Thought experiment: If NEW gun purchases with high capacity clips required insurance, the way autos do, would that effectively price most young males out of the market because of risk? We'd still have plenty of weapons, but mostly owned by the safest demographics. Discuss.
-
-
How would this be applied to the 350 million firearms currently in circulation? What is the penalty, a ticket?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Firearms insurance is incredibly cheap. Requiring it of owners would increase the pool by roughly 95 million people, driving the cost down even further. You would see policies cost less than $100 and have no connection to type of firearm or number of firearms owned.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Privilege vs right.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Driving is a privilege granted by the state. Firearm possession is a right granted by the constitution. With rights come responsibilities. Abdicate the responsibility and rights can be restricted.
-
Small correction: Firearm possession isn’t a right /granted/ by the Constitution. It’s a right /protected/ by the Constitution. It seems a small distinction, but important. If we believe rights are granted by government, we’d have to believe it can take them away w/out recourse.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.