It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Democrat Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) has introduced The Firearm Risk Protection Act in the House on Friday (they always introduce the nefarious acts over the weekend).
thehill.com...
Americans 2nd Amendment rights would be impinged by forcing gun buyers to pay for a liability insurance plan (Obama gunCare?), and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Democrat Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) states, “An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur." She also introduced a law that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general. Of coarse, New York has always displayed a law-abiding attitude.



+18 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1
Gee. Shouldn't knife owners be required to carry insurance too. And baseball bat owners....
Hell, anyone can pick up a rock and throw it.
Let's just make everyone buy liability insurance for the results of what they might do.

edit on b000000312015-05-30T09:28:35-05:0009America/ChicagoSat, 30 May 2015 09:28:35 -0500900000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


+12 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Both acts will be a failure just like she is. I really wish people would quit sending trash to congress.
edit on 5/30/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

As a dispassionate observer I think it's a good idea that owners of dangerous equipment should have liability insurance in case of an accident , I think it should be part of responsible gun ownership to make sure you're covered.


+17 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Behavior modification through legislation.

Why don't they just come clean and say, "We don't want you to have guns!"


+20 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Sorry ,NO
We already HAVE liability laws for acts of violence and irresponsability that can be applied ,we don't need gateways to disarm the poor.


+7 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
...and gun crimes are always committed by law abiding gun owners. Right.

Again, law abiding citizens, such as myself, pay for the actions of criminals should this travesty get through committee.

Wait. What guns? Some evil miscreant stole 'em...damn, when did that happen?




“Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."
**bold mine**

Do they even think about the things they say???


edit on 5/30/2015 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So what you're saying is the onus is on the state rather than the individual ?


+24 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

So since we are forced to buy health insurance and auto insurance why not insurance for guns, lawn mowers, kitchen knives and whatever else Government can find to reward the insurance lobby? Seriously, some people are such useful idiots.


+8 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

"Victims of gun violence".

Might that include criminals and individuals conducting illegal activities?

So we need to pay criminals because they were injured conducting a crime?

WTF?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

It may be a Democrat who introduced the Act, but I'll bet ya dollars to donuts most Republicans would vote for it too, if they thought they could do so ... and still get re-elected. No one who can afford their own private security detail wants us to have a gun. That's why they keep trying to make it more expensive to own them.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So what you're saying is the onus is on the state rather than the individual ?

I think the victim should bring a civil suit just like in other issues not involving guns. If you have to sue a penniless criminal, you are out of luck.
Life is an 'at risk endeavor' imo.


+4 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
So what you're saying is the onus is on the state rather than the individual ?


Why would it be on anyone? Does the state have liability if some jackass brains you with a hammer?


+5 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

That just occurred to me, as well...

I shoot, god forbid, someone breaking into my home, and I'm paying even more in insurance premiums? Oh, hell no.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: gortex
So what you're saying is the onus is on the state rather than the individual ?


Why would it be on anyone? Does the state have liability if some jackass brains you with a hammer?


Of course the state should be liable. If they had done more to ensure that hammers stayed out of reach of the criminal element, they wouldn't have gotten their head smashed in with one.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
first we had car insurance
now we are about to have self driving cars that can't be blamed for running people over
(LOL, people will likely be expected to have insurance in case one gets run over by a SD car
or robot of any kind, I'm guessing)

well next: gun insurance
next,I suppose we will have self shooting guns
now there is an insurance scam waiting to happen

edit on Satam5b20155America/Chicago46 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


also
when they jack the big cc bike insurance up, only the super rich/big criminals can afford big bikes...
many big brutes in such places drive lower cc sporsters...a ladie's bike if you will...
edit on Satam5b20155America/Chicago32 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




Seriously, some people are such useful idiots.

Insults so early into the thread

If you own and carry a gun why wouldn't you have to insure yourself against accidents , people do get shot by accident don't they ?
If your big enough to own and carry a gun you're big enough to accept the responsibility for protecting yourself or others against the unexpected.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Of course the state should be liable. If they had done more to ensure that hammers stayed out of reach of the criminal element, they wouldn't have gotten their head smashed in with one.


Those gubmint bastids will never get my framing hammer!


+5 more 
posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
If you own and carry a gun why wouldn't you have to insure yourself against accidents , people do get shot by accident don't they ?


Because that is what civil court is for.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Of course the state should be liable. If they had done more to ensure that hammers stayed out of reach of the criminal element, they wouldn't have gotten their head smashed in with one.


Those gubmint bastids will never get my framing hammer!

Just wait until the jack booted thugs knock on (in) your door with an even bigger hammer.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join