So when you reply (using quotes) to a post by me, in which I ask who calling for a complete ban, and you wlrite "You are." It isn't actually a reply to me, telling me what my position is.

Why should you be expected to read back the last 54 pages, when it's clear you don't even read what you yourself wrote on the one you were currently on?

(that, by the way is a rhetorical question - what I mean is, stop being such a lazy lying ass. Please)

Lazy lying ass?

Excuse me, the "lazy lying ass" is in your mirror.
first, it was not I who said "You are" that was Bbauska who said that. lazy lie #1
but that reply made was to Bbauska so you only lied about it later when you were too lazy to check what you had said on the same page.

but then you claimed

Just like GMTom, you are taking my words and extrapolating beyond them, so you can then argue against the caricature.

there you go lying again! I never said that yet you lumped me with him (good company but I never said that) now if you are not being too lazy (as you say I am) then please provide a link where I said that, you are assuming I was speaking about you, I may have said "liberals" in a generic term and you may be a liberal but I never said that about you and you have made that position quite clear. Now how about you stop the insults, especially when you are wrong in your slander.

This is a very depressing thread.

agreed

GMTom wrote:you are wrong in your slander.

Indeed, I was. I apologise. The red mist, I guess, meant I misread who posted what. No excuse, frankly.

freeman2 wrote: I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court says we have a right to carry guns around like it was the wild west...

I wouldn't be. I think there are already 3 votes (Scalia, Thomas & Alito) for it. The question is whether Roberts and Kennedy would vote to uphold. I don't know.

However, considering Judge Posner wrote the 7th Circuit opinion, I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts and Kennedy would vote the same way.

I read the opinion. I think you're right that the opinion will/would be upheld (I don't know the status of any appeal but I would think the US Supreme Court would just deny cert) The opinion simply held that the Illinois law,the only state to have such a law, was overbeoad in completely banning
the carrying of guns in public with few exceptions. I agree that Posnet is right in saying that once you say there a right to self-defense with a gun, it makes no sense to say that said right is only applicable to the home. But Posner also indicated that while the government could not have a blanket prohibition on carrying guns in public, a permit system was acceptable.
I think the real issue is how difficult can the government make it getting the permit? One would think, that consistent with Posner's opinion, that you could not prevent a person who has no criminal record, no mental health problems, and who could point to reasonable, individualized reasons for having the permit from carrying a gun in public. But how about if someone wants a permit but can give no reasons pertinent to their individualized safety (for example they live in a low-crime area and there is nothing about their background that would make more likely to be the victim of a crime than any other person?
I agree that the US Supreme Court, as presently constituted, would uphold Posner. The more interesting question is where they would line-draw, which leads me to think they would want to look at cases that have significant restrictions on getting a permit rather than take up the Illinois case.

and as you state, such permits need to be "reasonable". That would lead to the proposed New York State requirement of 1 million dollars in insurance to be considered UNreasonable ($3000 or so per year). I know I sound like a gun rights nut here, I really am not, I have a whole host of problems with all of this!

Tom, check your car insurance. What is your liability protection?

Driving a car is not a constitutional right now is it?
check how much you paid for your last cup of coffee, same nonsensical difference.
Your right to bear arms is a right, it must have reasonable restrictions and making it so very few (hunters included!) can afford them is most certainly not "reasonable".

I was talking to a few people here and we were discussing bb guns when we were kids, I looked up what was available nowadays, I checked freaking Walmart and the first bb gun shown was this:

Now do we really need to have this type of design????

tom

Driving a car is not a constitutional right now is it?

So?
Freedom of assembly is as well and yet when groups assemble in public places they may be required to provide liability insurance to use certain public spaces.

people may assemble less a permit, an EVENT is another thing altogether
...a gun show might require insurance, fine. but private ownership of a gun ...not gonna happen, just watch what happens if that goes through

Free speeech is also a right. But people, and media can be sued for slander and libel. Most media cover themselves with insurance....so they can't be sued out of business.
And the National Rifle Association (NRA) currently offers its members personal liability plus self-defense insurance policies providing coverage of up to $250,000 for $254 per year. At that rate, a policy providing the $1 million worth coverage required by Assemblyman Ortiz's bill could cost slightly over $1,000 per year.

If the intent is to ensure that guns are used responsibly, and that victims of irresponsibly owned guns have a recourse to remediation for damage done by irresponsibly used guns .... it is not a restriction on a right. But, a regulation on the use of that right responsibly.

Since you brought up car insurance, how many people have an insurance liability for their car is if it stolen and used to harm others?

Would not that be a better comparative?

Your liability insurance on your car might cover that eventuality... If one could legitimately be sued by a victim.
The question is, did the owner not take ordinary preventative measures?
If the owner loaned his car, knowingly, to some one drunk...he might be liable. If he witnessed a drug addled teenager take his car, and didn't report it stolen, perhaps he might be liable.
Its the same thing with firearms. If one takes reasonable and ordinary precautions, liability wouldn't be an issue. But, if one leaves guns laying around, loaded, and the next door teenager takes it and kills someone ...maybe.