h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For some reason many seem to think that 'free speech' is somehow equal to 'mandatory agreement' I can disagree all I want, and call you names too (at least within reason).


FS

>> 'free speech' is somehow equal to 'mandatory agreement' <<

Not at all, not at all. Free speech is about tolerance;
there's no need to agree, just pretend you're listening.
And it should never come to blows. Or bullets.

Yeah, I miss the old days when we could call people names.
Now, one has to be more creative with insults and not rely
on old favourites and cliches learnt at our granddaddy's
hunting lodge.


~jwf~

Heh-heh, FS, I knew you'd set them straight on calling us Yankees.

Please don't tell them I was born and spent all my pre-teen years in Western New York. I have been trying hard to make up for it all these many years. I have always held with the notion that a man can't do anything about where he is born, but he sure as HE(double Hokey Sticks) can do something about where he dies!



FS

Hokey - Hockey; what do you expect - we have the Lightning, and I doubt they can spell it right the first time either!

At least I have a sense of humour.

FS

If you were born and raised in New York and currently live in Florida, why did you just use British spelling for "humor"?

One of the problems is, when all these amendments and laws were set up, what kinds of weapons did people have at that time? What kinds of weapons (that you could carry on your body) were *invented* at that time?
Strictly applying the same rules on todays modern weapons cannot work. It's like saying 'when they invented cars these rules/lack of rules worked, so they can also applied in modern times' and completely ignore how much technology has changed. I'm sure there are other examples.

And jsut because some law was good 100 or more years in the past does not mean it can also be applied on today's conditions. Just because something is 'traditional' it isn't necessarily good. I mean, people obviously kill their children because they have a partner of the wrong nationality and then they say it's traditional. Or something. (Some Muslims in Germany have just been sentenced for life long prison because of that). 'It has always been this way' for me is not really a good explaination.

(They told us on the news yesterday for instance, that women wearing trousers is now no longer illegal in Paris.)

So maybe it would be a start to just make any weapons illegal that were not widely available to people in the time when these laws were made, because these laws were made for these weapons?

I presume the counter to that would be that the second amendment asserts a principle of defence rather than a specific technology. As the enemy / potential enemy makes use of improved technology so must the people make use of that same technology in order to restore the status quo as per the spirit of the second amendment.

Just saying

Mind, the Second Amendment also heavily implies that these weapons are supposed to be used in a well-regulated militia, which 99% of them are not.

There was a suggestion way back when this thread was but a twinkle in our disagreeing eyes , that Americans should only be able to hold those guns that were used back when the 2nd amendment was written

Mr. X;

>If you were born and raised in New York and currently live in Florida, why did you just use British spelling for "humor"?

I think it has something to do with spending most of my time on this computer writing a British web-site. h2g2, you may have heard about it My spell check here is set to UK so its just easier to use UK spelling in posts

Off to w*%k

FS

Whether you agree or disagree with the 2nd Amendment, the idea that it should be limited to the weapons available 200+ years ago does nothing to move the discussion forward. It's baseless, silly and irrelevant. Obviously it was never meant to limit weapons to those of a certain era. Also, regardless of what some 2nd Amendment absolutists say, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not say that there can not be restrictions on certain weapons. Fully automatic weapons require a federal license. Explosives, and certain materials used to make explosives are very tightly controlled now (although, in the case of many formerly used in science classrooms, some may have more to do with insurance liability than federal law). There are many specific local laws regarding hand guns. Restrictions on arms are NOT unconstitutional. What restrictions we will have in the future is what is being debated. But no one can seriously suggest that the restriction will be to muskets and blunderbusses.

Ahem. About 'UK spelling'. I use UK spelling around here to keep the peace. But that's also the kind of spelling I was taught as a kid in Tennessee, before we moved to Pittsburgh and I had to fight with Mrs McGillicuddy.

'Humor' is Yankee spelling.

"some may have more to do with insurance liability than federal law"

There's a possible avenue for gun control advocates to pursue.

There would be nothing rights-infringing about making it a legal requirement to have third-party insurance to protect against the possible consequences of your use of your gun. I am required by UK law to hold such insurance before I'm allowed to operate a motor vehicle. This makes sure if I ram said vehicle into an unsuspecting bystander, my insurance will pay out to them. It doesn't in any way interfere with my "right", such as it is, to own and operate a car. I can't see why one might not be required, as a matter of law, to insure any and all guns one owned against their possible accidental, negligent or criminal misuse.

The beauty of this approach is, insurance underwriters being what they are, the very best risks (and hence cheapest policies) will be... responsible gun owners. Sober, law-abiding, well-balanced people. Those kinds of people could rely on there being cheap, easily accessible insurance.

Pretty rapidly, however, there would emerge classes of people for whom the cost of gun insurance was too high. People who the raw statistics would prove could not be trusted with guns. And the insurance companies would, blindly and even-handedly and therefore perfectly legally (one would hope) would discriminate against those people by requiring them to pay higher insurance premiums, because they're a worse risk.

In the UK, I pay a couple of hundred quid a year for my car insurance. Were I twenty five years younger, I'd expect to pay about ten times as much, purely based on my age. It used to be that were I female, I'd pay less - but that particular perfectly statistically valid discrimination has been banned; thank you Brussels.

It doesn't mean anyone's "right" to run a car is affected. Just how likely they are to be able to afford it.

So you could leave the acquisition of firearms as restricted or unrestricted as you like, but enact a Federal law absolutely requiring all guns to be registered and insured... at an expense determined by the insurance industry. Let's have gun owners charged the REAL cost of their toys. Got shot? Got medical expenses as a result? The insurance will pay out. Who could argue that's unfair?

Of course, crims won't register or insure their guns, so the insurance premiums would have to have a bit added on to cover the costs of uninsured shooters. This would be a problem - but there's a problem with uninsured drivers, and it doesn't mean we don't think having car insurance shouldn't be a legal requirement.

People might object to having their guns registered, but I can't see why a car is any different than a gun in this respect - the government knows what cars you (legally) have. It's legitimately their business.

An additional beauty to the insurance scheme is, as time goes on, you could add tax to the insurance policy costs to cover things like crime detection. Eventually, legally owning a gun would become prohibitively expensive for all but the super-rich and people who could prove they needed a special discount (e.g. gamekeepers, farmers etc.). This would not infringe any "right" - you have the right to own a gun, whatever owning it costs... you don't have the right to have one for free. That's a nicely capitalist line that should go down well in the US...

There'd be a LOT of money to be made insuring guns. There'd be a lot of controversy too... on what bases could a company hike up insurance? Live in a bad neighbourhood? Higher risk of your gun being stolen or used in a crime, higher premium. Got a history of drink-driving? High risk behaviour indicated, higher premium. On prescription medication? Higher premium. Poor eyesight? Higher premium. Young? Higher premium. Black? Hoo... daddy. Could a company be allowed to charge black gun owners more for insurance, based on actuarial statistics? Why not? How about men vs. women?

Obviously some things would lower your premium. Law enforcement officers and soldiers should get an automatic discount. Former LEOs or service personnel similarly. Anyone who can produce evidence of recent firearms training, ditto.

And obviously, some guns would cost more to insure than others, in exactly the same way that it costs more to insure a sports car than a base-model hatchback.

Can the pro-gun people on the thread think of any reason why this is
(a) unConstitutional
(b) impractical or
(c) undesirable?

Because I can't think of anything...

Registering you car versus registering your gun.
Licensing your car versus licensing your gun.
Third party insurance for the car versus third party insurance for the gun.

Sounds like a solid argument to me. One cannot argue against the right issues for one (invasion of privacy etc) but not for the other - surely?

Excellent idea Hoo!

It would certainly appeal to the insurance companies
who feel they will be deprived of business and money
because of Obamacare guaranteed health care. It would
soon standardise compensation levels for victims and
their families.

It wouldn't bother the rich as the cost would become
a cost of living expense and tax deductible. Legitimate
gun-owners such as law enforcement would enjoy special
disocunted rates. You sem to have covered all the bases.

Only... the poor won't be too happy about it. And this will
lead to a new status of criminal - those who possess guns
that they can't afford to insure. But effectively enforced
these laws would see lots of poor people put away or
just shot dead for non-compliance.

Sounds like a win-win to me.


~jwf~

I think it's an intriguing idea.

As to the idea that poor people would have uninsured guns, er...that happens with cars all the time.

Especially in Philadelphia. The chances that the person who ran into you has insurance aren't very good.

Exactly!
A sure-fire recipe for class warfare.

Besides, where can you hang a licence plate on a gun?


~jwf~

>> Besides, where can you hang a licence plate on a gun? <<

You can put one of those fancy barcodes on it, or one of those identity microchippy thingys.
A while back I heard the US government were giving the military billions of taxspayers dollars to develop a "smart bullet". Obviously some smart guy in the Pentagon probably thought we have smart bombs why not have smart bullets - see the following link.

http://theweek.com/article/index/223898/the-smart-bullets-that-steer-themselvesnbsp

If all bullets had this smart technology then they could be programmed to refuse to fire from an uninsured firestick. Alternately they could guide themselves into the newest police station and inform them of the uninsured firearms owner.

... nearest police station ...