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: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: neo96

THEN we could protest because WE can't afford better guns,because THE MAN keeps Combat vets DOWN!


Only if it's in a free speech zone, and a no gun zone.

Might have to have insurance just to protest.

God only knows what's next.

A certain party that was name in the op just LOVES corporations.

Especially them insurance ones.




posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Oxygen tax liability would be a guess...



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: neo96

Oxygen tax liability would be a guess...


Good guess with the same people who brought us 'gun' insurance with their delusions of 'saving' the planet.

Will prolly create that too.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: neo96



Oxygen tax liability would be a guess...


You'll buy the oxygen liability policy I offer and like it! You need to be protected in case you breath on someone.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I'm sorry guys but this is ridiculous. Air isn't a dangerous commodity. Cars need insurance because they are dangerous. What's the problem? I see as.... LEAVE THE GUNS ALONE, even if it is a good idea.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

A little off topic, but while where they were going is extreme, it's not unfathomable.

If I have the flu, and cough on someone causing them to catch it, it could be said I'm liable for their medical bills should they seek treatment. In that light, liability for air isn't that far fetched.


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



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

The only difference is that a cough is an involuntary action. Owning a gun is voluntary.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: EternalSolace

The only difference is that a cough is an involuntary action. Owning a gun is voluntary.



An involuntary action carried out while voluntarily in public.

I don't know. While it's absurd, I could see how some idiot would try to implement it.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




I'm sorry guys but this is ridiculous. Air isn't a dangerous commodity.


That depends on who you ask. Air contains CO2 which some people have deemed to be evil like guns.

Really not at all far fetched, but just as someone thinking an oxygen tax liability is ridiculous. So do many gun owners think gun insurance is ridiculous.




. LEAVE THE GUNS ALONE


Definately agree with this.

Even more so a gun insurance company going the way of AIG with derivatives, and imploding to where they need a 'bailout'.

I think gun insurance is a terrible idea.
edit on 30-5-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
How about Voter Insurance?

You would be required to have it to vote, and insurance companies would have to pay out if the person you voted for passes some legislation like Obamacare, the Patriot Act, bank bailouts, NSA spying programs, etc. The payout would be paid directly to the insured people that voted, but didn't vote for the candidate that passed the legislation.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   


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


Of course it's a good idea, that's why everyone here hates it. It has no chance of passing anyway, I don't know what people are freaking out for.

It's ironic that people who always talk about responsibility don't want to have any responsibility for their own actions.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328

It's ironic that people who always talk about responsibility don't want to have any responsibility for their own actions.


Wrong.

1. If you shoot a criminal, you are not responsible for his/her well being or medical bills.

2. If you accidently shoot someone, you are already responsible civilly and criminally.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
People get accidentally shot all the time with no consequences.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

People get stabbed all the time.

What's your point?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
How about Voter Insurance?

You would be required to have it to vote, and insurance companies would have to pay out if the person you voted for passes some legislation like Obamacare, the Patriot Act, bank bailouts, NSA spying programs, etc. The payout would be paid directly to the insured people that voted, but didn't vote for the candidate that passed the legislation.


I like this one, only I would say to take it one step further. Everyone keeps saying that these gun control laws are to cut down or stop murders by gun. Now most people know for the most part that it won't work because guns are not the problem. So here is what I propose, put it to the voters. If it passes and the government goes around collecting all the guns taking away that right, and nothing changes except the crime rate going up. Well then I think everyone that voted for it should have to give up one of their rights in return. And since gun owners lost they get to pick which one. My choice would be their right to VOTE, and not just theirs but their whole family's for say 5 generations. That way we don't have to worry about those people coming back after something else in the future that will also have no effect, except make things worse. At least then we would find out who truly believes in the idea, and who are just blowing smoke just to fit in somewhere. I think maybe if people were faced with loosing one of their own rights that they value, they may be less likely to try and take away the rights of others.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: CB328

People get stabbed all the time.

What's your point?


People get accidentally stabbed? Oooookay.


originally posted by: CB328
People get accidentally shot all the time with no consequences.


Which is why having an out makes sense. I figured it out. 100 million gun owners in the States. $50/year would yield 5 billion/yr. Put that in trust, not paid to a company. Easy peasy.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

Any automobile could become a weapon, at the control of an unstable person. A gun is the same thing. But only more compact.



My weapon is my brain and my appendages.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

How many people are accidently shot in the US who then don't suffer civil or legal penalties?

How many?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: intrepid

How many people are accidently shot in the US who then don't suffer civil or legal penalties?

How many?


Your question. Answer it but I would think a lot. You guys sue if you stub your toe on a neighbor's step.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: intrepid

How many people are accidently shot in the US who then don't suffer civil or legal penalties?

How many?


Your question. Answer it but I would think a lot. You guys sue if you stub your toe on a neighbor's step.


Civil means sueing.

And I'd be surprised if there were more than 3 cases where someone accidently shot, DIDN'T pursue legal or civil action.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join