Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Imagine living in a place where owning a gun isn't the real controversy, and this isn't already a law...
Literally the only gun I want right now is in the VR game pistol whip. It also get me exercising.
So, this only applies to firearms, right? Can I circumvent this by owning a bow, crossbow, sword or one of the cool experimental coil//plasma/laser guns instead? /S
That's hilariously low.
I've got £2,000,000 liability on my pet insurance. And she's got about 4 teeth left.
I believe in this wholeheartedly
but it'lll never pass, and even if it does, it'll never withstand a trial challenge.. because of the bolded part below.
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
edit And just so lemmy doesnt crawl up my ass about it, I am not an ammosexual, I'm quoting the 2nd amendment for its relevance here on how this bill wont stand, not because I'm a red hat wearing cultist.
I’m only for this if they make law enforcement and government agencies get the same liability insurance to carry as well.
You know it would be paid by our taxes not our of their pockets. And cops would raise the rates for everyone. They shoot far more people than regular law abiding gun owners per capita. Most murders are committed by unlawful owners who wouldn't carry insurance anyway, so the insurance wouldn't pay out most of the time. If this passes I bet it gets stricken down.
I appreciate the concept, but is $300,000 enough to actually cover the cost of damages? Guns generally seem like the sort of thing where accidents either cause minimal or catastrophic damage with not much in between.