this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
221 points (77.3% liked)

Liberal Gun Owners

873 readers
1 users here now

A community for pro-gun liberals.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 182 points 1 year ago (18 children)

Man if only it was actually like how cars are regulated.

Required training, tests, insurance needs and has to be safe for others.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And you can't take an F1 car out anywhere.except a track.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean you can but it would need a lot of modifications first.

Not that you can get most of them going on your own anyway

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Pfft, what are cops gonna do, pull me over? Im in a freaking F1 car, good luck!

Follow me for more life-hacks.

[–] randomsnark@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

I can't follow you, you're too fast

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Or they'll wait for tires to go off or it to rain if on slicks 😂

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a saying from the “olden days” that nobody outruns Motorola (the radio company).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Not a vehicle on the planet faster than a radio.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago

If only cars were actually regulated like we pretend they are...

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (13 children)

What an interesting concept. Insuring the gun owner could really have merit. Then you’d have a company who would be very heavily invested in the responsibility of the gun owner, as well as needing a record of firearms owned to be insured.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (17 children)

You'd also have pressure on firearms manufacturers and regulatory bodies because the insurance companies covering the owners would do everything in their power to shift blame away from their customers, so as to avoid paying out on the policies. Suddenly you have a lot of money behind preventing accidental discharge, etc

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You'd also have a lot of people who simply couldn't afford to be covered because they are obviously unstable jackasses that have no business owning a fucking sharp pencil, let alone a gun, and an insurance company would be able to spot that in about five seconds.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Right, and my life insurance should be able to hold a claim against their insurance, or everything they own. That way my insurance doesn’t go up with their recklessness and my heirs don’t need to deal with the legalities

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. Gun insurance is the future. You want to have your guns? Fine. Underwrite the risk.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The required training for a driver's license is a bit of a joke.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

I'd rather a joke with a little training and safety classes to lower your liability insurance than the current solution of ignoring the problem

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is more than is needed for gun ownership. The arsenal I inherited required nothing. The one I have purchased required a 48 hour wait I think it was. In none of the cases did I have to prove I knew how to handle a firearm.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

Sadly depends on the state. Would also love if we did more like other countries for driving instruction. Although would need more public transport before that would possible

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

God I wish we could apply that to every right, y'know? Like, wouldn't it be great if we could test people before they could vote, so that we knew that they understood the functions of the different branches of gov't, the limitations, the history of legislation, the origins of common law and where our style of government comes from... It would be so wonderful if rights weren't really rights at all, but were privileges only given to the most well educated and intelligent people.

Maybe even some literacy tests.

Oh, or if you needed a license and credentials in order to speak in public! That would be awesome! Or if you needed to be an attorney to assert your right to remain silent!

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"providing evidence that you won't be a danger before being allowed to have a weapon? HOW DARE YOU!"

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

...That's a logical impossibility though. You can't prove a negative.

And now we're right back to laws that prevented non-white people from owning firearms.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Require weapons training, licensing and certification, require passing a background check, require renewal of said certification & license (ideally with refresher tests required. I'd like to see the same for drivers licenses too), revoke licenses when certain law enforcement actions happen (again, just like a drivers license), and most importantly actually remove the property when there is nobody licensed to have it (this needs to happen with cars too!) easy peasy

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wouldn't be great if the police could just search anyone for any reason (or no reason) at any time unless they have obtained a privacy permit? Think of how many criminals they could catch, including people who shouldn't have guns, if they could just set up road blocks and strip search everyone who comes through (except those with permits, obviously). For good measure they should make us all take off our shoes too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need any of that if you don't go on public roads. Many a farm truck has been driven by kids.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And no one cares about what you do with your guns if you're out in the boonies where you can't hurt anyone else.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh I promise you that there are plenty of people who do.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

There are 300 million people in America. I'm sure you can find dozens who care.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gun ownership is a right protected under the 2nd amendment. If cars had been around during the revolutionary war then perhaps there would have been an amendment as well. But as it is cars can be regulated to a larger degree as they are not a protected right under our constitution.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Constitution doesn't say anything about banning regulations on guns.

Almost calls for it by saying we need to make sure they're well maintained

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)