[251EPyso]

1) I suppose it's part of the blanket policy, but I've never itemized them.
2) No.
3) How should I know?
4) Absolutely.

**) Can they? Sure. Should they? Well.

[boltondd]

Thank-you.

More responses please.

[kasandrasikl]

I didn't know you were a gun owner...

ACK!

[diegogo]

1) No

2) No

3) No

4) Yes (since I don't want to be accountable for crimes committed with them)

Bonus) I'd rather remove all regulation and tracking on cars than extend them to guns.

[Reftsheette]

The only insurance a gun owner needs is more guns to protect their other guns with.

[sestomosi]

Mossberg 500 Persuader 12 Gauge Pump-Action. Comes with alternate pistol grip.

[JesexhiSeeces]

1) So American gun owners, do you insure your guns as part of your tenants'/homeowners' insurance? (As a Canadian, when I buy/bought tenants'/homeowners' insurance, there are/were questions about what firearms I own, there value and what sort of storage I have for guns and ammo.)
no

2) Do you insure guns seperately?
no

3) Do some of you not have any 'property' insurance?
no

4) If your gun/guns are stolden, would you report it to the police?
yes

**) Finally - bonus question only for those that answer the above questions, if cars can be licenced and tracked through insurance and licencing, why not guns?
Cars, buggies, horses, donkeys. None were guaranteed as a Right.

[8Uxtkz7F]

You have to register to vote, right?

True.

[temansertewek]

Well, like I said when I answered, there's no practical reason why there shouldn't be gun registration. Gun registration infringes the right to bear arms about as much as voter registration does. Gun ownership advocates claim it's STEP 1 in taking their guns, but hey, Florida can purge registered voters so it isn't like voting is immune to registration-related shenanighans.


So, I would like Sloww to post that you shouldn't need to register, or show ID, to vote.

[asharbiq]

Little strange, Kid.

So, I would like Sloww to post that you shouldn't need to register, or show ID, to vote.

I definitely think ID should be required to vote. Are you clumsily trying to draw a parallel with gun registration?
A) They're quite different subjects.
B) I don't think that I ever stated that I was against gun registration. I don't know that I'm for it, but I don't think I've ever said that I wasn't.

[GentlieGant]

YES, registered to vote. I want to make sure I phrase it exactly correct for you.

I'm a gun owner advocate and I said that I don't know. Once again, absolute declarations are a failure.

[bug_user]

That is called an opinion. I don't guess it matters. President is supposed to be native.

[RildFiemodo]

Nice picture. So -

1) So American gun owners, do you insure your guns as part of your tenants'/homeowners' insurance? (As a Canadian, when I buy/bought tenants'/homeowners' insurance, there are/were questions about what firearms I own, there value and what sort of storage I have for guns and ammo.)

2) Do you insure guns seperately?

3) Do some of you not have any 'property' insurance?

4) If your gun/guns are stolden, would you report it to the police?

**) Finally - bonus question only for those that answer the above questions, if cars can be licenced and tracked through insurance and licencing, why not guns?

1) No but not required to as they are still covered under existing policy
2) No
3) See 1
4) Yes as part of the breaking and entering crime and theft of any and all property therein

Bonus question needs clarification - Under what pretense is the licensiing required? What value and jurisdiction does the licensing apply to? As a point of the matter hunting rifles, shotguns and the like are not currenlty required to have any registration while short barreled rifles and short barreled shot guns are. What is the pretense/case the government is attempting to invoke to warrant the registration and tracking? Further how does this square against the costs of such an endeavor?


As for the cars example the pretense is rather simple. The government has a compelling interest to know whether cars are road worthy or not as they have ongoing needs to understand road usage and the accruing costs of maintenance and new builds. Further they have interpreted an environmnetal impact as well from the usage of the vehicles. Cars on the other hand do not need to necessarily be licensed if sitting idle or operated wholly within the bounds of your own property (ie. not operated on the public roads), contra even the environmental impacts.

[cheapphenonline]

My barrel is sawed off.

[TeemFilla]

My barrel is sawed off.

I didn't know you supported circumcision.

[Anatolii]

I didn't know you supported circumcision.

I am circumcised

[JohnMaltczevitch]

Mossberg 500 Persuader 12 Gauge Pump-Action. Comes with alternate pistol grip.

Keep the regular stock on, if you want to hit reliably. A shotgun it the best home defense weapon. Choose the pellet size to be reasonably lethal at the longest indoor line of sight you have, and the wall will adequately suck up whatever get past the target. I equip mine with #2s. Buckshot would be overkill and go farther than intended.

[Intiltern]

The 500 has the shortest barrel you can legally own without a permit, and 12 guage is the "Mama Bear" guage. You're such an idiot.

He probably thinks that a semiautomatic rifle painted black is a "Assault Rifle".

[Grainiary]

The state would issue you a weapon if it called you up for militia service.

[EsAllCams]

I'm not trying to misquote, or even selectively quote you, but this actually inspired another question - Wasn't the 2nd ammendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") was meant to allow/facilitate states/governments to form militias? Wouldn't this almost necessitate the State to keep track of who owns what weapons so militias can be formed, if and when required? Reading it that way would almost make and anti-registration type seem, well, un-American, eh? (Just reminding you I'm a Canadian - btw- I'm really enjoying the level of discussion and I'm getting a better understanding of an American quirk that always irked me.)

Militia act 1792 mandated gun ownership in the inevitable call up of militia to repel foreign, read european invaders. Type and quantity of ammo also specified. Somehow mandating ownership of m16's tho and stocks of ammo isn't what you were after tho were I to guess.