Mandate gun insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Maybe not now, but in the end this may be one way the Gov't takes our guns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/
Now that the Supreme Marsupial Court has said that we can be compelled to buy almost anything in the way of insurance. How about obesity insurance while we're at it? Of course, it's one thing to mandate vehicle insurance which involves travel on public roads, but a GUN locked in a GUN SAFE because it's a collectors item???
 
The lefty march to "take away the guns" because, in part, the leftys HATE people who own them, may prove to be a political "third rail" for the party which pushes it. We'll see.
 
Hardly. I just hate politicized media. It doesn't matter what network you watch, you aren't getting news. All you get is fired up.
If people had enough of an attention span to sit through a factual and impartial presentation of facts with no opinion attached, we would all be better off.
The fact that every issue in this country has people lined up on 2 opposite sides screaming at each other is just plain ridiculous. The whole Liberal and Conservative thing is stupid. Anyone that subscribes to the idea that there is one set of priciples to follow, and believes that pragmatism is an abomination, is an idiot.
 
Quote:
Anyone that subscribes to the idea that there is one set of priciples to follow, and believes that pragmatism is an abomination, is an idiot.

What is a pragmatic level of gun control?
 
Gun Safety? This is a polarizing issue?
Fear this: Mobil 1 is NOT SYNTHETIC OIL.

smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
One thing that those who oppose abortion have in common with those who oppose firearm ownership is that both parties realize that actual bans will get shot down in court, so it's significantly easier to create de facto bans through cumulative restrictions.

The biggest issue with firearm insurance is that it goes against the nature of liability law in the US. There's a pretty good discussion of this here: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/11/how_liable_is_the_owner_of_a_s.html
 
Making an abortion harder to get in any one state or county doesn't make the potential parents any better or worse at parenting, just like picky gun laws do not deter good people getting them, AND bad people getting them. Now if you want to fiddle and be thourough with a background check that is already law, like looking into if the applicant is on antidepressants im all for it. Same thing with high capacity magazines. Psychos bring multiple guns what good is that LOL.
 
The fundamental issue here is PROVEN lack of responsibility. As a gun owner, I hate it, just like as a car owner, I hate the automotive insurance mandates and structuring. Both are ripoffs to me , given proven responsibility, financial stability, personality, etc...

But again, unfortunately people have, lose, misuse, use maliciously, etc. equipment that has a TON of energy and capability to harm, kill and destroy, regardless of what anyone claims its inherent intent is.

Just like jobs shipping out to China, unfortunately this IS our OWN DOING. It stinks, doesnt it. But the stupidity and incompetence of some cannot be stopped, unfortunately.

What is it, 150k guns per year stolen from supposedly competent (given the background checks) people, into the hands of criminals? How many accidental shootings? How many kids shot because of finding and mishandling? Unfortunately it is a LOT.

Folks like to make the car analogy. I dont like it, because you then agree to rnadom police watching, mandatory inspection, mandatory insurance. Lots of pro-gun folks have used that analog... Ive said why it is a poor one, but many insist on using it. Here it is, biting us in the rear end, just as I said it would.

I see this however, more as a money making ploy on part of the insurance agency, which is the only business that can freely discriminate based upon any non-PC thing they want, in a legalized manner, to just make more money off of the population.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

I see this however, more as a money making ploy on part of the insurance agency, which is the only business that can freely discriminate based upon any non-PC thing they want, in a legalized manner, to just make more money off of the population.


Righto! Their actuaries will have more on the line figuring out what a risk you are, compared to a police chief who can hide behind civil liability (or lack thereof) laws.

They could say one has to have a psychologist certify a gun owner is sane, every year, and have it go on the psychologist's malpractice insurance if there's a slip up. Given that scenario, simple gun insurance looks reasonable.

I see no reason why an NRA membership can't come with bargain NRA-backed insurance. If they truly believe in what they say they believe in, it should be a non-issue.
 
What is this supposed to accomplish?

As to law abiding people, insurance provides coverage for accidental or negligent acts as per the terms of the contract between the company and the insured. Insurance does not provide coverage for intentional acts. The reason should be self evident.

As to criminals, they don't bother with laws, unless they can use one to gain some advantage.
 
Originally Posted By: Win

As to criminals, they don't bother with laws, unless they can use one to gain some advantage.



'Criminals' being ones with law degrees who never argued a case but are elected into either public office, union chairs or corporate leaders? --lightbulb over da head--
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: getnpsi
Originally Posted By: Win

As to criminals, they don't bother with laws, unless they can use one to gain some advantage.



'Criminals' being ones with law degrees who never argued a case but are elected into either public office, union chairs or corporate leaders? --lightbulb over da head--


No, my point being that once you create a big pot of mandatory liability pool money, criminals will be looking for a way to exploit it, and cash in on it, because that is what criminals do.

This is just another way of taking advantage of law abiding people for the benefit of criminals, it won't make anyone safer, and will possibly put everyone at an increased risk of home invasion, or other bodily crime, from criminals looking to be a "victim".

Again, what is it supposed to accomplish, other than harass law abiding people, and hopefully price them out of a constitutional right?
 
I couldn't have said it any better, Win.

Nevermind the fact that "gun insurance" wouldn't have done anything to prevent any of the violence in recent years--the Liberals rush to inflict their "reasonable" gun restrictions on the rest of us in the hope that the term "reasonable" will make their garbage easier to swallow.

Can you imagine the Liberal rioting if the Conservative extreme demanded "reasonable" restrictions on abortion?

One man's definition of "reasonable" is another's definition of "extreme," "intrusive," and "dicatorial."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Worthless [censored] libtards


May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

Like these guys?

”I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. ”But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Reagan after the Stockton shooting."


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp
Worthless contard
 
Well, I wasn't going to bring up abortion, but it has some relevance to the matter of gun insurance.

Harry Blackmun, made up, out of thin air, a fundamental, constitutional right to first trimester abortion. Now, everyone, including those vehemently opposed to it, are expected to bear the pooled costs of insurance for this constitutional right, lest it may not be fully utilized by those wishing to exercise the right.

Why should insuring the second amendment, also a fundamental right, fall squarely and only on those exercising the right? Clearly, it shouldn't - it should fall on society at large, lest the right be underutilized.

The tyranny, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it, is just rank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top