Best
402 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    It's like the dems just want to toss as much $hit out and see what sticks. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not get?
  • #12
    !
    @Fitz well it is a pipe dream, as they cannot place a financial barrier between a constitutional right. Someone should tell those Dems that poor people have a 2nd amendment right as well.
  • #15
    !
    @Yank both major parties are detrimental to what every American citizen should hold dear, but apparently few do. Freedom
  • #23
    !
    @DARSB It indeed a barrier for the poor. Some can barely afford a gun if they desire. You can make it so only the wealthiest can afford firearms. This will allow a method for the gov't to determine exactly what you have at home.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    Just another back door approach to block gun ownereship. That's what it's all about. It's not the legal owner that's the problem, it's the criminals and they sure aren't gonna be buying 'insurance'. But, that's not the way the anti-gun bunch is gonna tell it.
  • #164
    !
    Exactly right. The criminals and nutbags aren't likely to be buying this insurance. This would just be a burden on the law-abiding.
  • #271
    !
    We the RESPONSIBLE people have not had need for this in the last 200+ years. What has changed? Why should we the RESPONSIBLE be accountable for innercity irresponsible people? Maybe this insurance should only apply to cities over 50,000?
  • #16
    !
    reckon that insurance will cover,my baseball bat,my claw hammer,my hunting knife,my pitchfork,all weapons ya know...my Assault pitchfork has a flat black paint job with plastic skulls glued to it and is super pointed with carbide tips(Super Scary)...i hope you halfwits realize this insurance scheme has absolutely nothing to do with your safety and well being,its just another end run around the 2nd amendment
  • #27
    !
    The Bloods and Crips are lining up now to take out insurance on their guns. When will people understand that in nearly all deaths, it's not from legal gun owners? So why do they want to penalize law abiding citizens?
  • #189
    !
    "So why do they want to penalize law abiding citizens?" Because the insurance industry's lobbyists give them lots of money? Just guessing.
  • #13
    !
    It's another form of gun control, particularly affecting the poorest of the poor, who may have enough money to buy an inexpensive firearm with which to protect themselves, their families and their property but not enough to buy liability insurance which premiums I am sure would be horrific. You may as well be mandating the owner of any large dogs, such as Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, etc. to also have to buy liability insurance since those dogs are responsible for most of the killings, maimings, etc. of children and adults yearly in the USA, most of the time with absolutely no consequences to their owners. And keep in mind, DOGS HAVE A MIND OF THEIR OWN. A firearm doesn't wander out of a drawer by itself and cause death and mayhem. Another backdoor approach at gun control, which will be adversely and disproportionately impact AFRICAN-AMERICANS, HISPANICS, NATIVE AMERICANS and POOR WHITES. Elitist, conspiratorial, racist, unConstitutional proposed law.
  • #312
    !
    @sliding_delta the problem with your dog argument is it's true. In many areas, home owner's insurance premiums are quite a bit higher if you own what is considered an "aggressive" dog. I know of two companies that refused to insure my friend because they owned a Rottweiler, whose only chance of hurting you would be if he licked you to death. I'm just pointing this fact out. I think it is completely asinine and rediculous, but also sadly true.
  • #2
    !
    If your gun hurts somebody and you were liable then you should pay for the damage you caused. Simple as that. This is no more than you have to do already with car insurance and home owners insurance.
  • #9
    !
    You do not have a right to drive, and home owner insurance is a requirement of a mortgage (not of home ownership). Liability insurance would create a direct financial barrier between a constitutional right.
  • #31
    !
    Your argument would have merit if it weren't for the Second Amendment. Let me break it down barney style for you.

    Contrary to your beliefs, you DO NOT have the right to a driver's license (you have the right to pursue one). You DO NOT have the right to home ownership (you have the right to pursue home ownership). Having auto insurance is a condition of owning a car and being a licensed driver. If you get into an accident, you need insurance to cover that accident (unless you're not at fault). You need homeowner's insurance as a condition of having a mortgage to pay for that home.

    Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right (not a privilege), whether you like it or not. Both SCOTUS decisions, Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago affirmed that right. Therefore, you are not required to have insurance as a condition to own a firearm for your own protection. And also contrary to your warped little mind, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who properly train with their weapon and constantly re-train themselves on proper justifications for the use of force. Meaning, if they fired that weapon in self-defense (i.e. justified shooting), there would be no need for insurance liability.
  • #41
    !
    @MarkJM consider the outrage if someone suggested that we need liability insurance before speaking or writing in case we commit libel or slander?
  • #42
    !
    Let me break it down for you two slow learners. If you do damage to someone - you are responsible. The government has a right to require that you be able to pay for any damage that you may cause. Requiring insurance is constitutional.
  • #55
    !
    Where would the limits to "damage" be if people are suddenly free to sue for them? Mental distress? Can't sleep or feel comfortable in your home because the neighbor owns a gun? Killed an intruder because he broke into the wrong house at 3:00 Am?
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    !
    You must think our foots asleep ----

    Another smoke screen from the liberal 'controllers.' Their losing the argument in cogent discourse on guns, so their grabbing at straws. What that would mean, is another infringement of our rights by a back door approach by everyone having insurance, including those of us that are poor and have a hard time meeting other responsibilities in their lives -- but have a need for protection, or pay a $10,000 fine for non compliance.

    This has other far reaching consequence, such as having a ready register for gun owners via their trust worthy insurance companies that most probably are complicit partners in this veiled gun-grab. What would follow, an illegal confiscation process.

    What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you compliant O'Bots of this Constitutional 'Challenged' administration understand???
  • #63
    !
    Yep. The powerful insurance company lobby dreamed up this gun grap scheme. Same lobby that pushed hard for Obamacare mandate. The individual's voice continues to get weaker.
  • #8
    !
    So... someone breaks into my home, attempts to rape my wife and kill me, I shoot them, they or their family sues me. Great.
  • #37
    !
    A lawsuit derived from such a scenario would easily be interpreted as frivolous. However, defending yourself from one will likely cost you dearly. And how much would these insurance premiums be? People that are barely making ends meet (a lot of people these days) that can't afford them essentially have zero 2nd amendment rights.
  • #57
    !
    can you imagine what the rates would be for some poor inner city dweller that has a legal weapon for self defense,,how about we make the commie halfwits that sponsor such garbage buy liability insurance because someone could not afford a gun for self defense because of the cost of gun control innsurance
  • #69
    !
    @MongoAPillager - This just makes me sick. This does nothing to increase safety, it doesn't even try to pretend to, it is just an attack on people like me that take responsibility for my own safety while they tell me to call 911, wait 15 minutes or more for help and hope for the best. Enforce existing laws, help us solve the violence problem we have and keep your hands off my rifle.
  • #139
    !
    It's funny that you mentioned this. In AZ, some of my gun toting friends that me under that same situation, I could be sued by the intruder or the intruder's family if he/she dies. I haven't researched it yet but if it is true, that sucks. I need to talk to my insurance agent now. lol.
  • #153
    !
    @Roco - I saw it happen to a neighbor in L.A. in 1991 when the burglar fell down the stairs during the struggle. They won and had to pay the theif's medical bills and legal fees. If this passes, we WILL see more cases like it.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    I actually think this is a great idea.....{if you're a collector and don't plan on actually using the guns for anything but just for display then the insurance should be the lowest}.....
  • #18
    !
    So we'll have premiums based on, where you live? How many weapons one owns? How well trained one is? Whether or not one carries concealed? Age? Type of ammo one carries? Types of guns in the safe?

    I see plenty of infringement.
  • #33
    !
    @Medicinebow Does not infringe at all.....what does the amendment say? A well regulated.....these are regulations.....some even sensible regs.....
  • #50
    !
    @Waynestew I've often thought that liability insurance would be the only way to effectively regulate guns and even put money to mental health reform.....fashion it like vehicle insurance.....then when a Newtown happens those people who have had loved ones lost are covered {up to a point anyway}.....
  • R Load more replies

  • #151
    !
    If my gun grows arms and legs escapes my locked gun safe, removes its own trigger lock, runs out in my front yard, murders my neighbors, after emptying its magazine, chases down the neighborhood pets and starts beating them to death, then I will consider this to be a good idea, until then it's almost the stupidest thing I've ever heard of!!!!!!!!
  • #25
    !
    HMMM.....is this ANOTHER case of the Democrat party trying to bolster the Insurance industry (see Obamacare for the first). Man, those dems musta got one big political party contribution to first.....bring us Obamacare.....and now gun liability insurance! Remember, you must take care of your bosses.....opps, I mean your contributors!
  • #366
    !
    Please tell me why these anti gun people cannot just leave the pro gun people alone? Ponder this a minute. If the pro gun people were as dangerous, and potentially crazy, as the anti gun people say they are, then tell me why there are still anti gun people?

    The gun is but a tool. We must control the crazies. We must stop the insanity. We must disband the entire Democratic Party.

    It's really the only way.
  • #157
    !
    This would be another form of gun control. The criminal element is not going to buy insurance of any type for a gun, its illegal for them to have one. My homeowners insurance already covers accidental discharges at my home and I'm fully insured in that manner. If I decided to leave my home and just go on a shooting spree, my insurance would not cover that, and you will never be able to buy insurance that would cover such an incident. They want control of gun owners and make it too expensive to own a gun, my response is "go to hell"
  • #127
    !
    So now you expect criminals to carry insurance, so after they injure someone It's covered? In my world If I injure someone with a gun I'm subject to lawsuit from day one,
    with or without insurance, what the hell' makes one think criminals care their going to jail, my insurance will not help the victim of another crime. "Liberal foolish beliefs"
  • #92
    !
    When they pass a law allowing me to sue the police if they don't show up in time, I'll agree to the insurance.
  • #61
    !
    And which criminals will be buying this insurance. Will the gangbangers in the bloods and crips get a group rate? This is nonsense and is just another attack on LEGAL gun ownership.
  • R Load more comments...
Post