“so we were going to award the life insurance payout for a murder, but since the shooter took time to inscribe the bullets as a type of manifesto, it’s now considered a terrorist attack and is not covered under our terms.”
This is a legit argument. If the purpose of the killing is to intimidate other insurance companies, it’s terrorism, and almost all insurance companies have an exception for terrorist attacks.
It’s also why we shouldn’t be as upset when mass-shooters aren’t called out as terrorists by law enforcement and politicians. There’s insurance implications.
I mean, we should be upset about that, just upset at the ridiculousness of the insurance to not pay the victims because of the specific views of the criminal.
But until the insurance problem is solved, it may be better for the victims of the families not to call it terrorism.
They’re going through absolute hell. Last thing they need is an unexpected loss of a 6-figure insurance payment.
A C T . O F . G O D .
Americans never stop surprising me lol, regards for shooting someone not innocent this time!.
If you keep doing this maybe you guys will be able to violence your way to some good.
I mean, wasn’t that the original goal of the second amendment? To allow the population to protect themselves from political regimes that want to exploit them? Makes sense that people use their rights to do something good instead of just building a collection is weapons to show of.
No, it wasn’t. That’s bullshit the Republicans made up to justify it still applying. It’s about defending the nation from attackers. At the time of writing, militias were the common way militaries were formed for most nations. Only the most prosperous had standing professional armies. The brand new US was not expecting this, so militias were seen as the only way to defend itself. This is no longer true, so the second amendment, which bases itself on this premise, is not valid.
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.
I still defend people having the right to own firearms, but I also support restrictions. People should have to be trained in it’s safe operation, maintenance, and storage, for example. They should also have to prove they have a safe place to store it. There are a lot of ways we can still protect people and allow for firearm ownership and usage.
I think you’re forgetting the fact that the founding fathers were revolutionaries. They very obviously felt the need for the people to have the tools to depose a government if necessary. However, they did not foresee the US becoming a superpower, or the extent to which weapons technology has progressed.
I read that to say that the right to bear arms is only so when a well regulated militia is needed to defend a free state. Given that it’s no longer the case, the right to bear arms does not exist- according to the 2nd amendment!
It’s not void or irrelevant, it has infact predicted and enshrined into law that there is no right to bear arms anymore.
Exactly. That seems to be the only reasonable way to read it to me. I don’t know why it’s never been contested on this premise in court.
Because historic context is relevant in court cases, really easy to show 200+ years of it not being interpreted that way
Its a very poorly written sentence, likely on purpose to force interpretation by judges
It was not written poorly on purpose. It was just written poorly. I’d argue it’s pretty obvious when observing historical context. Militias were how nations defended themselves largely, and it’s how the US did. The second amendment was in order to allow for this to be true. If this weren’t the case, why would the even include the first half? They would just say “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” At best, the amendment implies gun ownership should be seen as part of being a part of a well regulated militia, not primarily for personal use.
However, historical context of gun ownership is important. That’s where the 9th amendment (my favorite and probably the most important, though underused) comes in.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right of personal gun ownership has been historically held by the people, so there needs to be good arguments to limit it. I think these arguments exist.
Maybe someone finally manages to get Trump
Is the vice president of USA the better one of the two?
No.
That’s the bad timeline - T will burn this mother to the ground, a short while o fimmense pain followed by a chance to rebuilt. A smarter fascist replacement will irreversably destroy the foundations of this country and there won’t be a rebuilding after that, just a smouldering ruin.
Do what deny, delay, defend?
…depose.
Yeah, but they’re on the same side, and it isn’t ours…
They’re on the same side in that they are on the side of taking your money and giving you nothing. Ironically, that also means they’re not on the same side of this situation where one is the insurer and one the insured.
A broken clock is right twice a day
Why?
You, your boss, the executive board, hell the country and the planet even, is completely irrelevant to the ghouls who only see profit. Everyone is replaceable.
Externalities are not a cost feature of capitalism, and when the government fails to prevent the most egregious excesses of the ‘line must go up, forever exponentially’ money chasers, everyone pays the price for their greed.
Communities poisoned because freight trains “need to be umpteen cars long to be profitable” whilst demanding priority treatment on taxpayer funded infrastructure.
Over $60 billion in taxpayer handouts to corporations in the last ten years alone, often with no or weak strings attached, and a legislature that refuses to enforce the clauses and responsibilities that secured those subsidies. Collect payout, ‘restructure and reincorporate’ and poof - there isn’t a company by that name anymore, our contract is void but they keep the money.
Public sector employees driven to destitution by crippling low pay, while Congress voted themselves $174,000 per year rocketing themselves into the top 9% of all earners, whilst we pay for 72% of their healthcare insurance premiums.
The people who claw their way to those positions, even if not seeing the lion’s share, should check their alignment. This is a nice check.
Dude made 10 mill a year and still didn’t fix his teeth.
Dental insurance kept denying him.
Obvious lack of dental coverage, peasant
Na, its the smile of a guy thinking “don’t shoot me for this, please”.
Does life insurance pay out for unnatural causes?
I’m pretty sure they can tell he didn’t intend for this to happen
It looks like suicide to me. His actions resulted in his own death.
Suicide by greed?
But maybe his spouse did? I don’t know, maybe I watched too much monk
I mean we are only now hearing about all these suppose threats he had gotten from her. My brother wonders how guy knew exactly where he was going to be. Wife most definitely could have been in on the hit.
He was about to give a speech at a conference that morning. Doesn’t sound like it would be that hard to figure out where they would be.
Dude show up only minutes before he walked out. He didn’t wait long and was saw talking on the phone before hand. Money says someone knew Ceo was walking out and when and alerted the killer. Could have been the wife making the call. CEO was also pretty calm and brave walking out when just the night before his wife had gotten a bomb threat the night before at 7pm.
Yeah her comments are definitely odd. This is opening some speculation. If this was a murder for hire by his estranged wife, that’s pretty fucking clever to write those words on the shell casings. If it does turn out to be, I wonder how it will change the public perception of this.
Absolutely. Even for suicide given a year or two. Unlike healthcare, life insurance pays on the nose. They only have 1 chance to get it right before customers run away.
Life insurance is actually pretty good about paying out. Their racket is more about the aggressive way they sell you the wrong policy to begin with. They make their money at the time of purchase, rather than by denying pay outs.
In fact, most insurance, other than health insurance, is actually run fairly well. It’s almost like an insurance model isn’t the correct model to use for handling healthcare.
Why can’t more decision makers do the funniest thing ever? Ask yourself, what would Tim Onion do?
My mother’s life insurance policies, many of which she’s had for decades, are actually bleeding her dry with premium increases. I’m hoping seeing an accountant can convince her to drop at least some of them. She’s so obsessed with “leaving me something” when she dies that she’s going into debt to pay for it…
Edit: Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking to get anything from her and I’ve told her so repeatedly.
She’s already left you the best gift she could. You.
That would be so deserved.
All the CEO’s are starting a life insurer hunt.
