House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

a reply to: thefallenone

Carrying a firearm is just like carrying a cellphone or tools in your vehicle, you want to be prepared if something happens. It has nothing to do with fear or being afraid of people. Gun owners know we don't live in a utopia where nothing bad every happens. We don't walk around with our hands on our six shooters like it's the wild west.

The chances of us every having to use our firearms are very low. Just like how most police officers will go whole career without having to discharge his/her firearm.

You Canadians will be screw when the zombie apocalypse happens.

"You mean to tell me you don't have Butter-knife insurance?!" (Sigh)

a reply to: Realtruth

That's priceless. It makes me smile.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
It makes sense to have a special rider for homes with guns.

They are optional, when they become mandatory they then impinge on a citizen's Second Amendment rights.

originally posted by: thefallenone
Not one of those items can accidentally go off and kill or injure someone.

Please explain the technical aspects of how a firearm 'just goes off' with out pulling the trigger.

So they're gonna starve all the gun owners out?

Well they forced Obama care down every ones throat so it should be no problem getting this gun insurance through, just like they did vehicle insurance and seat belts a long time ago and every other law that gets passed that doesn't necessarily agree with what people want.
I remember when the vehicle insurance became ticketable as a kid. I new right then and there that something was wrong with our country.

Right now I pay right at double for health insurance that does less than it used too and covers two less children than before when our family business could provide company insurance for its employees, of course they paid some of the premium.

We have to pay an extra 480 a year for two youngest girls on top of paying double what insurance used to cost me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The trigger is retracted by hitting it with a hammer.

Now give me your hammer rebel scum!

a reply to: thefallenone

Just wait until the bottom falls out and hungry,angry people start
raiding your little safe haven.Then you will wish your country allowed
you and others to be armed.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

it's produced by Glock?

Sorry by bias gets the better of me sometimes

originally posted by: thefallenone
I also truly believe those same great forefathers would be rolling in their grave if they knew that their gun rights created a country of people who are live their lives in constant fear. A paranoid life.

i agree with you.
things change. the times change.
i dont see how having insurance is a bad thing.

and to the person that said a gun is no more dangerous than a tv remote.
bwuahahahahahah
yeah, ok

a reply to: mamabeth

Government breadlines can't be used as a weapon when the populace is still armed.

The Plan
1. Get as many people relying on government as possible.
2. Disarm the people.
3. Control through food and healthcare.

No more bread for you since you're a political dissident!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: thefallenone

Firearm ownership is a right. It is not a privilege contingent on insurance or any other qualifiers imposed by the state.

it is not everyones right across the board though.
felons of all types can not legally own guns.
people with felony drug charges, domestic violence, certain violent convictions will prevent you from legally being able to own a gun.

the good ole founding fathers didnt spell all that out.

things change. this is not colonial america

insurance being mandatory does not mean you can not own your precious guns.
you still can.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I know how to bake my own bread and make my own soup.I don't
need any government hand out.
I will never turn in my guns!

originally posted by: Mugly
insurance being mandatory does not mean you can not own your precious guns.

Sure it does. There are people all across the US that are unable to afford car insurance or health insurance. People are struggling to pay their mortgages. People are struggling to even pay for food. How are some people supposed to afford the insurance to carry a firearm? Requiring mandatory insurance to own a firearm removes (for some) and puts a stipulation on the right (for all). While it's not colonial America anymore, the Constitution still stands.

originally posted by: Mugly

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: thefallenone

Firearm ownership is a right. It is not a privilege contingent on insurance or any other qualifiers imposed by the state.

it is not everyones right across the board though.
felons of all types can not legally own guns.
people with felony drug charges, domestic violence, certain violent convictions will prevent you from legally being able to own a gun.

I know, it's a sad day when people commit a crime, ay their dues and are still punished.

things change. this is not colonial america

insurance being mandatory does not mean you can not own your precious guns.
you still can.

Instead of crapping all over the Bill of Rights and denying freedoms simply because a few ivory tower weasel-heads feel that it is "out dated", how about actually abiding by the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place?

Again, you don't want rights, you want privileges.

I will always disagree and fight against anyone who embraces privileges over rights.

It's elitism, tyranny, and carries the heavy stench of arrogance.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Mugly
insurance being mandatory does not mean you can not own your precious guns.

Sure it does. There are people all across the US that are unable to afford car insurance or health insurance. People are struggling to pay their mortgages. People are struggling to even pay for food. How are some people supposed to afford the insurance to carry a firearm? Requiring mandatory insurance to own a firearm removes (for some) and puts a stipulation on the right (for all). While it's not colonial America anymore, the Constitution still stands.

no it does not.
it is not an open right across the board.

american citizens have the right to bear arms.
violent criminals dont.
felons dont. etc etc.

making insurance mandatory does not mean you can not have guns. it just means you would need to have insurance.
if you can not afford it then that is your problem.

there are also regulations as to what kind of guns we can have.

its a complicated issue.

i guess if a person can not afford the mandatory insurance then they would not be able to legally own a gun until they can afford it.
seems fine to me.

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.

This would in effect create a national gun registry and give insurance companies another reason to charge more money.

a reply to: Mugly

It is an open right across the board.

A criminal gives up their rights when they are tried and convicted. Just as they give up their right to liberty when a prison sentence is handed down.

There are regulations to what kind of guns we can have; those regulations are unconstitutional.
There are regulations for CCW; those are unconstitutional as well.
Open carry bans are unconstitutional.

So on and so forth.

This sums it up, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

i guess if a person can not afford the mandatory insurance then they would not be able to legally own a gun until they can afford it.
seems fine to me.

So, you can have the right so long as you can afford to pay for it?

I'm sorry. That dog don't hunt.

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

a reply to: EternalSolace

i dont agree with all that.
does not matter.

i dont care enough about this to continue talking about it with you or anyone else.
i will just sit back and read the posts.

that dog hunts just fine for me btw