The right wing is just NUTS... the answer to guns.. is more guns?!

[BGT Masters]

I am not sure how it works in Canada, but from where I worked....

A stolen car is covered under the Comprehensive part of your insurance policy. Any damage done to your stolen vehicle will fall under this umbrella - unlike the typical Collision coverage if your car was not stolen. If another party's property was damaged or someone was hurt, they (or their insurance company) can go after the other party (the one who stole the vehicle) for recovery of damages. If the other party is unknown or uninsured, then they can use the Uninsured Motorist portion of their own policy. Comprehensive claims do not increase your insurance rates. Now, if you live in an area when cars are stolen often, or you have a popular car that is stolen often....your rates may be higher.....but they will not increase from where they were because your car was stolen.

Gotcha your rates may not increase but your premium will or is likely too increase.

[Wickabee]

How is "the people" a well regulated militia?
If they meant the people why didn't they say "the people"

[BGT Masters]

The Constitution is fine. What is laughable is that people don't understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There is a very good reason that the right to bear arms is listed so highly in the Bill of Rights. Not only did the Founders believe that individuals had the right to protect themselves and their family, but they also understood that a well regulated militia (meaning the people) must be armed to to prevent a tyrannical government from taking away individual rights. What other possible meaning could it have? These men had just participated in an armed rebellion against England!

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.

The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.

Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently.

In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.

Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions.

Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.


For those that understand American history, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. And for those who believe that we don't have to worry about the government taking away our personnel freedoms, I'd say you're not really paying attention.

And in the 1700's it was sort of possible for well managed militias to defends themselves against threads coming from over seas. This DOES NOT pertain to today. We've been over this. I don't care if a million well armed civilians take on a force on a few thousands USA military. The military would stomp us into the ground. I understand the purpose and meaning behind the second amendment. However it DOES NOT apply to today. Weapons in today's society are far different and even if needed it wouldn't be possible for non military personal to actually put up any real fight. You really think with a straight face that some state militia could take on the USA military? You obviously aren't understanding the difference between todays society and technology and that on the late 1700's. Back then it wasn't possible to drop one bomb and take out an entire city. And again, why am I even having to say this. No one is saying we're taking guns away. We were talking about being held responsible for owning and caring for your firearms. If you're not actually going to read the discussion and just butt in with some cut and paste nonsense not pertaining to the actual discussion, just stay out of it.

[notes2us]

Gotcha your rates may not increase but your premium will or is likely too increase.

That's not what I said.....

Your premium (or rates) are determined when you get your insurance policy. That amount is determined by factors such as your age, your vehicle, where you live, etc.

When you file a Comprehensive claim (ie: stolen car), your premiums (or rates) will not increase.

[notes2us]

You forgot the part where your comprehensive goes up relative to the entire cost since the vehicle is registered to your plate.

That is not accurate. See my last reply to BGT Masters. The only thing you might be responsible for is your deductible. It depends on your insurance company and the situation. Sometimes it can be waived.

Again, it might be handled differently in Canada.....so I cannot speak to that.

[Wickabee]

That's not what I said.....

Your premium (or rates) are determined when you get your insurance policy. That amount is determined by factors such as your age, your vehicle, where you live, etc.

When you file a Comprehensive claim (ie: stolen car), your premiums (or rates) will not increase.

Not on that policy. When you go to renew you'll be paying more.
Then there's the deductible, which can go up as well.

I've never worked for an insurance company directly, but I did work very closely with them.

[BGT Masters]

That's not what I said.....

Your premium (or rates) are determined when you get your insurance policy. That amount is determined by factors such as your age, your vehicle, where you live, etc.

When you file a Comprehensive claim (ie: stolen car), your premiums (or rates) will not increase.

I just looked around online on a few sites and thats what I found. I read that our premium is likely to go up if your car is stolen. This is just one of a few sites I read. It is the internet and information isn't always correct, but it seemed pretty consistent on the other sites I read.

http://www.goinsurancerates.com/will...car-is-stolen/

"Unfortunately, your premium will go up if your car is stolen and reported to the insurance company for a claim. Insurance companies use any reason possible to raise premium rates, as that is how they can increase their profit margin. Essentially, if your car gets stolen, the insurance company views it as your fault, even if you have taken major preventive measures to protect your property. The typical excuse for the increase is to prevent any further thefts from occurring."

http://www.goinsurancerates.com/will...car-is-stolen/

[notes2us]

Not on that policy. When you go to renew you'll be paying more.
Then there's the deductible, which can go up as well.

I've never worked for an insurance company directly, but I did work very closely with them.

I don't want to get off subject with this thread, so I will just add this last thing......

A comprehensive claim is a no-fault claim. It will not increase your premiums (or rates). If they do go up, it is for another reason other than the claim you filed for your stolen car. Your deductible will not increase because of the claim. You pay a set amount based on the deductible you select. For example, if you want a $50 Comprehensive deductible, you might pay $25/month. If you want a $100 deductible, you might pay $15/month. If you want a $250 deductible, you might pay $5/month.

Again, things might be different in Canada.

[notes2us]

I just looked around online on a few sites and thats what I found. I read that our premium is likely to go up if your car is stolen. This is just one of a few sites I read. It is the internet and information isn't always correct, but it seemed pretty consistent on the other sites I read.

http://www.goinsurancerates.com/will...car-is-stolen/

"Unfortunately, your premium will go up if your car is stolen and reported to the insurance company for a claim. Insurance companies use any reason possible to raise premium rates, as that is how they can increase their profit margin. Essentially, if your car gets stolen, the insurance company views it as your fault, even if you have taken major preventive measures to protect your property. The typical excuse for the increase is to prevent any further thefts from occurring."

http://www.goinsurancerates.com/will...car-is-stolen/

Well, here's one that contradicts yours.....

"Theft is covered under certain types of auto insurance programs, and since the event is not the fault of the driver, it will not count against you."
http://voices.yahoo.com/if-car-stole...74.html?cat=27


Now, one additional caveat that I did not mention (my fault), it this may also differ from state-to-state. At that time, I was in California and that is how many insurance companies worked.

[tpeichel]

And in the 1700's it was sort of possible for well managed militias to defends themselves against threads coming from over seas. This DOES NOT pertain to today. We've been over this. I don't care if a million well armed civilians take on a force on a few thousands USA military. The military would stomp us into the ground. I understand the purpose and meaning behind the second amendment. However it DOES NOT apply to today. Weapons in today's society are far different and even if needed it wouldn't be possible for non military personal to actually put up any real fight. You really think with a straight face that some state militia could take on the USA military? You obviously aren't understanding the difference between todays society and technology and that on the late 1700's. Back then it wasn't possible to drop one bomb and take out an entire city. And again, why am I even having to say this. No one is saying we're taking guns away. We were talking about being held responsible for owning and caring for your firearms. If you're not actually going to read the discussion and just butt in with some cut and paste nonsense not pertaining to the actual discussion, just stay out of it.

Shout about your desire to change the 2nd Amendment and expect to get rebutted.