Illinois Proposed Legislation Will Require Gun Owners to Carry $1,000,000 Insurance Policy

If it does pass can the drunk addict piece of trash living below me be forced to insure his stupid-ass for millions? Since he keeps passing out with cigarettes in his mouth it's only a matter of time before his trash behavior burns the house down destroying everything I have and possibly killing us.

This would open the door for anyone doing or owning anything that anyone could perceive as reckless being forced to insure against their actions.

Ridiculous. Though I really do hate the people living in the apartment below. Cant wait for the lease to be up. God, I hate white trash.

No insurance company would sell policies under these terms-

covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person

That's the real kicker....there's not a company that exists to even sell an insurance policy for negligance.

So, just another way to strip firearm ownership without outwardly banning guns.

reply to post by nj2day


Darn right like me! I live in East Central Illinois and out side of the State of Chicago MOST of Illinois is gun carying, god fearing, conservatives. I already emailed my (Democrat) state legislators not to vote for this if it comes to a vote. While most of down state illinois is red i happen to live in one of the few areas that is not

Im moving to Texas!

reply to post by MOFreemason


This is just another step toward our society becoming socialistic. Everyone was afraid Obama would ban gun laws. He won't be so blatant, but something like this will happen. The current governement wants to take control of everything as if we are too simple minded to think for ourselves. The homeowners bailout.....only 3% of Americans are behind on their mortgage. When will it stop. Soon the government will have control of everything and we'll look back to the good old days when we actually had a reason to work hard and succeed and enjoy the fruits of our labor instead of having the government tell us how to spend the money we are allotted.

I can not stress more that this will happen as long as the law abiding citizens with rights to guns given by the constitution keeps voting this pieces of trash into positions of power.

This bills will only survive and be pushed upon the citizens when the citizens sit idle and do nothing to protest such stupidities.

trust me this pieces of trash are going to make money out of the insurance they are pushing, always follow the money trail is usually there and that is the way to fight back the fat rats.

Criminals will always find ways to get guns and kill you, but will you allowe the pieces of trash politicians leave you without protection because they want to make money out of you?

Get up people and use your rights to complain.

reply to post by MOFreemason


There will be many if the bill pass and somebody will be getting a lot of money for pushing this bill as a reward.

follow the money trail is always somebody that knows the truth.

reply to post by marg6043


I partially agree with you...nothing like a good Chicago politician getting a kick-back from an industry it helped boost. But, I truly believe the primary reason behind this bill is to disenfranchise present and future gun owners.

A married couple with firearm identification cards would have to show proof of insurance--combined $1,000/month.

Yikes.

I should say that I am not from Illinois, and these are hypothetical questions.

I wonder how far the good citizens of a state can be pushed? When the structure of a political system forces rural people to tolerate the inanities which come from a government dominated by a trash-filled urban area, how long will it be before they take back what is theirs? Really, it is not like state legislators are immune from personal repercussions for their actions.

reply to post by MOFreemason


And the fact rats knows that and they know how much American citizens love their right to guns.

fighting back the fat rats is the only way to get even and the constitution made sure of that.

People for goodness sake is your right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rember the path to tyranny is through gun control

[edit on 20-2-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by MOFreemason


This will never fly, it is a another crazy attempt to ban guns, again. There are many in power that want us to give up our firearms, but I don't really think we ever will, just look at your history of Nations that gave over their guns, and what happened to them after they did. The Second Amendment of the Constitution stands, as long as We the People deem it so.

reply to post by autowrench


You know my husband send me a historical review once on what gun control has done in other nations I will try to see if I still have it in my E-mail.

Sometimes is good to remind others why America has reminded the way it is for so long that is because we are a very well armed nation.

I posted an entry on this on my blog. It shows my reasons for believing this ludicrous law would, if passed, BAN private gun ownership in Illinois.

The entry includes a link to the Glen Beck video on the subject:
amccright.blogspot.com... gun.html

So will the legislation specifically spell out the terms for these insurance policies?

If the law says something like "must carry liability insurance" it leaves a lot of things open ended. What if some insurance company somes out with a policy that says something like..

"covered in the event injury occurs due to negligence provided incident occurs between the hours of 3:58am and 4:00am, on a Tuesday, during a hail storm, on a leap year, and provided injured party is wearing spiderman underoos and smurf slippers."

Then they sell the policy for $1 a year.

Originally posted by marg6043 Criminals will always find ways to get guns and kill you...

But up here, they generally come from you guys down there. Frankly, as a Canadian, we'd be a lot better off if every knob couldn't buy a handgun and stick it in his trunk when he comes up for the monthly beer run.

Free trade my patoot. And I don't see anything wrong with somebody paying liability insurance for whatever mayhem is commited with his gun.

The murder rate in Toronto this year (2007) will be slightly more than three per 100,000 people. Detroit’s murder rate in 2004 was 42, while Washington’s was 36.network.nationalpost.com...

Detroit is of a size and population comperable to Toronto. And of those 84 murders in Toronto, 42 were shootings.

And here you need a damn fine excuse to legally carry a gun. Is there any connection, do you suppose? Hard to be sympathetic to this thread, but please, fire away!

Self edit to add the word 'legally' to the previous sentence.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

So it's time for the majority to stand up to the minority of society. The few are ruining everything for the many and this is the case here. There are less than 10% of the population who want this kind of junk and yet we all stand by and watch. Get off your duff and get rid of the idiots who are creating this crap! As the Scots always said, tis better to die fighting than to live on one's knees.. Soon we will all be on our knees.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by marg6043 Criminals will always find ways to get guns and kill you...

But up here, they generally come from you guys down there. Frankly, as a Canadian, we'd be a lot better off if every knob couldn't buy a handgun and stick it in his trunk when he comes up for the monthly beer run.

Free trade my patoot. And I don't see anything wrong with somebody paying liability insurance for whatever mayhem is commited with his gun.

I'm sure some guns bought in the US go into Canada, but do you really believe making guns illegal will make them disappear?

There are plenty of drugs banned in the US and Canada. However, a phone call can get whatever you want delivered to you in about 15 minutes.

Banning things does not make them go away. It only creates a black market for them which in turn creates more crime. The legislation talked about in this thread will serve no purpose other than to make poor, legal gun owners into criminals while allowing the rich to keep theirs.

You want to end gun violence, figure out why people are shooting each other and work on that. People have been killing each other for far longer than guns have existed and they will continue to kill each other even if every gun on earth magically disappeared.

I am not looking at statistics but I would guess that the biggest contributor to gun violence is drug activity. Dealers, junkies, gangs... all trying to get drugs or sell drugs. If we actually had a real 'war on drugs' much of this, not all, but much could be eliminated. Problem is the solution isn't politically correct and too many people would be crying for the poor murderers and exploiters of children.

Hardcore drugs... those that make you crazy or ruin your life like meth or crack must be targeted. Marijuana, IMO, could be legalized.

The following is of course greatly simplified but you will get the idea...

One. Close the borders. Make it known. Splash it all over the news, radio, drop fliers if necessary, but let it be known that anyone caught trying to enter the country illegally will be shot on sight. WHAT?!!?? Don't like it? Don't try to sneak in and you won't get shot. Simple really. You want to come here, you apply like everyone else does.

Two. All these people caught taking drugs are forced into rehab rather than serving a short time in jail. When released they must be monitored by a doctor for a predetermined time to ensure they do not relapse. Unfair you say? How about this, don't get caught doing illegal drugs and you won't be treated like a drug addict. This would also apply to those found addicted to legal drugs acquired illegally.

Three. Let it be known to the world that the war on drugs will be conducted as an actual war. You country has vast fields of drug crops being funneled to the US? We find out, we destroy them. I'm sure we can whip up some Vietnam era napalm or agent orange in no time. Once again, don't like it? Don't allow citizens of your country to send illegal drugs to mine or we will take care of it ourselves.

As for the dealers and manufacturers in the US, well they are American Citizens and although they are criminals they are still protected by the constitution so we can't just go around killing them off. It's a more difficult situation. If you seize everything they have they will probably return to crime upon release because they don''t have anything. Let's say you seize everything they have and auction it off, saving, say 6 months worth of the average salary for where they live. Upon release they get this back to get on their feet. I suspect with the supply of drugs drying up the quantity of dealers would greatly diminish. Simplified, I know.

Off topic? Not really. The reduction in illegal drug activity would greatly reduce the amount of gang activity. This would in turn reduce the amount of other crimes, which would reduce others including gun crimes.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Primordial]

I am completely and totally against this!!! This is absurd!!! Once again, we have to pay for the liberal's mistakes......

Originally posted by Primordial

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Frankly, as a Canadian, we'd be a lot better off if every knob couldn't buy a handgun and stick it in his trunk when he comes up for the monthly beer run.

I'm sure some guns bought in the US go into Canada, but do you really believe making guns illegal will make them disappear? There are plenty of drugs banned in the US and Canada. However, a phone call can get whatever you want delivered to you in about 15 minutes...

Maybe, but a look at those numbers carries some sort of tale. And it's not all about good manners. If I'm going to blame anyone, it's the courts, and the way they bargain off gun crime. I say carry an illegal hand gun? 5 years. Use it in a crime? 10 years. No bargain, no parole. Even the cops up here like that idea...now if somebody found their balls...

All these people caught taking drugs are forced into rehab rather than serving a short time in jail. When released they must be monitored by a doctor for a predetermined time to ensure they do not relapse.

The major argument I hear from Americans against universal health care is the fact that they doubt the government could handle the infrastructure. So I'm betting that adding a new level bureaucracy isn't going to fix much.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Well, I agree.. no bargains or deals.

And, yes in our current state, with the whole country being in the crapper and all, it would be an added burden. I'm just imagining that we could actually do things the right way for once.. I know..crazy thoughts.