.

Bill that would force gun owners to have liability

Waco WaltzWaco Waltz Member Posts: 10,821
edited June 2015 in Politics
"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said in a statement. <--- NO we require insurance to drive on Public roads and property. Ranges have their own insurance, my home I don't need any and while driving to and from I am not shooting so I fail to see why I'd need it.


"The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise." <---- NO they have gone down unless you are counting police shootings and you ARE. The Police are not only insured but also have union legal protection. NEXT?

Facebook1.3kTwitter121.3k
~second-amendment-handgun

Mac Slavo / SHTFplan.com -



New York House Representative Carolyn Maloney has introduced a new bill that would force gun owners to have liability insurance or face fines of up to $10,000.

According to Maloney the stipulations in The Firearms Risk Protection Act would curb gun violence, much like car insurance has lowered vehicle fatalities because gun owners would be more careful.

"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said in a statement. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise."

Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners.

"An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives," she said. "Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."

Source: The Hill

Of course, the likelihood that insurance policies are responsible for the 25% drop in car fatalities is almost zero. Rather, as noted by the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety and people with even a smidgen of common sense, it's probably more likely that improved vehicle design and safety features are responsible for the large decrease:

They found that vehicle changes - including improved structural designs, the addition of safety features and an evolving mix of vehicle types - were the main source of declining risk from 1993 through 2006.



But common sense goes out the window with politicians, raising the question of whether a bill should be introduced requiring politicians to get liability insurance before entering their respective legislative houses before they do further damage to Americans' Constitutionally enumerated natural rights.

Case in point: Rather than liability insurance to lower the rate of fatalities from criminal gun usage, Congress should look to the car industry for solutions. Improving the safety of citizens, for example, could be accomplished by giving them free access to body armor, as opposed to the nationwide ban proposed earlier this year.

But that would just make too much sense. So, akin to stopping global warming with increased taxes and carbon credits, which do nothing but enrich carbon exchange management firms operated by people like climate change spokesperson and internet creator Al Gore, if you are a politician, especially in the liberal state of New York, the only possible solution would be to make people pay more money for the privilege of providing for their own personal defense.

Apparently, the intent of the Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment has been misconstrued for years and should have read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, so long as they have a government issued permit, maintain an active trigger lock, do not carry it on their person unless authorized to do so by their State of residence, and can prove they possess an up to date liability insurance policy.

To suggest that gun owners are not already incentivized to be responsible with their firearms is ridiculous on its face, considering there are hundreds of laws on the books designed specifically for people who commit murder or even accidental manslaughter. The legal mechanisms for those acting criminally or negligently with a firearm already exist. If you kill or injure someone with malicious intent or by accident you face prison time and/or financial damages to be seized from your personal wealth to compensate victims.

At every turn and on every level anti-gun politicians are attempting to supplant the U.S. Constitution. They will use any excuse and take every opportunity - including but not limited to restrictions on popular ammunition and all out import bans on guns - in their effort to disarm the American people.

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,947 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't have a firearms insurance policy but I do have an umbrella policy.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 31,144 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Roberts would vote it is constitutional just like he did for Obama care. If the feds can force you to buy health care there is NOTHING stopping them form forcing you to purchase any sort of insurance.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    no habla english...only espanol...no pay medico...is FREE....i tell everyone who is sick to come up north
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,947 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    'Apparently, the intent of the Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment has been misconstrued for years and should have read:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, so long as they have a government issued permit, maintain an active trigger lock, do not carry it on their person unless authorized to do so by their State of residence, and can prove they possess an up to date liability insurance policy.'


    The Heller and McDonald decisions confirmed that the 'shall not be infringed' is not 'shall not be denied'.

    These decisions confirmed the power of the Federal Government and the States to license, register, and regulate firearms and firearm owners. Extending the requirement of liability insurance to the owners of a licensed item is no great stretch once you have crossed over to the point we are now.

    It will obviously be very beneficial. We all know that no one hurts anyone when they have auto insurance. We also know that no one drives a car without insurance. Implementation of this law will obviously reduce firearms related injuries and deaths greatly.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 999 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    'Apparently, the intent of the Founding Fathers for the Second Amendment has been misconstrued for years and should have read:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, so long as they have a government issued permit, maintain an active trigger lock, do not carry it on their person unless authorized to do so by their State of residence, and can prove they possess an up to date liability insurance policy.'


    The Heller and McDonald decisions confirmed that the 'shall not be infringed' is not 'shall not be denied'.

    These decisions confirmed the power of the Federal Government and the States to license, register, and regulate firearms and firearm owners. Extending the requirement of liability insurance to the owners of a licensed item is no great stretch once you have crossed over to the point we are now.

    It will obviously be very beneficial. We all know that no one hurts anyone when they have auto insurance. We also know that no one drives a car without insurance. Implementation of this law will obviously reduce firearms related injuries and deaths greatly.





    Shouldn't you have done that last comment in green?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,947 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wifetrained

    Shouldn't you have done that last comment in green?



    Are you suggesting that Ms. Maloney may have misjudged the situation?
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 999 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by wifetrained

    Shouldn't you have done that last comment in green?



    Are you suggesting that Ms. Maloney may have misjudged the situation?





    Absolutely!
Sign In or Register to comment.