Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Unreal - Colorado DEMOCRATS want gun owners to be liable for others crimes

  1. #1
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    3,656

    Unreal - Colorado DEMOCRATS want gun owners to be liable for others crimes

    http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-lawma...023710615.html

    So if you own an AR-15 and are a law abiding citizen, you are LIABLE financially to pay for the costs of a crime committed by someone else with the same type of firearm.

    Sure Republicans can be dumb, but seriously. How can any of you guys compare them as being the same as the DEMOCRATS?!?!?!?! The DEMOCRATS have gone insane, literally.

  2. #2
    Wow. There is nothing more to say about that. This cannot be constitutional, though I am not sure what it violates. Making law abiding citizens liable for a criminals actions. Only a Democrat could think of something this diabolical.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,371
    Quote Originally Posted by tank_monkey View Post

    So if you own an AR-15 and are a law abiding citizen, you are LIABLE financially to pay for the costs of a crime committed by someone else with the same type of firearm.
    I don't think you are reading that correctly.

    It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"

    Which in my opinion is generally how it should be.

    Although I wouldn't exempt any type of weapon from that.

    I do think there should be a few exceptions of course, such as limited liability for unintended damage caused by shots fired in self defense...although I wouldn't give complete amnesty for that, if you unload 300 rounds of full auto fire into one guy coming at you and take out the entire marching band who happens to be behind him then your liability should be higher.

    Another exception might be if the weapon was stolen, with the amount of liability limited by your attempt to properly secure the weapon from theft

  5. #5
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,371
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    How much crack have you smoked tonite? 300 rounds from a full auto?? can you dream up anything else??
    I wasn't the one who designed the M1919...

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I wasn't the one who designed the M1919...
    have fun troll

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,371
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    have fun troll
    I'm not the one spouting nonsense and then going back and deleting my posts when I realize I was wrong.

    As a responsible gun owner I know I am liable for every shot fired from my guns, I accept that fact. Acknowledging that fact is a huge part of what makes me respect the guns and use them safely.

  8. #8
    I don't know. As bad as that proposed law is, its a far cry from some who want gun-owners to have to purchase INSURANCE just to be able to exercise their RKBA. (Although I'm sure that will be next down the pipeline if the courts don't strike down this law first.)

    Imagine, instead of background checks by the government, your rights were instead subject to the whims of corporate insurance agents poring over every aspect of your life... kids in the home? Check. Evil-looking "assault weapon?" Check. No safes, even for your bed-side pistola? CHECK CHECK CHECK. "Mr. Citizen, your 6-month Firearms Ownership Insurance premium is $2652 -- minus 3% if you link your checking account." (With failure to purchase insurance subject to 5 years in prison or up to $10,000 fine.)

    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  9. #9
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    7,436
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    I don't know. As bad as that proposed law is, its a far cry from some who want gun-owners to have to purchase INSURANCE just to be able to exercise their RKBA. (Although I'm sure that will be next down the pipeline if the courts don't strike down this law first.)

    Imagine, instead of background checks by the government, your rights were instead subject to the whims of corporate insurance agents poring over every aspect of your life... kids in the home? Check. Evil-looking "assault weapon?" Check. No safes, even for your bed-side pistola? CHECK CHECK CHECK. "Mr. Citizen, your 6-month Firearms Ownership Insurance premium is $2652 -- minus 3% if you link your checking account." (With failure to purchase insurance subject to 5 years in prison or up to $10,000 fine.)

    Please don't give obama-messiah any ideas. Just what we need is for him to set it up like the unaffordable care act and make it so if you don't have firearm insurance, you just pay a fine that increases every year until you are paying as much as someone who has insurance! Why can I see the idiot-in-chief doing something like that?!?!?!

  10. #10
    Team GunsNet Bronze 02/2014

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    145
    I agree w/ Kadmos on being responsible for your weapon.. and not just semi autos.. I don't like where I read the want to make manufactures and distributors responsible for anything when they comply with the regs.. THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! in my opinon

  11. #11
    Not likeing or agreeing with this at all. Someone breaks into your home with condoms, rope, and a pistol. You open fire, and a stray round hits a naighbors leg in the middle of the night next door. How are you responsible? Wait a tic, you liberals......I thought the CRIMINAL should be held responsible for all actions that come about as a result of his criminal behavior? As in, you are shooting at him to keep him out of your home, and a stray rd kills a naighbors dog. YOU should be responsible for that? JESUS help us.

    And I know the closet libs on this board will quickly be on me about how every rd should be aimed, you should see your target, NO shot should miss in a residential naighborhood......Bullshit. In a life or death situation, you are trying to stay alive against someone who very likely has an advantage against you. IF THEY HADN'T BROKEN INTO YOUR HOME you would not be shooting at them, thus no stray rounds!

    Jesus help us.
    "What sick, barbaric bastards.

    It's one thing to use terrorism to make a political statement, but the wanton mutilation and suffering of innocents? How does that forward your political goals? When done in the name of religion, how does that earn you brownie points with God?

    Fuck religious extremism. And especially fuck the "religion of peace." "

    So, lagcsocialist supports terrorism AS LONG AS ITS FOR POLITICAL ENDS....

  12. #12
    Contributor 02/2014 FunkyPertwee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    8,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I wasn't the one who designed the M1919...
    Your shooting buddies must have gotten that from the same gun show that sells those nuclear bombs your so worried about gun owners getting their hands on.
    NRA Endowment Member


    JOIN, or DIE!


  13. #13
    Contributor 05/2012 TomO's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Central Florida, United States
    Posts
    250
    Ahhh...The government always keeps back ups handy. Even back-up registration lists.

  14. #14
    Chief Justice Roberts allowed the individual mandate to purchase insurance to stand on the ground that it was a tax and the government can levy taxes.

    I'll grant you that I should have to buy insurance to own a firearm, on the grounds that it is really a tax, as long as you have to pay a tax to practice any religion and pay a tax to vote.

    Oh wait, we can't do that? Not supposed to tax enumerated rights in the constitution? That's what I thought.

    This "insurance" is bullshit and its an underhanded attempt at making the cost of exercising your 2A rights prohibitive. Same with liability. If some jerk breaks into your house and steals a gun and then goes and shoots someone. How about punishing that asshole instead of the person who is a victim of burglary.

  15. #15
    Team GunsNet Silver 02/2014

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,138
    In case you were not aware, this place has been taken over by blue libs.......
    Dan
    WHEN YOUR TIME COMES TO DIE. SING YOUR DEATH SONG AND DIE LIKE A HERO GOING HOME.-CHIEF TECUMSEH

  16. #16
    Moderator & Team Gunsnet SILVER 01/2011 AKTexas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Most North City of Mexico
    Posts
    7,801

    Re: Unreal - Colorado DEMOCRATS want gun owners to be liable for others crimes

    Kalifotnicate is in the news for the same thinking.

    AKTX
    Last edited by AKTexas; 02-06-2013 at 11:36 AM.
    NRA LIFER
    BEING THE MODERATOR OF THE ROADHOUSE IS LIKE BEING THE JANITOR OF A PEEP SHOW.




  17. #17
    Team GunsNet Silver 03/2014 sevlex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    2,895
    The Bill of Rights of the Colorado Constitution:

    Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
    The way I read the highlighted words is that you shouldn't even talk about it.

    Goddam, I hate the dems! They have all migrated in from Cali & Chicago...and brought their "progressive" bullshit with them. Typically, they foul their nests & can't take it anymore when things go predictably wrong. So they come here and do it all over again. Fucking cancer.

    Telling the truth is treason in an empire of lies.

    Now take this blue pill and wash it down with some delicious Koolaid

    It's The Economy, Stupid!

    Nothing good ever comes from a pinched sphincter

  18. #18
    I dont need any fuckshit legislation from fucking mangina lip communists to teach me responsibility regarding any weapons.

  19. #19
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    11,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I don't think you are reading that correctly.

    It says "Owners of semi-automatic rifles would be subject to strict liability for civil damages caused by their weapons"

    Which in my opinion is generally how it should be.

    Although I wouldn't exempt any type of weapon from that.

    I do think there should be a few exceptions of course, such as limited liability for unintended damage caused by shots fired in self defense...although I wouldn't give complete amnesty for that, if you unload 300 rounds of full auto fire into one guy coming at you and take out the entire marching band who happens to be behind him then your liability should be higher.

    Another exception might be if the weapon was stolen, with the amount of liability limited by your attempt to properly secure the weapon from theft
    Would that apply to everyone (including cops who spray dozens of rounds at a fleeing car and hit innocent bystanders)?
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  20. #20
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    11,508
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    have fun troll
    The reply you deleted was MUCH better....
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •