Let's Require Insurance If You're Going To Own A Handgun
I have this reasonable proposal, one I've brought up before and I still think it's a great idea. Here it is: To own a handgun, you have to own gun insurance.
Handguns cause untold damage to other human beings, mostly because that's what they're designed to do. And since craven politicians won't offend the NRA by talking sense, I say it's time to get the insurance lobby involved. (After all, they're always looking for a new revenue stream!)
If you have a history of violence or other anti-social behavior, your premium will reflect that higher risk. If you keep your guns in a locked gun cabinet, have approved triggers locks and have taken a gun safety class, your premium will reflect responsible gun ownership.
Oh, and just like when you buy a car, you can't walk out of a gun dealer's without showing proof of insurance.
It's legal, it rewards people who are careful with their handguns -- and it makes it a lot more expensive for those who aren't. What's not to like?
A federal judge this week tossed out a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the sale of handguns to people under 21 years of age.
The suit is one of two filed by the National Rifle Association challenging state and federal laws regarding the purchase and carry of firearms by young adults.
Because, as we all know, young people as a group will certainly exhibit the same self-control and restraint on the use of guns as they display with the use of alcohol, motor vehicles and baseball bats!
U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings on Thursday dismissed the suit challenging a federal ban on the sale of handguns to people age 18-20, writing that precedent shows restrictions on the sale of firearms do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
The suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and others was filed by the NRA on behalf of the organization and three young adults, including Lubbock resident Andrew Payne, who claim they are harmed by the ban.
The plaintiffs claim the ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
[...] Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons, the high court held that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms is constitutional.
This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters’ mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.
Does gun insurance protect you in a court of law for shooting police in case of a no knock warrant if an officer gets himself perished? Does it protect you in a court of law to defend you from liability if you shoot a person coming to rob you like a drugstore Billy the Kid?
Want to see who the dominionists are? Click! Copy! Paste! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9k3iDVvyJU
Does gun insurance pay the parent if your kid accidentally shoots him/herself?
No homeowners insurance would cover that. But since all the guns I own except the one on my hip are locked in a safe there is zero chance of someone accidentally getting shot.
Excellent idea Susie.
I would add that we should also require a license to operate a gun, just like with a car. We know that it's been ruled unconstitutional to require a license to buy a gun, but, an operators permit, with required training, is different and might just be enforceable.
One would be able to buy all of the guns permitted by law, collect them, display them, etc. however, if one wishes to shoot a gun, even if he or she does not own it, that person would need an operators permit along with the insurance discussed above.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
You have to demonstrate some sort of experience or attendance in a class to get a concealed carry permit, but not to simply purchase a handgun. I guess they think you need a higher level of skill to leave your shirt untucked or wear a jacket over your gun.
I don't know why they don't have a range at the DMV and let you do your driving test and a handgun proficiency test on the same day. Then if you pass both you get an endorsement on your licence and you're good to go. One card, one database, one background check. No gun show loopholes or straw buyers. You get a gun registration like a car registration, you pay insurance and it seems like a good idea on paper.
It is not unconstitutional to require a license to buy a gun. The state of Illinios requires one and has for at least 40 years. Almost everyone that carries a concealed weapon has to get a permit to do so, Alaska allows anyone to carry a gun, which makes sense when you consider how common run ins with bears and caribou are.
Everyone I know owns at least one gun and there isn't a single one of them that doesn't make a serious effort to learn how to operate the weapon in a safe manner.
The problem I see is the sale of guns between private individuals. All to often the seller makes no effort to determine the background or level of competence of the person buying the weapon.
THIS idea makes a lot of sense!
Kudo's!!!
Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons, the high court held that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms is constitutional.
Those limits were primarily to allow the government to keep guns legally out of the hands of mentally ill individuals.
Insurance requirements for guns would establish an economic means test. It would never stand up to Constitutional scrutiiny.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Would this insurance means, be like making sure that the union fights of Maetwan and Blair Mountain never have means to defend themselves from government oppression and assassination like in the third world?
Want to see who the dominionists are? Click! Copy! Paste! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9k3iDVvyJU
Dominionistslavery, I think I understand your post, however the post is worded in a very awkward manner. I gather you think that requiring insurance for handguns would prevent a modern 21st century populace from government oppression? You know how much money this country spends on military "defense"??? Trust me, your handgun will be no match for Blackwater troops, predator missiles, and the like. You really think a gun is going to protect you from a government takeover? It's the 21st century. Most likely you won't even be fighting a human with your handgun. Weak argument for not requiring gun insurance.
Yep, I do. This is why we're still fighting in Afghanistan today. It also enables one to hunt and defend your home. If the Jewish people never fought back in WWII underground those without guns on the run would all be dead now.
Want to see who the dominionists are? Click! Copy! Paste! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9k3iDVvyJU
how come guns and bullets are not free of charge at the local walmart?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
You can build your own gun. You can't build your own insurance. It has to be purchased.
I can be willed a gun, given a gun, gifted a gun.
Means test was wrong choice of words. The court will state that mandatory insurance presents an economic hardship that de facto can infringe on a person's right to own a gun.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Anything to limit gun ownership would be thrown out by the SC anyways. It is a right, not a privilege, etc, etc.
It says a lot about a country where our written priorities are: gun ownership is a right, but healthcare is a privilege.
And they say this was a country founded on Christian principles...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
There's really no issue that can't be turned into a government mandated profit making machine.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Any database could be used in the future to confiscate weapons from private citizens.
Not really for that.
Yeah, and what if aliens get ahold of your data?!?!
so... if you accidentally kill someone, or maim someone, what would the insurance cover?
other than added customers for the insurance companies what would this do? i am not sure how this makes people safer...
Would the crooks have to buy this insurance too? Oh no wait we don't know if the crooks have a legal gun or not!
So lets add another cost to the standup guy who can pass the background check to buy a gun.
I get it - sooner or later we tax and fee and add cost and more cost until the good guys can afford to own a gun! YAY!
Hey whats this insurance going to cover and whats the deductable? WIll it cover the cost of the coffin and headstone of the guy that comes in my house at 2am to steal my stuff and harm my children? Will there be a $100 co-pay for that?
Holy Cow there's a bad guy in my house with a knife...where's my gunlock key...on yea locked in the gun safe next to the locked box with the ammo!
Http://frickinnutspot.com
he's a blogwhore. only 3 entries in a year. Sad.
me-oww!
You know, with your "job" and everything.
Me, I'm an astronaut porn star, and not only has this economy put a crunch on NASA, but the bursting of the housing bubble means that proper movie sets (with the cathedral ceilings I require to fully perform) have been getting ever so hard to find.
Ain't the internet great?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
. . . a blogwhore with poor taste?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I never knew anyone in the industry who used Cathedral ceilings to get it up.
Most just rely on their Pharma friends.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
. . . it's the altitude.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Seriously, do you have an argument to counter him or are you just going to insult him because his opinion differs from yours?
Is he wrong to be concerned with how gun insurance would affect honest, law abiding citizens?
. . . and if you'd read this thread you might have noticed that I think this is a lousy idea.
I was solely addressing his contention about everyone's joblessness and his status as a blogwhore. Not that I necessarily have a problem with that . . . which is why I also wanted to plug my upcoming DVD Rabbit Caligula in Space - available soon.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Like I said, sad.
me-oww!
Or do you have actually have a opinion of your own?
Glad they don’t let mental patients or cats own guns!
Sure, why not require insurance. Maybe then it will impress upon these freaks that there is a responsibility that goes along with owning firearms. I'm ok with it.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
First off, this would unfairly discriminate against the poor. Sorry, dear, you can't afford insurance to own a gun to protect your home while you live in the projects. Suck it up and keep your head down. The right to drive is not in the constitution. gun ownership is. Passing regulations that make it difficult or impossible for any class of citizen to exorcize their rights is always a bad idea.
Secondly, the law suit mentioned a law restricting gun purchases by those under 21. This just further highlights that silly gray area between adulthood 918) and real adulthood (21). Some 19 year old man (sorry, you're not a kid at 19) can't go buy himself a gun or have a beer, but he can vote for our leadership and join the army where he'll get a free gun AND get to kill people with it. As a culture we need to decide once and for all, are you an adult at 18 or is it 21?
That should be '(18)'. not '918)'. Sorry if that confuses anyone.
. . . not intentional behavior. Most Homeowners policies already cover an accidental shooting.
So what's the benefit here? Aside from the added profits to the renters' insurance carriers.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
"It's legal, it rewards people who are careful with their handguns "
So I get "rewarded by having to pay another expensive insurance premium. Wow what a deal. The responsible owners aren't the people that need more insurance, I'm already covered if I lawfully use my weapon, it's the criminals who will not buy insurance that cause the "untold damage".
What we need is better screening of gun purchasers. Mandatory psych testing at least every two years and
a mandatory qualification that demonstrates the ability to shoot accurately and records that demonstrate that the gun owner is visiting a target range at least once a month and shooting at least 200 rounds.
Gun show loophole.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
I'm not buying Insurance for a Gun I keep in my house; and If I Shoot at anyone they do not Deserve My Liability to pay for their Injuries received while trying to Steal My Property!
Health Insurance and Property Liability will pay for Medical Bills Accidentally injured on my land by my Gun.
Other Than to put more Bucks in to the Pockets of Insurance Company CEO; I see NO need for More Specialty Insurance that 99.98% of Gun Owners will Never NEED any USE FOR!
Doctors and Hospitals Kill and Maim more people including Children than any other Group.
Donaldd
We don't need yet another reason to enrich more for-profit insurance corporations with yet ANOTHER "government mandate".
And it would be ruled un-Constitutional because the right to possess a gun is a Constitutional right and if one cannot afford to purchase the "for-profit" corporate insurance policy then that person's rights will be infringed.
Not a good idea at all.
As to the comment above that it is useless for the American people to possess firearms in order to protect ourselves from our own government should it decide to go all "Katrina...we're comin' in to confiscate your guns for NATIONAL SECURITY" on us, sure, I realize they have all those nasty drones and missiles and nukes (that the taxpayers bought BTW....that are technically OURS), but I think the average American would rather go down fighting than to just surrender to a fascist state or foreign troops knocking on our doors someday.
Just sayin'.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea. I have no problem with registration of all handguns and semi-automatic weapons, nor would I have a problem with mandatory insurance, but there's no way in Hell something like this would ever come to a vote in Congress.
Can we agree to push for banking regulation instead?
Love yer suggestion
but it is wrong. You don't have to have a license to drive to own a car. You can own as many as you like and drive them on your own property without having a license. Whether or not your proposal is a workable idea or not I leave to others. I suspect that, given the current make up of the Supreme Court, requiring insurance to own a gun will be found to be an unacceptable impediment to a fundamental right. I don't believe your constitution mentions cars at all but it sure does mention arms.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Ain't that implied in the Second Amendment?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
wouldn't you? I know I would but we also made a stab at just a gun registry for long guns. It was supposed to cost 50 million or so but they've already spent over a billion and in some jurisdiction like Manitoba less than one third of guns are registered. The whole thing has been a dismal and expensive failure. The registry can't actually tell anybody anything useful except where to go if you want to steal a gun.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
the suggestion we solve the population crisis in Ireland by eating babies?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
It's heartwarming to see such concern for the economically disadvantaged. We've got to fight for those who can't afford gun insurance! Maybe this concern will spill over into other areas regarding the poor.
this would seem to make sense on the face of it, but it breaks down in the particulars.
so if you live in the hood and you are poor? and you can buy a gun for defense for a couple hundred bucks? so you miss a premium payment, will the govt. come confiscate your gun? your protection?
i have to be honest, this is another "liberal" solution which attempts to deal with the world as we might wish it to be, not as it is.
the only thing that will solve our country's addiction to violence is a reforming of our social relations, true reform; more govt. suppression will not solve these problems, only make them worse. building a better society will only happen from the ground up.
If you let your car insurance expire does the government come and take your car? No. But, being caught without insurance leads to fines and sometimes incarceration after repeated offences.
The biggest deterent is that a person without gun insurance who has a gun that is used in an irresponsible way will face a civil trial with less credibility otherwise.
Remember, cars don't kill people, people do...uh...never mind.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
does the government come and take your car?
actually, if you are stopped and don't have proof of insurance? they do take your car. now, i know the response, you don't take your gun on the street.........yes, people do take their guns on the street because that is exactly where thugs are most likely to attack you.
the supposed left loves to regulate stuff, except for our emperors wars, then any excuse is good.
regulation does not work as well as behavior modification, front loading is less expensive than back loading, more cost efficient. education, justice, jobs, best crime preventatives in existence.
but then what pol from either wing of the corporate party is calling for domestic content laws? or demanding that american companies in mexico, china, or anywhere for that matter, pay the same wages there that they used to pay here.
this is why i no longer believe liberals, i don't think they want change, i know obomber doesn't, or he wouldn't take so much money from wall street.
bit i digress, what will we require a license for next? baseball bats? knives? electrical cord? people can be killed with any of these things, quieter than a gun. no, the government ain't going to protect a woman from two attackers in a dark alley, but a charter arms bulldog? she will have a fighting chance.
nope, people aren't stupid, the left must do better, deliver on all the rhetoric about peace and justice, or quit hassling people about firearms, let them have the means to defend themselves. this is one of those issues that alienates people from the left, matter of fact, it alienates me, it's not dealing in reality.
with towing companies, another group of lowlifes only outslimed by insurance companies, IMHO, to do the dirty work) vehicles for lapsed insurance, driving on suspended or without valid license, drug possession, DUI, and of course any warrants existent. Decidedly some variability between states and between cops though.
Bottom line for me-- if your record ain't clear or is questionable, don't have the most minor of equipment violation, or you may just have donated your vehicle to the thugs.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
"so if you live in the hood and you are poor? and you can buy a gun for defense for a couple hundred bucks? so you miss a premium payment, will the govt. come confiscate your gun? your protection?"
Empathy for the poor, the less fortunate. If this emotion could extend to those who can't afford food and shelter and health care just a bit more I believe your true reform could actually happen. It's gratifying to not read stuff like, they're poor it's their fault, they don't deserve guns. No sir. The poor are getting plenty of empathy on the gun issue. It's a start.
You imply that derekthered is only interested in caring for the poor on this one issue and not others.
That is simply not accurate.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No, sorry not my intention. I know he's as you wrote, from his previous posts which I've read. I am implying that there seems to be some BS flying around here when it comes to empathizing with the poor on this one issue. Derrick's post just laid it out well so I responded to his post. I know he's cool though. I just don't appreciate the poor being used to prove a point by some people who seem to come out from the woodwork on the gun threads (not derrick), who most likely would regularly throw the poor under the bus.
The Bill of Rights is a harsh mistress. Believing in it means that Nazis can get permits to march. It means a right of privacy so prosecutors can't open up medical records to see if a woman has had an abortion. It means believing in the 4th and 5th Amendments as Bush and Obama attack them in the name of terrorism.
Too often both right and left pick and chose which amendment is legitimate and then concoct specioius arguments to either support or deny the existence of the amendment. Or in the case of Bush and Obama assault on it, decide on the merits based on whether there is a D or R after their names.
Hey, how about requiring libel insurance for anybody posting online. Have a little more regard for the Bill of Rights.
I'm sure the local gang bangers will rush right out , register their weapons and buy that insurance . Meanwhile the insurance companies make another score , this time off of responsible gun owners . Don't own a gun , never have , they should all be banned .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
The problem is when they bring out the LRAD's and Microwave machines against us, I want my population to be adequately defended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM they used this in oalkland today
Also criminals will say eff the insurance and common law abiding citizens will be the ones who have to pay for it. Our government is turning into a tyranny and unfortunately now I want my population to be well armed in case it gets worse. I used to be anti-gun, until Bush and PNAC took away our Bill of Rights and started false flag terrorizing us.
I hate violence too.
How do you defend against this bullshit??
60 Minutes - Ray Gun
Quit ignoring what is going on in our country. We are turning into a police state which is the worst time to take away people's guns.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
a disabled veteran, ex cop, ex MP. I get by on Medicare and SS Disability.
As it stands, I can barely afford my CAR insurance and rent. I couldn't afford whatever rates the insurance industry would charge for having a handgun in my home.
Do I deserve to be less protected because I can't afford insurance? And what promise do we have that the insurance companies won't do the same damn thing they do when you file a health claim, i.e. drop your ass or find an excuse not to pay the claim?
This would, I think cause more problems than it would cure. Think through a little more, Susie. I like your idea in principle, not so much in application.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
plenty of them, ever heard of sargon of akkad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad
gone, baby, gone.
people put too much faith in governments, little to proud of our prowess, so to speak. every big game animal on the north american continent, with the exception of the polar bear, has been killed witha 22 long rifle.
in answer to your question. How do you defend against this bullshit?? anything with lead, an x-ray shield perhaps? just guessing. that these machines have been developed is just sick.
Hmmm, kitchen knives are pretty dangerous too, and how many times have people chopped off their toes with garden implements?
How about an insurance premium on garbage disposals, those bad boys will slice your hand into mush if you put your hand in the drain when it's running.
I'm all for Insurance companies getting more revenue through any means possible. Let's also create a new source of revenue for the impoverished law industry. ;^)
'Talk to the hand'
are scum of the Earth. I'd oppose insuring gun ownership just to make certain the fuckers don't make a dime.
Sorry folks...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
;^)
'Talk to the hand'
State but when it comes time to make a claim, there's NO guarantee that I'll be reimbursed fairly for my loss. It's just another scam to funnel money from my pocket into a private company's lobbying bankroll, as far as I'm concerned. Fuck 'em.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I'm with you on that ff.
'Talk to the hand'
Not a "reasonable" idea...well it is if you are completely ignorant about guns and gun crime. When liberals talk about "reasonable" restrictions (licenses, waiting periods, safety courses) i wince. They sound exactly like right-to-lifers talking about "reasonable" restrictions on abortion (waiting periods, etc).
Drop gun control. its killing the Party.
Zelvey.
I always thought that the the owner of a gun must assume full liability, criminial as well as civil, for any crime that gun may be involved in.
To be clear this includes instances where an individual is so careless to allow their weapon to be stolen or "borrowed" and the person who then has physical possession of the weapon uses it for a crime.
To use the most extreme example : If some one steals your gun and uses it for murder in Texas the gun owner fries in the chair right next to the triggerman, this is the same idea of an accomplice being equally guilty as the triggerman.
A great plurality of guns on the street are either stolen or final products of "strawman" purchases. Execute a few careless owners and strawmen and that source starts to get closed off. Add in a few gun dealers at gunshows who are careless with their paperwork and the supply to the street starts to get severly restricted.
Thank you for doing exactly what I described below
Real paragraph on bottom....
I would add that we should also require a license to have an abortion, just like with a car. We know that it's been ruled unconstitutional to require a license have an abortion, but, an operators permit, with required training, is different and might just be enforceable. One would be able to buy all of the kids permitted by law, collect them, display them, etc. however, if one wishes to abort a child, even if he or she does not own it, that person would need an operators permit along with the insurance discussed above.
I would add that we should also require a license to operate a gun, just like with a car. We know that it's been ruled unconstitutional to require a license to buy a gun, but, an operators permit, with required training, is different and might just be enforceable. One would be able to buy all of the guns permitted by law, collect them, display them, etc. however, if one wishes to shoot a gun, even if he or she does not own it, that person would need an operators permit along with the insurance discussed above.
You're not familiar with the draconian requirements for abortion that already exist.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
for abortion that already exist. And i loathe them. I am focusing on the similarities between; 1. the arguments right-to-lifers use to justify further impediments to abortion and 2. the arguments anti-gunners use to justify further impediments to gun ownership.
And again…Cars this time..
I always thought that the the owner of a child must assume full liability, criminal as well as civil, for any crime that car may be involved in.
To be clear this includes instances where an individual is so careless to allow their car to be stolen or "borrowed" and the person who then has physical possession of the car uses it for a crime.
To use the most extreme example : If some one steals your car and uses it for murder in Texas the car owner fries in the chair right next to the thief, this is the same idea of an accomplice being equally guilty as the perpetrator.
A great plurality of cars on the street are either stolen or final products of "strawman" purchases. Execute a few careless owners and strawmen and that source starts to get closed off. Add in a few car dealers at car shows who are careless with their paperwork and the supply to the street starts to get severly restricted.
I always thought that the the owner of a gun must assume full liability, criminial as well as civil, for any crime that gun may be involved in.
To be clear this includes instances where an individual is so careless to allow their weapon to be stolen or "borrowed" and the person who then has physical possession of the weapon uses it for a crime.
To use the most extreme example : If some one steals your gun and uses it for murder in Texas the gun owner fries in the chair right next to the triggerman, this is the same idea of an accomplice being equally guilty as the triggerman.
A great plurality of guns on the street are either stolen or final products of "strawman" purchases. Execute a few careless owners and strawmen and that source starts to get closed off. Add in a few gun dealers at gunshows who are careless with their paperwork and the supply to the street starts to get severly restricted.
No one "Owns" a child. A child is an immature person, much like gun owners, but legally recognized as such.
Bogus comparison.
Strawman arguement along with the self serving assignation of ignorance to your oppenent
"if you are completely ignorant about guns and gun crime."
So rather then making false comparisons ( child/human ownership/slavery = gun) or pretending that some one you know nothing about is ignorant please address the issue.
If some one owns a weapon and is so careless as to let it fall into the hands of a criminial, or in the case of straw man purchaserers and gunshow "dealers", sell it with out proper transference of registration ( proper record of sale, etc) why should they be not held as equally liable for a crime committed with their deadly weapon?
ok?
" I always thought that the the owner of a child must assume full liability, .."
Let us give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have trouble differentiating between a car and a child the bogus comparison still holds.
Cars were, and are, not designed specifically for killing and injuring people as are handguns, Mac 10's, Uzi's etc.
Target shooting is a non starter since responsible competitive shooters are well known and protect their weapons with safes etc.
So again when one is so careless as to let their weapon be used by a criminial why should they not also be held equally responsible as an accomplice?
I am not guessing.
You know nothing of me and my experiences but through what must be great psychic powers you claim to know what my life experience includes and/or doesn't include.
Could you at least once address the position that when one is so careless as to let their weapon be used by a criminial why should they not also be held equally responsible as an accomplice?
Or is it, as is becoming obvious, that you cannot defend the irresponsibility of careless gun owners and try to gerail any discussion with straw men and psychic pronouncements from on high as to what a perfect strangers experience includes.
Neither tactic reflects positively upon your position. rather they show the intellectual/ moral bankruptcy of those who would foist a dangerous reality upon society that is a medical hazard ( CDC study) simply to justify ...What?
A clear...yes!
'commercial sale of firearms'
That actually leaves it very wide open.
Imagine a non-profit company selling guns at wholesale prices... It's not a commercial sale, so it might be Constitutionally Protected?
Imagine trying to prevent all Christian Apocalyptics from buying guns.
Another good reason to join!
Annual members receive $5,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage at NO COST to you. The plan covers accidents at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting. Insurance must be activated at time of renewal. (Does not include Junior membership.)
Life members receive $10,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage at NO COST to you. The plan covers accidents at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting. Insurance must be activated at time of upgrade to Life member status
Law Enforcement Officers, that are NRA members, killed in the line of duty will have $25,000 in coverage.
$2,500 of ArmsCare coverage with your NRA membership. This plan covers insured firearms, air guns, bows and arrows against theft, accidental loss, and damage.
Such a plan would probably be very cheap for them too. A couple packets worth of advertisements aimed specifically to gun-owners would pay for the monthly premium.
F$%k the NRA!
I'm a gun owner and I will never consider being an NRA member.
'Talk to the hand'
The NRA is a bunch of greedy know nothings.
probably not only exceeded $5000, but probably significantly exceeded $25000. My guess is Gabby's bill is pushing a cool million by now.
Had the shooter been a NRA member with the insurance coverage, based on what qualifies for coverage in your post , assuming we don't recognize politician season as an official hunting season, it doesn't appear this miniscual coverage would even be applicable here.
I am not enthusiastic about the notion of serving up more citizens to more for-profit insurance scams, so I will disagree with the substance of this article for that very reason. Ironically, we have so-called progressives trying to disenfranchise poor citizens who may not be able to afford a for-profit insurance scam in order to legally own the guns handed down through the family for generations.
In case you bleeding-heart types haven't noticed, the economy sucks and it sucks a lot worse for poor people. Guns are very helpful to provide meat for the family out in the sticks. I think poor Americans deserve the right to own firearms just as much as the rich. We should not require that they resort to bow and arrow and swords in order to hunt for their only option at supper, even if that is only opossum. it still beats the hell out of digging through garbage bins.
If poor voters cannot afford something as simple as a picture ID, how are poor hunters to afford gun insurance? Oh I get your point, You simply don't want them to have them. Thanks for supporting the Republican talking point that Obama wants to take your guns.
"We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard."
BARACK OBAMA, Nobel Lecture, Dec. 10, 2009
With a handgun? This wouldn't apply to rifles.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
After all, it could be argued that this would be a classic example of what the right wing loves to call taking personal responsibility...
Oh, wait...silly me! How could I have forgotten? The right wing believes that "taking personal responsibility" only applies to other people...never to them. Besides, this idea makes far too much sense -- which is why it will never be implemented in this country.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
please read through the proposal, I have a few questions!
The court agreed that the distinction between economic adulthood (18) and true or ethical adulthood (21) are still distinctions the US recognizes. This bears nothing on the NRA as a conservative group or on gun owners as a whole. When the rule was implemented years ago there were under-21 police officers who had to have their parents purchase their gun then will it to them by transfer rights and it was a complicated mess. Gun ownership as a whole isn't an issue for left or right-wing politics but is an issue between new left liberals who grew up in a peacenik era versus those who didn't. Gun ownership rights have consistently been favored by the rank and file blue collar voters who vote democrats and liberals in yet the intelligentsia of the movement resist gun ownership like the plague.
Even in the comments here where people with great liberal views are essentially for gun ownership or are at least neutral on the matter. If gun ownership was moved to a pro-gun with stipulations plank of the left-wing we would have an easier time cutting through the culture war that the right-wingers have hoisted upon our society. The whole idea of "gun insurance" is silly in that it puts an economic block on to what is essentially a constitutional right on the absolute very off-chance you cause a wrongful death suit. Last time I checked this is a case of the man bites dog, where the continued appropriate use of guns to save lives or defend them is a non-story while misuse is a major one.
Its time.
Yes Suzie, because we know that violent criminals will buy insurance to protect their victims.
Requiring a person, who legally purchases a firearm, to buy insurance is ludicrous. Suggesting that a violent criminal who buys insurance is less likely to shoot their victims is equally as ludicrous.
Get a clue Suzie, responsible law abiding gun owners aren't the ones who injure and kill people with their firearms, violent criminals do. There are 20,000 laws on the books that regulate the purchase, use, and ownership of firearms, however, to date, criminals seem to think that those laws don't apply to them. In fact Suzie, criminals do a lot of things, like violate laws, hurt people, and take things that don't belong to them, as if the laws prohibiting that behavior don't apply to them.
Since you're comparing firearms to motor vehicles, here's a little stat for you, more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents then are killed by firearms. The interesting thing is, cars are licensed and insured, yet there are still drunk drivers, road rage incidents, speeders, people who run stop signs, people who don't insure their cars, and equipment violations. The typical number of people killed annually in motor vehicle accidents is about 40,000 plus. The next type of death, are swimming pool drownings. So what do you think we should do about those Suzie ?
Anti-gun extremists like the Brady's love to combine numbers and think up new terms. So they combine criminal use of a firearm, with legal self defense, and suicide, and call it "gun violence". So what do you think Suzie, how do we get criminals and suicidal individuals to buy insurance ? Answer that, and then we'll talk.
And let's require insurance before you can exercise free speech or right to assembly. Better arrest those Occupy Wall Street folks for forgetting to by insurance before exercising their rights.
People, understand that the Supreme court has declared that the 2nd amendment is an individual right on par with the 1st. A Civil right. If its permissible to infringe upon the 2nd ammendment than it is equally permissible to infringe upon other civil rights encoded in the Bill of Rights in the name of "public safety". There is no quantifiable data that gun bans or restrictions reduce violent crime. In fact, the two places that had complete gun bans for decades, Chicago and D.C., had some of the highest violent crime rates in the country. How exactly did that work out? If its ok to deny a right to reduce violent crime, there are several civil rights that would be MUCH more effective than the 2nd ammendment, e.g., let's eliminate the right against unreasonable search and siezure. Police could arrest a bunch more gang bangers if they could just bust down doors without that nuisance called a search warrant. Let's allow police to coerce confessions and use statements without Miranda rights, that will surely get more violent criminals off the streets when the police don't have their hands tied behind their backs by those pesky civil rights. Right?
Be careful of what you ask for, for if you accept the destruction of one constitutional right you don't personally like, the rest follow in kind including those you may support. The Bill of Rights is not a selective text that you get to pick and choose what does or doesn't apply to individual liberty based upon popular opinion. Remember the reason for the 14th ammendment: newly freed black slaves were being forcibly disarmed, murdered, and forced to give up their rights after the civil war. Those white folks in the south thought it was ok to trample individual rights in the name of THEIR definition of public safety and the "greater good". That was their 'opinion' of rights. Read the literature of the time, and gun rights of newly freed slaves for the purpose of self defense was central to the debate over the 14th ammendment.
If you don't like the 2nd ammendment, the democratic process of our nation is for you to fight to pass a new constitutional ammendment eradicating it. It is NOT allowable in our great nation to allow a groups opinion to undermine the constitution just because they don't like it and don't want to do the heavy lifting of embracing our democratic processes.
Let's see...Make a mistake while driving and people can be injured or killed as a direct result of your actions. Someone makes a mistake with a gun and people can be injured or killed as a direct result of their actions. Make a mistake while speaking your mind and someone might be injured or killed, but only indirectly, as speaking or writing in and of itself cannot injure or kill anyone.
Now here's where it gets interesting:
The thing is, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to limit speech when that speech is inflammatory, designed to harm the security of the state. The Alien and Sedition Acts were never held as unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS never reviewed a case involving those acts. The SCOTUS has, however, upheld the limits on free speech in the Espionage Act, and it's done so on a number of occasions. In fact, the "Shouting Fire In a Crowded Theater" scenario was part of the majority decision that upheld the conviction of a pacifist pamphleteer during WWI who'd appealed the conviction claiming his First Amendment rights had been violated. It was a bad analogy, imo, but the scenario set forth in the analogy- that some speech endangers public safety and is therefore not guaranteed as unprosecutable- would undoubtedly stand up in review today.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
There wasn't a half truth in my statement. I said the Supreme court has held that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right on par with the 1st, I.e. a fundamental right. I made no statement that it can't be regulated. As the 1st, the 2nd can be regulated, but only under strict conditions. Regulation of a right is permitted where it is very narrowly tailored to a very specific and well substantiated public purpose, as long as the core right is still unencumbered to be exercised in some manner, in some places, at some times. But those regulations cannot be of a general purpose, cannot be for theoretical situations, and cannot effect what amounts to a ban on protected rights. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater but you're free to walk outside onto the street and scream yourself blue in the face.
While driving a car is a privilege not a right, it does greatly enhance our ability to exercise our right to travel freely. Unfortunately there is a cost to that freedom, as 80,000 people die and roughly 3 million are injured every year. Society has accepted that cost. There's also a real cost to restrictions on unreasonable search and siezures, self-incrimination, and right to representation. There are numerous dangerous criminals out there that police have tangible suspicions about and could likely prevent a violent crime if they could act preemptively without worrying about a known criminals rights. And everyone would say they want violent criminals off the street. But society accepts that there's a cost in lives and victims to protect those rights for everyone.
So let's not be hypocritical. Liberty is not free and in many cases society has accepted much higher casualties and victims than those affected by handgun use by law abiding citizens as a rational cost of permitting the exercise of rights. There are costs, both in lives and in money, to individual freedoms. Thats what it means to live in a truly free society.
And Andy, please note this "gorilla duster" made my point through reasoned debate, not character assassination
Comments are closed on this entry