Don't tell us it's Guns

In -your- country.
We aren't talking about -your- country.
We do not not - can not - require American gun owners to carry insurance because it violates the constitution.
You may not like the answer, but that's the answer.

In other words...
You cannot demonstrate your claim that the security found in a service holster is insufficient for civilian use to be sound.
You concession, accepted.

 

Mindless nonsense.
Your par.

 

I certainly do know Richmond well and obviously you do, too. I lived there for 28 years, and I lived in Church Hill for 13 of them.

I agree with you that Richmond does have a lot of potential but as we both know its government has been a corrupt and incompetent disaster for decades, and in all the years I have lived in and around the city Stoney has been the worst of the bunch, which is saying a lot. I derive no pleasure seeing what's happening to that city but its residents are getting what they asked for so there's no point feeling sorry for them. Until they pull their heads out of their asses nothing is going to change.

 

You can not or you will not? You certainly can. Your constitution has been changed before.

It isn't about me liking or not liking anything, if you read what I wrote. It's just pointing out that you have given no argument or reasoning for why it should be besides saying what is and that it wouldn't be easy to change.

Again, that is a matter of standards. You have lower standards. You want to allow people who have little or no public duty or accountability to loosely carry deadly firearms, exposing the public to danger. You balance their freedom to carry the weapon that way over the safety of the other people. That's a judgment call on your part and if your countrymen agree then that's your prerogative.

 

As long as you continue to ignore the criminal element of this country your point will always be overshadowed by inaccurate facts... Clearly the law you prefer will give the criminal element dominion over the law-abiding citizens..

 

Strawman. I have not ignored the criminal elemant. I have in fact pointed to American culture (which includes that) as a big part of the problem. Guns amplify the damage done. Guns everywhere also pushes criminals to feel the need to have and use them.

 

How can a solid fact be a strawman? Who kills and advantages a firearm for gain?

 

People who have guns, who feel a need to have them while doing crime, and many of who get them by stealing them from people who didn't secure them enough to prevent.

 

Is "shall not be infringed" absolute?

 

Well that's dodgey way of saying, "I don't want to talk about reality"

 

For now? YES

 

Then felons not having guns is an infringement
Then having to pay for guns is an infringement

 

Not in their world They clearly don't adhere to U.S. laws!

 

Well, we do have something in the Constitution about the standardization of weights and measures, which can include money, wages, etc. We also have laws about equal protection under the law. And we have the necessary and proper clause which gives Congress great leeway into what is necessary to fix.

 

Wages? How do you figure the COTUS gives the federal government the power to fix wages?

Wages are between an employee and an employer. These are the only two parties with a legitimate interest in the outcome of negotiations and any third party interference is an affront to freedom and Liberty.

 

Sorry but insuring ethical conduct is not an affront to freedom and liberty.

 

Of course minimum wage laws are fixing wages.
And yes Cybred, fixing wages is an affront to the liberty of both the employer and the employee.

 

So, in your view, this lady should not go to jail?

Even though it is an agreement between two parties, what she did was quite literally illegal. And if you think she should get off scott free, I would like you to defend her as her designated lawyer. You and Turtledove.

 

What lady? I don't click on strange links from strange dudes.

 

Until is changes -- and it won't - we can not.
The fact there is a means to change it does not affect this in any way shape or form.

Your misunderstanding
The constitution was amended in 1791 with the specific purpose of preventing infringements on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms -- limitations that might serve to diminish the right to the point were it can no longer be effectively exercised.
The insurance requirement is just such a limitation.
There's your "why", and the argument you say I do not have.

Again, it's a matter of your inability to demonstrate your claim that the security found in a service holster is insufficient for civilian use to be sound

 

So you have no ethics. Got it.

 

rights can be lost through due process. BTW The third circuit just ruled that non-violent felons cannot be stripped of their RKBA

 

that's called a trial generally, or at the very least, a hearing.

 

no kidding

 

Congress making legislation and the POTUS signing it into law is due process.