Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
A Question for Our LEO members...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aries" data-source="post: 3487626" data-attributes="member: 44328"><p>Yes, if Bob damages your vehicle, Bob should be required to be responsible for the damages. Whether he does it with insurance or is self insured is up to Bob.</p><p></p><p>No, we should not force them to buy insurance, unless they want to drive a car. If they drive without insurance, then they are forcing ME to accept the risk for their potential mistakes.</p><p></p><p>There is no second amendment for the right to drive a car, but I would be comfortable with the concept that if you do something stupid and shoot me, you should pay my medical bills. There's little risk of that so I'd probably have to sue you, but there is a very real risk of an accident every time someone takes a car on the road. Probably why lawmakers have anticipated ahead of time that you may cause damage to someone else's property that you don't have the resources to pay for, so we'll just mandate ahead of time that you buy insurance to protect innocent people from you.</p><p></p><p>Are you generally opposed to holding people responsible for their actions?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aries, post: 3487626, member: 44328"] Yes, if Bob damages your vehicle, Bob should be required to be responsible for the damages. Whether he does it with insurance or is self insured is up to Bob. No, we should not force them to buy insurance, unless they want to drive a car. If they drive without insurance, then they are forcing ME to accept the risk for their potential mistakes. There is no second amendment for the right to drive a car, but I would be comfortable with the concept that if you do something stupid and shoot me, you should pay my medical bills. There's little risk of that so I'd probably have to sue you, but there is a very real risk of an accident every time someone takes a car on the road. Probably why lawmakers have anticipated ahead of time that you may cause damage to someone else's property that you don't have the resources to pay for, so we'll just mandate ahead of time that you buy insurance to protect innocent people from you. Are you generally opposed to holding people responsible for their actions? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
A Question for Our LEO members...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom