House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

a reply to: Mugly

We will simply have to disagree then.

You want fewer freedoms more rules and regulations and privileges.

I will always want more freedoms.

originally posted by: Mugly
the founding fathers could not fore see what things would be like in 2015.
they couldnt fore see automatic weapons and so on.

That argument doesn't fly either. The internet could in no way be predicted as well. That's why the 1st amendment was written in a way that is all encompasing. The same as the 2nd amendment. It's all encompassing. It was supposed to ensure that the people had weapons that were on par with the government by stating it shall not be infringed.

So what would do more good in cities with high gun crime rates like baltimore?

Twice as many gun laws or

Half as many young men grwing up with no farther?

When i see things like eric holder illegally giving weapons to mexican drug cartels and getting away with it, i can not help but think that we need to atleast enforce the laws already on the books before we issue more laws.

I've always stated that in order to end gun crimes you have to develop a spine. Make any crime using a firearm punishable by death.

That way, ex-cons can regain the freedoms they lost after they have paid their dues.

originally posted by: AlphaStrike1001
So what would do more good in cities with high gun crime rates like baltimore?

Twice as many gun laws or

Half as many young men grwing up with no farther?

When i see things like eric holder illegally giving weapons to mexican drug cartels and getting away with it, i can not help but think that we need to atleast enforce the laws already on the books before we issue more laws.

I don't believe I would attempt to burn down, break into, or vandalize a home or business that I knew had an armed home owner or security guard inside... But that's just me.

But you're right. Current laws need to be enforced. New laws don't fix anything when current laws aren't being used.

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: beezzer

i dont think its sad at all.
why is it ad that john q felon with a couple domestic violence convictions cant own a gun?
not sad at all.

and the truth is this is not colonial america.
things do in fact change.

the founding fathers could not fore see what things would be like in 2015.
they couldnt fore see automatic weapons and so on.

things change. laws change. always has, always will.

en.wikipedia.org...

The framers of the Constitution, recognizing the difference between regular legislation and constitutional matters, intended that it be difficult to change the Constitution; but not so difficult as to render it an inflexible instrument of government.

im glad things change.
you know, the ole 19th
that is a positive change

The Constitution is not an instrument of the government but an instrument of the governed. "Shall not be infringed" is a command for the government to obey. The mind benders for years have been trying to convince the people that the Bill Of Rights was something granted by the government and thus can be taken away.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I was not really making a reference to the riots but more on the lines of their historic increase in homicides since then.

I would be willing to bet though after the first few looters running through the doors met some hot led the others would turn tail.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

Maryland is one of the states that is off its rocker when it comes to gun laws and restrictions.

There is usually a positive correlation between gun laws and crime.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

I don't believe I would attempt to burn down, break into, or vandalize a home or business that I knew had an armed home owner or security guard inside... But that's just me.

KAPOW!!! It's not just you, I believe it's the majority of American gun owners who would agree with your statement. Those that are stupid enough to take the risk, are the same ones whose families show up on the nightly news professing how loving and caring that dead family member was. Why would the homeowner shoot them, he could have just shot into the ground or air to scare him away. Hell, even Joe Biden agrees.

And there you find who will benefit from gun liability insurance. The insurance industry and criminals and their families. I agree the gun laws we have are not being enforced. What we need is for them to be enforced, and more dead criminals.

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: beezzer

i dont think its sad at all.
why is it ad that john q felon with a couple domestic violence convictions cant own a gun?
not sad at all.

and the truth is this is not colonial america.
things do in fact change.

the founding fathers could not fore see what things would be like in 2015.
they couldnt fore see automatic weapons and so on.

things change. laws change. always has, always will.

en.wikipedia.org...

The framers of the Constitution, recognizing the difference between regular legislation and constitutional matters, intended that it be difficult to change the Constitution; but not so difficult as to render it an inflexible instrument of government.

im glad things change.
you know, the ole 19th
that is a positive change

They couldn`t forsee automatic weapons?Really?



en.wikipedia.org...




en.wikipedia.org...



Come up with something original instead of using the shopworn huffpost arguments.

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.

a reply to: gortex

Not sure what is meant, exactly, by being "big enough", but responsibility means using a gun responsibly, and not necessarily by owning gun insurance. Should cooks own cooking insurance in case they under cook the fish? Its silly. Furthermore, there is the government intrusion issue. The government does not have the authority to make an individual buy something as a prerequisite to exercising one's constitutional right.

a reply to: mamabeth

We as vets ARE OBLIGATED to protect those who can't and even yes won't fight.
That is an assumption in the oath.

a reply to: Mugly

It's the person ,not the gun,however it is good to HAVE a gun when such persons are aberrant.
You can't insure that.

a reply to: Mugly

As I mentined earlier, WHO decides the premium?
Under WHAT circumstances can the owner and remain confidential?
It can't.
AKA registration.

I've noticed how in some forums a few posters have NO problem with disarming the poor or letting richer countries annex those that don't have the ability to pay for a military.

6 Things That Kill More People Than Guns



There were 31,672 firearm-related deaths in 2010. Of these, 11,078 were homicides. That means most gun-related deaths were accidents or suicides. Far too many to be sure, but there are plenty of things that kill more Americans every year than guns. In no order:

1. Cars
There were 10.8 million car accidents in the US in 2009. Of these, about 36,000 were fatal. 5,300 of the dead were pedestrians.

2. Alcohol
100,000 people die every year in alcohol-related incidents. In 2005, there were over 43,000 fatalities resulting from drinking and driving. Approximately 30% of suicides are triggered by alcohol use.

3. Tobacco
Almost 450,000 Americans die every year from smoking. About 50,000 of these are from second-hand smoke. Worldwide, smoking kills approximately 5,000,000 people every year.

4. Medical Malpractice
Preventable medical errors account for 98,000 deaths every year in America. An estimated 15,000,000 incidents of medical harm occur each year. The Center For Disease Control does not include it in its lists of the leading causes of death in America (it would rank 6th).

5. Obesity
Obesity kills more than 400,000 people annually. Over 200,000 die from conditions caused by obesity like heart disease and diabetes. About 190,000 die from being physically inactive for (way) too long.

6. Government
In the 20th century alone, governments all over the world were responsible for the deaths of over 260,000,000 of their own people.

Stalin used government power to kill almost 50,000,000.
Hitler used government power to kill 11,000,000.
Mao used government power to kill between 30,000,000 and 70,000,000.
More people died as a result of their own respective governments than in all the wars of the 20th century.

So to keep us safe, following the logic of a "progressive," the government would have to outlaw not only guns, but cars, booze, combustible plant material, doctors (and needles!), twinkies, pizza, and... itself.
- See more at: www.simplefactsplainarguments.com...

Looks like there are a lot more things that should be insured against. Maybe we will have to buy our own "alcohol", "cigarette" and "obesity" insurance. Don't know what the heck we can do against death or injury by our own government.

Nationally, cars kill and injure more people (and property) but the fine for being uninsured is not nearly so steep. Why is that?

a reply to: Violater1

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.

This is why you purchase unregistered weapons from shady individuals.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: mamabeth

We as vets ARE OBLIGATED to protect those who can't and even yes won't fight.
That is an assumption in the oath.

You cannot steal another person's responsibility from them.

The United States should not have a standing army. It is delusional to hand over to the state both the purse (taxes) and the sword (military), because you strip yourself of your own power.

History has proven that the nature of the state is aggression, and the state will not hesitate to use it's military--not only to bully other states--but also to bully it's own citizens.

A country with no standing army, and men and women who have the ability to protect their homes and communities from invading forces, would be buffered from both foreign invasion and the violence of the state itself.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

NO enitiy, culture or government has existed like America before.
Rome would not qualify either.
Without the Army all the might makes right Eastern cultures would have destroyed us long ago and still seek to do so.
The PEOPLE we elect turning on us like thsi is new however,I suppose it was inevitable once the internet exposed so many lies.
YOUR rank and file military has proven time and time again how much we love the country ,even as liberals spit on us we still hold true to our faith in our family if we're wrong we die.
FAR better than seeing what horrible people would create once we are gone.

originally posted by: gortex
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.

And I think you should have insurance in case you accidentally look at someone wrong and they have heart failure lol. Maybe if you accidentally bump into someone and they scream rape? You must work for an insurance company to think the way you do. 99 percent of people who own guns never use them to hurt anyone so all this would do is make the Insurance companies rich but no American in his right mind will pay it before a civil war erupts in D.C. so good luck with your socialist dreams.