7 states introduce legislation to require gun owner's insurance

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I for one think it's a wonderful idea. Automoble insurance is required to own and use a car (another possible deadly weapon). I think you should have to carry insurance to cover the property damage and injuries that you MAY cause with a firearm.

And for you 'self-reliant', libertarian, pay your own way, types, this is a way to put your money and ideals where your mouth is. You cause damage, you are irresponsible - You pay to clean it up - not us through the State.


Pay your own way types? How is allowing the govt to force more unrequired costs considered paying your own way? Its a loss of Liberty which is exactly what a Libertarian stands for.
If i make a mess with my weapons, i will pay to clean it up. But i will not pay a company money every month for the right to own a gun. A right already afforded me by our founding fathers.
And since you mentioned car Insurance.... Do you believe that every car that you pass on the road every day is insured? What a lemming.
Criminals are everywhere.




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 





Maybe the law should force the greedy insurance companies to add a gun clause to existing policies, at no additional premium to the insured...

SO...let me get this straight. Force gun owners to buy gun insurance. Only the good guys will actually maintain this insurance. So, when the good guys have to shoot a bad guy, the bad guy, (or his family) gets a settlement?

WTF?

I agree with you, it isn't law abiding citizens that are comming these horrible crimes either. Like a criminal is going to go down and get insurance on a gun they stole, or never registered.

When are people going to learn that you can't punish the good hoping the bad will get the point, they aren't related.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This is total BS...


Mandating liability insurance would help pay for damage caused by guns, Linsky said. But the main reason "is to get the marketplace involved in making gun ownership safer," he said.




liability

Car insurance never made driving any safer, insurance cant put you back together, and its the same with guns, what are they really trying to protect here.

Do they honestly believe that hitting people in the pocket book will stop people from stealing guns?

There isn't ANYTHING that they could do from a legal stand point that will stop people from doing illegal things. Hell you can't even use the death penalty in most of these situations because the person usually either kills themself or gets killed in the process. What they need to do is start cracking down on people that need mental help. Where are all of these unstable people? Do they have access to guns even if it means breaking a few locks, or stealing some keys? The people doing these horrible crimes shouldn't even be out in public, they should have already of been locked up in a mental facility before it got this far.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
yes insurance to make sure it's too expensive for the average citizen to ever use their 2nd amendment right.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAmerika

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I for one think it's a wonderful idea. Automoble insurance is required to own and use a car (another possible deadly weapon). I think you should have to carry insurance to cover the property damage and injuries that you MAY cause with a firearm.

And for you 'self-reliant', libertarian, pay your own way, types, this is a way to put your money and ideals where your mouth is. You cause damage, you are irresponsible - You pay to clean it up - not us through the State.


Pay your own way types? How is allowing the govt to force more unrequired costs considered paying your own way? Its a loss of Liberty which is exactly what a Libertarian stands for.
If i make a mess with my weapons, i will pay to clean it up. But i will not pay a company money every month for the right to own a gun. A right already afforded me by our founding fathers.
And since you mentioned car Insurance.... Do you believe that every car that you pass on the road every day is insured? What a lemming.
Criminals are everywhere.

Ah, right, well in that case, as ive never had a car accident, I shouldnt need insurance!!! Excellent, that will save me £250 a year.
While im at it, as my house is not built on a flood plain and is unlikely to be damaged by an earthquake, I should be able to save even more money by not having it insured. Inspiring stuff!!!
Not having car insurance wouldnt make me a criminal because to have it would infringe on my civil liberties, right?
Stop confusing the criminal act from the legal one. Yes, people drive uninsured and they are breaking the law. If they hit you there will be a whole world of problems for you AND the uninsured driver.
Insurance is not a loss of "liberty" its merely protecting the innocent from the idiot and the " I dont care,I will do what I want anyway" brigade.
How much will it cost you to insure a gun? Does anybody actually know?
You are all so quick to bleat about the consitution being torn apart yet asking gun owners to be insured has nothing whatsoever to do with the constituiton does it.
Its like saying that, because the constitution gives every American the right to carry a gun, the government should ensure that EVERYBODY has the ability to purchase one.
Lets put it another way, what would you do if the government bought in a special gun tax that would help to pay for every American citizen to have a gun. Would that be ok? You could hardly complain that you were having to make a financial contribution to help fulfil the constitutional rights of every American. You would be helping the poorest citizens in their absolute right to be armed. Sounds like a fair idea, doesnt it?
Another poster has suggested that Gun ownership would negate, to a greater degree, a terrorist threat. Hahahahahahahaha!!
Tell that to the heavily armed American and British troops who have had to work in the hell holes of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc. I dont think suicide bombers actually give a sh*t if they have a gun aimed at them.
The arguments against Gun insurance is at best weak and at worst farcical. It doesnt go against the constitution, its not unfair and its not going to force people who own guns to give them up, is it!
I would venture that the American gun owner would rather cut back on Burgers and fries rather than have to give up their gun because they cannot afford the insurance. If you want something that much you find the money and, lets be honest, I dont see Insurance costs being utterly prohibitive, the gun lobby simply would not tolerate it!
As I have said previously, its going to be a small price to pay for leaving the gun laws more or less untouched.
Dont look a gift horse in the mouth.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by rickymouse
So this legislation may have been pushed by insurance companies? Insurance companies won't pay claims, they just tie everything up in court and make everyone unhappy. Capitalism at it's finest.


No need to insure guns you don't have.


But you may have a gun even though you don't have one.
With the electronic system and theft identity we have in place it may show people without guns having guns. If you have someone with the right authorization doesn't like you or you are a conspiracy theorist the information could also show you have a gun.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAmerika

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I for one think it's a wonderful idea. Automoble insurance is required to own and use a car (another possible deadly weapon). I think you should have to carry insurance to cover the property damage and injuries that you MAY cause with a firearm.

And for you 'self-reliant', libertarian, pay your own way, types, this is a way to put your money and ideals where your mouth is. You cause damage, you are irresponsible - You pay to clean it up - not us through the State.


Pay your own way types? How is allowing the govt to force more unrequired costs considered paying your own way? Its a loss of Liberty which is exactly what a Libertarian stands for.
If i make a mess with my weapons, i will pay to clean it up. But i will not pay a company money every month for the right to own a gun. A right already afforded me by our founding fathers.
And since you mentioned car Insurance.... Do you believe that every car that you pass on the road every day is insured? What a lemming.
Criminals are everywhere.


Also consider that, in every state, you only need car insurance and registration if you use the vehicle on public roads. If it is just used on your own property, you need neither. I know many farmers with battered old pickups they just use on the farm for chores without a single bit of insurance.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by LFN69
 


We've already determined that a tax or a fee to exercise a civil liberty is unConstitutional.
(see "poll tax.")

You seem to have "rights" confused with "entitlements." Having a right to do something does not automatically mean that you have a right to have that something subsidized with tax dollars or user fees from someone else. You have a right to free speach, but you don't have the right to have the government subsidize your radio station for example, the "government must provide everyone with one" argument is incorrect.

I agree that it is a good idea to protect yourself with a liability policy so you are not ruined when someone sues for slipping on your front porch or getting bit by your dog or hit by your car or any other accident, however, there is a difference between doing something of your own volition to protect yourself financially and it being mandated by the government.
edit on 8-2-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by NavyDoc because: because I cannot spel



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer


Probably the same place you get your thinking that you know what was best for Iraq, Afganistan Libya etc.

Excuse me?!?!?!?!
Where have I ever stated I know what is best for any other country??
Seems that the US Govt decided that, and is basically pressing that crap not only on its own citizens but on other countries.
Most US Citizens want nothing more then to get out of foreign countries and let them burn on their own.

Again, unless you are a citizen of those countries, which have more of a say in American Law, more so then you, where do you get off thinking you have a say in US laws?

That is nothing more then ego and hubris on your part and others. You worry about your country. Let US worry about OUR country.




Originally posted by purplemer

I know you guys like your firearms. But from over the other side of the pond it looks like madness. There really is no need for all your firearms. You can function just fine without them.

There is plenty need for firearms.
From this side, you all look like subservient cowards that allowed the Govt to dictate to you like a parent rules over a child, in regards to firearms.
I guess that you are all not intelligent enough to own firearms, without permission from the Government.
Now you want the US to go down the path your country has already traveled?????
No thanks.






Originally posted by purplemer
A lot of peeps seem to be saying they have them as to protect them from government. I really do not get that.

And you never will.
OUR guns beat YOUR military. Enough said.



Originally posted by purplemer
You guns would not save you from your own military. Just my two pence.

I think that you need the $.02 more then I do. Please, have it back.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Regarding listing firearms for insurance purposes. I don't know about everyone else's company, I use USAA and have to have a special rider for items over a certain value in the home. I have several of my more expensive ones listed - like my custom Ed Brown 1911 that cost 3k.

The difference is this list is between me and the provider it is not govt mandated and therefore not inspectable without a subpoena or a court order.

I looked at my policy just to see what it covered in regards to firearm accidents -it covered hunting, range accidents, and accidental discharge in the home or on the property (in the car also). It is all void if I am deemed to have acted willfully or the incident is the result or negligence or gross carelessness. I would assume any unsecured firearms lost not that are not in transit would be stored carelessly.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LFN69
 


You have no clue as to the proposed insurance requirements, yet you yammer on.

The insurance is not for accidents, but for intentional actions.

For the accidents inside the home or on the property, there is home owners insurance already for that.


Please, stop speaking on topics you have no clue on.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I for one think it's a wonderful idea. Automoble insurance is required to own and use a car (another possible deadly weapon). I think you should have to carry insurance to cover the property damage and injuries that you MAY cause with a firearm.

So what about knife insurance???
I carry a knife and what should happen if I accidental damage or hurt someone???


Originally posted by FyreByrd
And for you 'self-reliant', libertarian, pay your own way, types, this is a way to put your money and ideals where your mouth is. You cause damage, you are irresponsible - You pay to clean it up - not us through the State.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................So you are trying to tie this to Libertarians????
Let me restate. You are trying to tie Govt forcing, FORCING the individual to buy crap, yet again, and are trying to tie that to Libertarians??????

Clueless....



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LFN69
 


Still don't see where the people are guaranteed the right to "Drive cars" here....en.wikipedia.org...

I do see where WE, US Citizens, are guaranteed the "Right to bear arms".

The car insurance comparison is about as weak as it gets.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'm sitting here wondering what Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and Ben Franklin would think about buying insurance for defending yourself with a gun on your own property.

This country is mentally ill and it is mentally ill beyond repair. This is a kind of mental illness so pervasive that it would take centuries to cure.

"We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy." --- Chris Hedges



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by LFN69
 


We've already determined that a tax or a fee to exercise a civil liberty is unConstitutional.
(see "poll tax.")

You seem to have "rights" confused with "entitlements." Having a right to do something does not automatically mean that you have a right to have that something subsidized with tax dollars or user fees from someone else. You have a right to free speach, but you don't have the right to have the government subsidize your radio station for example, the "government must provide everyone with one" argument is incorrect.

I agree that it is a good idea to protect yourself with a liability policy so you are not ruined when someone sues for slipping on your front porch or getting bit by your dog or hit by your car or any other accident, however, there is a difference between doing something of your own volition to protect yourself financially and it being mandated by the government.
edit on 8-2-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by NavyDoc because: because I cannot spel

Erm, so every American has the right to bear arms and the costitution entitles them to. No Im not confused at all.
The argument I was making was a parable.
There does seem to selective arguments. Can the American that works, is never unemployed and pays their taxes argue that what they pay into the system should not be used to pay social security to the unemployed?
Look, we ALL have to pay. The bullcrap reasoning of some about not being subservient to the State or answerable to that secret cabal of power behind the throne ( you know, those shadowy people that are taking over the World) is laughable. Nobody is going to remove guns from your society, ever. They wont even be pricing them out of the market, if they wanted to do that they could put a direct tax on firearm sales. What would be the difference between taxing the gun or insuring its owner? Id actually venture that a purchase tax on a firearm would leave Americans without any argument whatsoever. You, yourself have suggested that there is a difference between right and entitlement, in which case the status quo would remain in so much as some Americans could afford a firearm and some couldnt. I dont actually know why your government hasnt gone down this road if it, as suggested, it is trying to make ownership only for the wealthy.
Anyway,Insurance is a fee paid on risk. Your Government is looking into making it a legal requirement that all gun owners have insurance against any risk possessing those guns may have.
Whats the difference between that possible legal requirement and other legal requirements to be insured?
The suggestion is that the Gun owner is clearly more responsible because of the clear risk that owning a firearm brings.Naturally no gun owner will ever take their firearm off of their own property and into a public place... To bring another parable in, should one of your top NASCAR racing drivers be allowed to drive a car uninsured because he is clearly a better driver than the average Joe?
The notion of paying an indemnity to cover backsides should something bad happen is sensible.
Nobody has yet provided a compelling argument as to why insurance flies in the face of the constitution.
The only argument offered is cost. Nobody has said how much insurance would cost and nobody can say how many people would have to forego gun ownership because the cost of insurance would be prohibitive.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitution, those rights remain, as they always have and always will.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Pennsylvania is one of the States that you DON'T need Auto Insurance to drive on the road.

Their law has always been if you have your own Bond you can take it in and they will stamp that Bond as valid for Insurance.

The RICH in Pennsylvania do this. Then when they RETIRE they cash in their BOND to supplement their Retirement.

The majority in Pennsylvania pay for Insurance BONDS with companies to drive on the roads.....where's those TRILLIONS been going to over the decades?

Americans been gettin robbed. Making people get Insurance for firearms......yet another way to rob the poor and uneducated sheeple.

Look up Pennsylvania Code.......you don't need Auto Insurance to drive on the roads. If you have your OWN Bond.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LFN69
 


You have no clue as to the proposed insurance requirements, yet you yammer on.

The insurance is not for accidents, but for intentional actions.

For the accidents inside the home or on the property, there is home owners insurance already for that.


Please, stop speaking on topics you have no clue on.

So there have been no cases whatsoever of accidental discharges of firearms in a public place. Really?
You still havent come up with one single reasoned argument as to why insurance on firearms is against your constitution.
So do tell.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LFN69
 


Still don't see where the people are guaranteed the right to "Drive cars" here....en.wikipedia.org...

I do see where WE, US Citizens, are guaranteed the "Right to bear arms".

The car insurance comparison is about as weak as it gets.

I have never stated that people have been guaranteed the right to drive cars.
I have only discussed the legal requirements to be insured to drive them.
Get it right or it makes you look stupid.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Pennsylvania is one of the States that you DON'T need Auto Insurance to drive on the road.

Their law has always been if you have your own Bond you can take it in and they will stamp that Bond as valid for Insurance.

The RICH in Pennsylvania do this. Then when they RETIRE they cash in their BOND to supplement their Retirement.

The majority in Pennsylvania pay for Insurance BONDS with companies to drive on the roads.....where's those TRILLIONS been going to over the decades?

Americans been gettin robbed. Making people get Insurance for firearms......yet another way to rob the poor and uneducated sheeple.

Look up Pennsylvania Code.......you don't need Auto Insurance to drive on the roads. If you have your OWN Bond.

So what do you think a Bond is?
Ferchrissakes!!!!!!!
Actually, a Bond could be far worse to hold than normal insurance.
Look it up.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Why do I always get the strong urge to bash my head into a brick wall, after I read a Brit's ideas and solutions for MY country's problems???





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join