no chance of pass, expect as noted in leftist run hell holes, where you need to be on a waiting list for a U-haul to escape.

Here's the "plan", as such:

Require American citizens to contract with, and pay a private company for the ability to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Use the power of the media - entertainment complex to then get insurance companies not to write any policies for gun ownership, in the same way that banks such as Chase and Bank of American have refused to do business with those in the firearms industry.

Result - you now can no longer exercise your Constitutional right, not that it's illegal in in of itself, but because you can't buy a service that allows you to excise that right.

Pitch this idea in the trash heap where it belongs.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

And why would you think the 14th Amendment, incorporating rights guaranteed by the Constitution doesn't apply to state law with regards to the 2A?

Certainly it does for all other Constitutional rights, including those like abortion and gay marriage, which are in the invisible ink section.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'll do ya one better - insurance for gun ownership won't be needed anywhere as this crap idea has no chance of pass, expect as noted in leftist run hell holes, where you need to be on a waiting list for a U-haul to escape.

Here's the "plan", as such:

Require American citizens to contract with, and pay a private company for the ability to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Use the power of the media - entertainment complex to then get insurance companies not to write any policies for gun ownership, in the same way that banks such as Chase and Bank of American have refused to do business with those in the firearms industry.

Result - you now can no longer exercise your Constitutional right, not that it's illegal in in of itself, but because you can't buy a service that allows you to excise that right.

Pitch this idea in the trash heap where it belongs.

I'll just put you in the "skeptic" category for now.

Not interested in addressing the slippery slope arguments advanced by every gun legislation opponent. They are more trope than reality at this time albeit effective in convincing NRA members to get fired up.

 

[Monahorns]

Just like Leftists to make everyone pay for the violence committed by others. They always want others to pay for the bad decisions of others. Gun insurance is just the latest version of that. If you shoot someone, then you should be held morally and financially responsible for YOUR actions. Insurance doesn't do that. Crime restitution does that.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Libtards, out yourselves:

Vanishes as he should. He was a terrible judge, and stumbled on long past the point of senility, in effect giving the power of being a Supreme Court judge off to his clerks, as he would sign off and drool on anything placed in front of him.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

I'll just put you in the "skeptic" category for now.

Not interested in addressing the slippery slope arguments advanced by every gun legislation opponent. They are more trope than reality at this time albeit effective in convincing NRA members to get fired up.

It's not even a slippery slope. It's a crap idea on the merits, even without its ability to further restrict the ownership of guns.

Requiring the payment of money to private companies to exercise rights guanteeded by the Constitution is a crap idea, regardless of if that right is gun ownership, free speech or voting.

 

[Horn6721]

But DD
That still doesn't excuse Chucky from lying to score points

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Staffers write all these speeches anyway, Schumer is just too dumb to keep from reading and believing it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Just like Leftists to make everyone pay for the violence committed by others. They always want others to pay for the bad decisions of others. Gun insurance is just the latest version of that. If you shoot someone, then you should be held morally and financially responsible for YOUR actions. Insurance doesn't do that. Crime restitution does that.

You do understand that when someone is uninsured for anything (car wreck, shooting, or whatever), the victim gets nothing 99 or of 100 times, right? There's a reason why you carry uninsured motorist insurance.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Libtards, out yourselves:

To be fair, Marshall wasn't very dark. Maybe Schumer thought he was white.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Schumer now claims, via Twitter posting done by staffer, that he misspoke, and how of course the remembers how wonderful the dude he erased from the Court really was.

Schumer's always been a mean, nasty piece of ****, propped and fluffed up by the media. Now add lazy and senile to that as well.

Still, pretty funny that one of the worst SC judges in recent memory can't even get a shout out by his own party on the Senate floor.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

I blocked that lovely individual. A wise consultant once told me to never get into a pissing contest with a skunk - nobody wins. Not sure if that one fits her as much as the chess/pigeon one.

I’m better than that. I can disagree without being disagreeable, as can you.

In the past week you've called different people a jackwagon, a dick, now a pigeon. No, you're not "better than that". Face it, you are what you are.

What does it mean to call someone a pigeon? – ShortInformer

What does it mean to call someone a pigeon?
Slang. a young, usually attractive, girl. a person who is easily fooled or cheated; dupe.

What does it mean when a man calls a woman a pigeon?
a promiscuous female. She is such a pigeon! See more words with the same meaning: promiscuous.

 

[Seattle Husker]

In the past week you've called different people a jackwagon, a dick, now a pigeon. No, you're not "better than that". Face it, you are what you are.

What does it mean to call someone a pigeon? – ShortInformer

What does it mean to call someone a pigeon?
Slang. a young, usually attractive, girl. a person who is easily fooled or cheated; dupe.

What does it mean when a man calls a woman a pigeon?
a promiscuous female. She is such a pigeon! See more words with the same meaning: promiscuous.

I thought OUBubba was referring to this meme.

I sincerely doubt he was being sexist.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

I thought OUBubba was referring to this meme.

Then it confirms what many of us know about bubba. He's the proverbial pig in the argument that he posted of.

Stay classy, bubba ! (Jackwagon, dick, insulting MB and all)

 

[Seattle Husker]

Then it confirms what many of us know about bubba. He's the proverbial pig in the argument that he posted of.

Stay classy, bubba !

We do have a few people on the West Mall that act like the Pigeon in the meme. I'm certain we'd all come to a different conclusion on who the pigeon is, including many would deem @Seattle Husker the pigeon.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

We do have a few people on the West Mall that act like the Pigeon in the meme. I'm certain we'd all come to a different conclusion on who the pigeon is, including many would deem @Seattle Husker the pigeon.

Been awhile since I've called anyone a dick, or Jackwagon. Online or anywhere. He is what he is. I lose no sleep over it

 

[Seattle Husker]

Been awhile since I've called anyone a dick, or Jackwagon. Online or anywhere. He is what he is. I lose no sleep over it

You need to hang out with @mb227 more.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

You need to hang out with @mb227 more.

Can't recall her saying those. I do know she makes her point. Some have an issue with that. Oh well

 

[mb227]

Can't recall her saying those. I do know she makes her point. Some have an issue with that. Oh well

I would opine that anyone who has an issue with how I make those points needs to show their *** up to Tolberts. There will be plenty there who DON'T have an issue with how I make those points...

 

[Monahorns]

You do understand that when someone is uninsured for anything (car wreck, shooting, or whatever), the victim gets nothing 99 or of 100 times, right? There's a reason why you carry uninsured motorist insurance.

Is that justification for implementing gun insurance? Or are there other/better ways we could hold people financially accountable for harming people?

I think insurance is a good answer to providing aid to yourself when you are harmed, but not paying out to others you have harmed. Think of home insurance. There is no person who harms you. The insurance is there because you want to prepared yourself for damage to your home not caused by you. The whole point is that the aggressor (nature) is uninsured.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

concerning gun insurance... I don't think it would even serve the purpose that SH imagines. If you look at accidental physically harmful discharges impacting someone other than the gun owner (which would be most akin to car insurance) then those are very few. if you look at intentional harm done with a gun then those people are typically bad guys who aren't going to buy the insurance anyway. The one aspect that liability insurance would seem to be a good fit for is when a teenager steals dads guns and does damage but those are few and far between even though they rip our heart out every time. So we'd be leveraging essentially a tax on millions of guns so that we could have coverage for 5-6 events per year. That just seems like a mechanism to make gun ownership more expensive and seeking gun control through financial tax rather than legislative agreement.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Is that justification for implementing gun insurance?

No, it isn't. There are other reasons why I don't think it's a good idea.

Or are there other/better ways we could hold people financially accountable for harming people?

I'm all ears. I haven't seen any. If you rear end someone, total their car, force them to have back surgery, and potentially be out of work for a few months, can you write out a check to cover all that? It could easily cost $100K. Maybe you can cover it, and maybe you would because it's the right thing to do. Very few could, and most who could wouldn't and couldn't be easily forced to do so. Can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

I think insurance is a good answer to providing aid to yourself when you are harmed, but not paying out to others you have harmed. Think of home insurance. There is no person who harms you. The insurance is there because you want to prepared yourself for damage to your home not caused by you. The whole point is that the aggressor (nature) is uninsured.

First party insurance is fine, but it doesn't hold the wrongdoer accountable when it isn't nature. Suppose I get drunk, jump the curb, and drive into your living room. Should that cost be incurred by you and your insurance (and therefore your insurance rates) or by me and mine?

Also, do bear in mind that homeowners insurance has a liability component. If your dog attacks someone and you get sued, it's going to pay. If you accidentally fire your weapon and injure or kill someone, it's going to pay. Should I have to carry "other people's dog and firearm insurance" to protect me if that happens?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yeah, I think the "well-regulated militia" clause is 100% ignored in current legal doctrine. The NRA was very successful in changing the nations interpretation of the 2nd amendment

Well, it's treated as a statement of purpose rather than a limitation. Do bear in mind that it is worded as such.

I recognize that guns aren't to the level of danger of traffic fatalities. My original premise is that they had demonstrated to be dangerous enough.

I'd be curious to know if what other items of similar danger have required liability insurance. I honestly don't know.

Part of my belief is that you'll see more gun accidents/deaths in public as states pass open carry laws.

Maybe. We heard similar predictions with concealed carry laws, and they largely didn't materialize. However, I will acknowledge that open carry is different and presents different risks. I don't view it as simply a logical extension of concealed carry. I'm far more tepid on open carry. And of course, the open carry activists were total goofballs who were counterproductive and did more harm than good.

Again, it's a valid point that using it on your own property may not need liability protection. Still, most gun accidents occur on private property and unsecured weapons are commonly stolen from said private property. My original premise was hoping to capture those scenarios.

When they occur on private property, homeowners would typically cover it. The unsecured, stolen weapon is a different ballgame.

If we're talking about covering the shooter who stole the gun and subsequently injured or killed someone with it, homeowners isn't going to do that. If he shoots someone on purpose or by accident, the victim is going to be hosed from a civil liability standpoint. However, suppose the rightful gun owner was negligent in securing the gun or negligently entrusted the gun to the shooter and gets sued. Homeowners would most likely cover the rightful gun owner.

Would that really compensate the victim in practice? It would be a tall order in the courtroom. Obviously the jury's first tendency is to punish the shooter rather than the gun owner who seems relatively innocent. How much the injured person would really get would depend heavily on the state's joinder and proportionate responsibility rules.

In Texas, the defendant gun owner (who would be insured) would be able to designate the shooter as a responsible third party without actually joining him in the lawsuit. Even if the plaintiff joined him, he would almost surely fail to answer and have no insurance. That would lead to the so-called "empty chair defendant." The gun owner would spend the whole trial bashing the shooter, which of course hurts the injured person.

You'd have to get at least 51 percent responsibility on the gun owner to get joint and several liability on him and therefore recover the whole verdict from his insurer. That's going to be tough. Frankly, absent some really damning facts, it's going to be a challenge to get over 10 or 20 percent.

 

[iatrogenic]

Yeah, I think the "well-regulated militia" clause is 100% ignored in current legal doctrine. The NRA was very successful in changing the nations interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

I think the NRA is upholding the definition, which is simple to understand. What if, say, a looney, demented President and liberal Reps and Senators try to take weapons from the people, or allow criminals and illegals to enter our country en masse, and those illegals injure you or your family member? You might need a weapon to exact revenge upon all those responsible for allowing the illegals in the county, or trying to take your arms. It would be a blood bath. That is probably a good deterrent against liberal idiocy.

 

[mchammer]

 

[guy4321]

Wonderful! "Black women are perfectly represented in the federal judiciary level. The horror!"