I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.

The role of insurance is to provide protection to the one who holds it, not to anyone else.

Beyond that matter, insurance will not cover illegal acts. If a use of deadly force was found to be illegal by a court, the insurance would not apply.

 

Which would make such an unconstitutional infringement, and never withstand judicial review at any level of scrutiny.

 

They were protesting, protected in the first amendment aka legal. Someone gave orders.

 

Incorrect again, firearm liability will pay for the injuries of the criminal who was shot, that is if the criminal or if deceased the criminals family can convince a court to issue a judgment against the insured.

 

And protestors can be arrested and tried for refusing to leave an area when ordered to do such. An assembly is only lawful until it is declared to be unlawful.

 

The courts allow car insurance and health insurance laws even though it was preventing people from getting them. If the courts upheld that US citizens could be barred due to wealth, from getting life saving care, or having being able to go to work via a car, then they will rule the same for firearms. Its a right to own, not a right to not have to pay.

 

The First Amendment does not protect those who are trespassing.

 

Ah. You WERE aware of the fact they were not GOP police.
Why did you make a statement you knew was not true?
Still waiting for a reason to take you seriously.

 

Neither operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way, or health insurance, are constitutionally recognized and protected rights. That is the difference.

Beyond that, any private citizen can freely own and operate a motor vehicle on their private property without the need for insurance.

 

You must be ignorant of the fact the 1st does not protect every expression of opinion in every location at all times.
The protestors were told to leave the area. They ignored a lawful order, and as such were trespassing.
Thus, they were there illegally.

Still waiting for a reason to take you seriously.

 

The Sergeant makes the call to arrest after warning the protesters they are acting unlawfully, they are then given ample time to leave without arrest, however in this case they became even more disruptive and threatening, so out came the cuffs and off to jail they went.

As for this never happening when a Democrat is being protested, is totally false.

More than 200 youth activists, flanked by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, flooded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office this morning urging Democrats to act more decisively on climate change.

Capitol Police said they arrested 51 protesters for unlawfully demonstrating outside Pelosi's office in the Cannon House Office Building. The arrests began a few hours after the demonstration began, when protesters refused to leave the area. Pelosi said she welcomed the protest and called on the police "to allow them to continue to organize and participate in our democracy.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/13/ocasio-cortez-climate-protestors-push-pelosi-962915

 

This is why the rest of the civilized world is laughing at us, you have no right to have your life saved through medicine, but the right to a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds, that shall not be denied.

Regardless of constitutionality those 2 things are infinatly more important and needed in every day life then a firearm, and almost all americans use/need them only 1/4th of americans own a firearm.

 

That's because you don't understand what rights are.
Hint: if the government gives it to you , its not a right.

Still waiting for a reason to take you seriously.

 

What's that?
He chose to made -another- statement he knew was not true?
Say it isn't so.

 

Such is ultimately because there is no such thing as a right to be taken care of. Rights pertain to individualism and self-sufficiency, not governmental dependency.

None of which change the fact that they are privileges, not rights.

Constitutional rights are not contingent upon a certain percentage of the population legally exercising them.

 

Baloney and you cannot prove an iota of it to be anymore than something you made up.

Again incorrect, as of 2018 it is estimated 43% of Americans own a firearm and 43% is much more then 1/4, which just so you understand is 25%

 

Actually I can, the vast majority of every western nation other then the US agrees we need gun control. They also all have it implemented

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html
43% of house holds not individuals, only 21% said they personally own a gun. Nice try thinking 43% care about the right allowing insecure men to compensate

 

This does nothing to prove your assertion.

1. We don't know how many people own guns
2. Gun ownership was trending downward, but now there is no trend

Your source does nothing to prove your assertion.

Still waiting for a reason to take you seriously

 

Where's that been documented?



[/quote]https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html
43% of house holds not individuals, only 21% said they personally own a gun.[/quote]

And those households have individuals living within them.

Patently false, however a sure sign of manly insecurity is a guy who fears or hates firearms.

 

What other nations may or may not believe is of no relevance.

Such only reveals the number of individuals who are willing to admit to owning a firearm, when subjected to a random questionnaire by unknown strangers. And since such cannot be verified in a scientific matter, it holds no legitimate value.

 

If I keep my car on my own property I don't have to insure it. Would that apply to my guns too?

So your plan would be to have swat teams go door to door arresting 100,000,000 Americans if they don't buy gun insurance? Way to be a patriotic American.

 

Maybe we take up a collection and buy him a nice armband?

 

Good luck getting past the Senate or the President.

Wow, you're a bloodthirsty totalitarian.

 

And then the next election, the Republicans take back over. The last time a Democrat majority Congress overreached on gun control with a democrat President, the House got a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years (1994 election). That's why Obama and his dem majority Congress stayed away from gun control, until the point that he no longer had a dem majority, then gun control became an issue again. The dems aren't stupid, unless they are young dems.