Mandate this, again - and again ...

[OriginalShroom]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

Every citizen already pays that "fee". Its called taxes.

Gun nuts will do anything they can to avoid taking responsibility for their guns. They want to be exempt from liability.

If we were talking about cars, would anyone say the driver/owner should not be responsible?

If not liability insurance, those who want military type rifles and high capacity clips should be able to prove financial ability to pay damages.

But in reality, how much is a child's life worth?

I don't know... what does an Abortion cost these days?

 

[OKTexas]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

Every citizen already pays that "fee". Its called taxes.

Gun nuts will do anything they can to avoid taking responsibility for their guns. They want to be exempt from liability.

If we were talking about cars, would anyone say the driver/owner should not be responsible?

If not liability insurance, those who want military type rifles and high capacity clips should be able to prove financial ability to pay damages.

But in reality, how much is a child's life worth?

Your so full of crap, I bet you have brown eyes. I've owned guns for 50 years, not one has caused harm to anyone. Why don't you just say what your want instead of coming up with all the BS?

 

[bucs90]

Gun insurance is a great idea for it. I suggested it weeks ago. Mandate it. Have 3 tiers. The lowest price? You allow inspection of your security system, such as a gun safe, and a certificate of training. The most expensive? No inspection, no training. Just "I have a gun, I want insurance, you get no other information".

 

[OriginalShroom]

Gun insurance is a great idea for it. I suggested it weeks ago. Mandate it. Have 3 tiers. The lowest price? You allow inspection of your security system, such as a gun safe, and a certificate of training. The most expensive? No inspection, no training. Just "I have a gun, I want insurance, you get no other information".

My plan is better... Those who depend upon the tax payer supported LEO for all of their protection pays for it. Those who depend upon it the least pays nothing.

Since we all pay taxes, you are only paying extra because you require extra protection.

 

[OKTexas]

Gun insurance is a great idea for it. I suggested it weeks ago. Mandate it. Have 3 tiers. The lowest price? You allow inspection of your security system, such as a gun safe, and a certificate of training. The most expensive? No inspection, no training. Just "I have a gun, I want insurance, you get no other information".

Like I said, just as soon as you can guarantee the criminals will buy theirs.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Hmmm...

A tax credit if your gun is solar-powered and made from recycled cars...

What can you do with a muffler? lol

potato gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our freedom depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

No, it concerns me as well.

But just as concerning is the inconsistent application of government restriction, where attempts to violate privacy rights concerning abortion and equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples’ access to marriage aren’t met with the same outrage and concern.

 

[The Irish Ram]

In the 50's Russia determined the only way to defeat America is to get rid of three things:
Our God.
Our Gold.
Our Guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

This is infringement as per the 2nd amendment. It would also penalize poor people more than the well off.

How progressive is that?

Nonsense.

Cite any court that has ruled requiring insurance as a condition of gun ownership is in violation of the Second Amendment.

We do know, however, there is ample case law concerning privacy rights and same-sex marriage.

 

[Trajan]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

not only do you lack basic reading comprehension skillz but you're a sheep....read the article again , that is if you read it at all.

 

[Trajan]

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our rights depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

The problem with this type of insurance is that it has never been seen before. When it comes to care liablity, once someone steals your car, you are no longer liable for damages. There can be extenuating circumstances, such as leaving the car unlocked and running, and then someone steals it, but in most cases once your property has been taken, you are no longer liable.

The other issue is once a gun's original owner is liable from "cradle to grave" as some of these proposals work, you now have to have a legal tracking of who owns the gun when. That means, you guessed it, registration.

All this strategy really is is another backdoor attempt to ban guns.

and make money, don't forget that cali. is broke, they'd sell their others and ship them COD for another spending bill.

of course when the gang banger blows away another gang banger with an illegal weapon and the gang banger winds up in the ER, very expensive trauma care and rehab treatments if not life sppt., etc.....the cost will be born by whom?

 

[martybegan]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

This is infringement as per the 2nd amendment. It would also penalize poor people more than the well off.

How progressive is that?

Nonsense.

Cite any court that has ruled requiring insurance as a condition of gun ownership is in violation of the Second Amendment.

We do know, however, there is ample case law concerning privacy rights and same-sex marriage.

its the quinisential example of infringement.

Back during the forming of the consitution, one did have to buy ones own gun, so the gun's cost is not an issue. However requiring insurance, which would nessisarily require registration (nice backdoor attempt by the way).

I will make the same point I made before, The words "arms" "right" and "not to be infringed" are right next to each other, and are clear.

I find no such wording about abortion or same sex marriage. Those "rights" were created by activist judges out of thin air.

 

[OKTexas]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

This is infringement as per the 2nd amendment. It would also penalize poor people more than the well off.

How progressive is that?

Nonsense.

Cite any court that has ruled requiring insurance as a condition of gun ownership is in violation of the Second Amendment.

We do know, however, there is ample case law concerning privacy rights and same-sex marriage.

How about we use your tactic, ever heard of the supremacy clause, federal law say no state can be compelled to recognize same sex marriage. So get over it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

If I can afford the insurance can I buy a nuclear bomb under the new and improved gun control laws, or are you trying to eliminate all weapons?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Except that the insurance would mandate that you keep the gun in a locked cabinet as far away from the living area as possible, which makes it impossible to use for self defense

 

[Esmeralda]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance

Pat Sullivan/AP

Proposed legislation in California would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Who should bear the costs of damages caused by gun violence? According to the non-profit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, gun shootings cost the country $174 billion a year, roughly $644 per firearm owned in the U.S. The agency took into account work lost, medical care, criminal justice expenses, insurance and pain and suffering. While nothing can replace a child, parent, spouse or future, there are quantifiable costs involved in every shooting; who should bear those costs?

A new bill introduced in Sacramento would require California gun owners to carry liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons. ...

It's a great idea.

 

[Esmeralda]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

If I can afford the insurance can I buy a nuclear bomb under the new and improved gun control laws, or are you trying to eliminate all weapons?

More hyperbole and illogical simplistic thinking. Yes indeedy I do see where your brilliance lies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our rights depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

I am not conflicted at all.

Since I know the government will eventually grasp at more if I give them a little, I refuse to give them anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is one way that we keep drivers off the roads that present too much of a danger to the rest of us.

Having said that, I too, really don't like the idea of another mandated cost in my life. Especially as a responsible gun owner. However, we see on this board so many obviously irresponsible gun owners that there is a need to do something to limit the numbers of guns in our society. As well as the types of guns.

As usual, the fruitloops have created problems for the sane.

No it isn't. The law actually requires insurers not to raise rates t th e point that it actually prohibts anyone from driving, even if they are a proven menace when they are behind the wheel.

Maybe you should speak from a position that coincides with reality, not one that only makes sense if you live in a fantasy world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is one way that we keep drivers off the roads that present too much of a danger to the rest of us.

Having said that, I too, really don't like the idea of another mandated cost in my life. Especially as a responsible gun owner. However, we see on this board so many obviously irresponsible gun owners that there is a need to do something to limit the numbers of guns in our society. As well as the types of guns.

As usual, the fruitloops have created problems for the sane.

But most of those drivers have to do something WRONG first before thier costs go up. And unfortunately, your costs go up even if you do NOTHING wrong. There is a difference between a repeat DWI guy being priced out of being able to own a car via insurance, and some unlucky bastard who had is car stolen or crushed by a tree during a storm.

You also don't have a right to drive a car, or that right "not to be infringed."

And I disagree with your "so many irresponsible gun owners" statement. How many crimes are actually committed by people who own thier guns leagally vs. crimes commited by people already banned from owning guns?

I do have a right to drive a car, which is why every state has insurance policies set aside for multiple DUI offenders that allows them to afford insurance.