Democrat Eric Swalwell Wants Insurance Requirements For Gun Owners

[White_MAGA_Man]

What an idiot! His first issue he tackles as he announces his candidacy for President is to take on the top issue no Democrat has ever succeeded on and is unlikely to. All he did was establish himself with the far left wing of his party which was his real intent. Also, this is the guy who said he wanted to nuke gun owning citizens. Eric Swallowell will go down in flames in his quest for the presidency.

Eric Swalwell Pushes Licensing, Insurance Requirements for Gun Owners

 

[Lakhota]

Sounds logical to me.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

He can want it, but it’s not going to happen, so it’s a moot point

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

Sounds logical to me.

Usurping the Second Amendment is not logical.

 

[K9Buck]

Sounds logical to me.

Ever heard of the U.S. Constitution?

You're the last person on this board qualified to claim something is "logical". You have the reasoning ability of a toddler.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One can not tax a right nor force someone to pay to exercise it.

 

[Lakhota]

NaziCon gun nutters are the biggest threat to gun rights.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why shouldn't they have insurance requirements? You Yanks already insure the bejesus out of everything.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

NaziCon gun nutters are the biggest threat to gun rights.

Gun owners are nothing but advocates for the second amendment, our right to bear arms.

 

[Leo123]

Why shouldn't they have insurance requirements? You Yanks already insure the bejesus out of everything.

Insurance for what? Gun accidents? Why? There are not enough of those to warrant it. Guns are not cars..........Just sayin' .........Swalwelll is a fucking Neo-Marixist, radical leftist blowhard. A lying sack of shit too. He disgraces his position.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Sounds logical to me.

Paying for a Constitutional right sounds logical ?

 

[22lcidw]

NaziCon gun nutters are the biggest threat to gun rights.

Single parent whores from illigitmate ways with no resources also need to go to work farms. As they are the biggest threat to freedom and must give back to society.

 

[Dr Grump]

Insurance for what? Gun accidents? Why? There are not enough of those to warrant it. Guns are not cars..........Just sayin' .........Swalwelll is a fucking Neo-Marixist, radical leftist blowhard. A lying sack of shit too. He disgraces his position.

Do you think you should have household insurance?

"Between 2012 and 2016, U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 355,400 home structure fires per year. These fires [cost] $6.5 billion in direct damage"
Fire Prevention Week (FPW)

You could argue that gun shot wounds are covered by medical insurance. Still, the gun lobby/nuts should pay their way, too. A house is insured, not the person. A car is insured, not the person. A gun should be insured.
"Annually, gunshot wounds cost an estimated U.S.$126 billion"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457597000079

 

[Rustic]

Insurance for what? Gun accidents? Why? There are not enough of those to warrant it. Guns are not cars..........Just sayin' .........Swalwelll is a fucking Neo-Marixist, radical leftist blowhard. A lying sack of shit too. He disgraces his position.

Do you think you should have household insurance?

"Between 2012 and 2016, U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 355,400 home structure fires per year. These fires [cost] $6.5 billion in direct damage"
Fire Prevention Week (FPW)

You could argue that gun shot wounds are covered by medical insurance. Still, the gun lobby/nuts should pay their way, too. A house is insured, not the person. A car is insured, not the person. A gun should be insured.
"Annually, gunshot wounds cost an estimated U.S.$126 billion"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457597000079

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Insurance for what? Gun accidents? Why? There are not enough of those to warrant it. Guns are not cars..........Just sayin' .........Swalwelll is a fucking Neo-Marixist, radical leftist blowhard. A lying sack of shit too. He disgraces his position.

Do you think you should have household insurance?

"Between 2012 and 2016, U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 355,400 home structure fires per year. These fires [cost] $6.5 billion in direct damage"
Fire Prevention Week (FPW)

You could argue that gun shot wounds are covered by medical insurance. Still, the gun lobby/nuts should pay their way, too. A house is insured, not the person. A car is insured, not the person. A gun should be insured.
"Annually, gunshot wounds cost an estimated U.S.$126 billion"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457597000079

Accidents are very rare with firearms But that isn't the point, shall we also have to pay to vote? A right can not be taxed nor can you force someone to PAY for a right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He can want it, but it’s not going to happen, so it’s a moot point

Nostradamus ^^^?

Why shouldn't gun owners carry insurance, most guns today are expensive, if stolen and not insured the gun owner will be out of luck.

Of course if the gun stolen is registered to the homeowner, and used in a homicide or other heinous crime, the likelihood of being sued by the victim, is high.

We own a rental property, and I own a hand gun, so we carry a $1,000,000 umbrella policy. Of course my gun is locked up, and the likelihood of it being stolen is nearly nil.

 

[Leo123]

How about insurance for gun owners who, when they use a firearm for legal self defense, are given legal protection?

 

[Flash]

My firearms are an insurance policy for the United States. It says so right in the Constitution:

"Necessary for the security of a free state".

 

[Dr Grump]

Accidents are very rare with firearms But that isn't the point, shall we also have to pay to vote? A right can not be taxed nor can you force someone to PAY for a right.

The sooner they repeal the second the better IMO..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Accidents are very rare with firearms But that isn't the point, shall we also have to pay to vote? A right can not be taxed nor can you force someone to PAY for a right.

The sooner they repeal the second the better IMO..

Need a new amendment for that to happen..... That means first you need to get 2/3'rds of both houses to agree to it then you need 37 States to ratify it in a set time limit. Not gonna happen.