Now I have to carry Liability Insurance for my weapons

[e30moneypit]

Yo guys are reading way too into it and actually believe this is about helping people. Its about taxes. Wake up evry hot topic out there uncle sam wants in on the action. Its about helping$$ and nothing else. Wake up!

[M-technik-3]

No it's not. It's about making more legislation where there does not need to be. This is someone trying to get his name out there.

[tjts1]

If there's one thing I trust less than the government is poor people with guns. Can't afford the tax? Then you shouldn't have a gun. Simple as that.

[2761377]

here's a couple paragraphs from kurt eichenwald's missive in Vanity Fair entitled 'let's repeal the second amendment'. just so there's no confusion about the motivation to require insurance. remember, a felony conviction prohibits gun ownership.

But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. That’s required for owning a car, despite the fact that such a rule could be deemed by the unreasonable as being an impediment to constitutional protections of interstate commerce. And, unlike government, the one thing insurance companies know how to do is assess risk.


You want a semi-automatic assault rifle? O.K., says the insurer. Where are you going to store it? Who else will have access to it? Your insurance won’t apply if someone else is firing it. Have you been trained? Do you have a license? You want another one—well, your rates just went up. And by the way—you have to notify us if you have been deemed to have any psychiatric problems, because we might cancel your policy. Then, just like with a car, people who want to carry around their gun have to have their insurance card on them at all times. And folks who have a gun without insurance? Well, that’s when the government steps in and deems it a felony

[Wiglaf]

In that perspective it sure would motivate people to be more responsible and promote the mindset that it is something you should constantly keep an eye on, not something you chuck into the nightstand and forget about. $$ talks.
And yeah I know the argument.. but let's face it, there are a LOT of irresponsible people out there. Something that it doesn't address is that it will cause higher black market illegal sales. But as far as felons go, it's already illegal for them. That and the collateral damage doesn't occur that often but perhaps that should show up as a low rate. As with cars I'm sure if you have money set aside in a dedicated account you can be declared self-insured.

The people that are passionate about guns would pony up and pay. The ones that keep some laying around just to go plinking once every 8 months will say screw it and get rid of it. The rest probably didn't register in the first place.

[M-technik-3]

Your insurance doesn't cover what a thief has done with your car while it's in his illegal possession.

No insurance company is going to write a policy for this far fetched idea because that would open them up to more lawsuits. Like being oh under insured because the thief loaded a high capacity magazine or some other bs thing they can think up.

[mrsleeve]

My look at the constitution suggests that the point of the second amendment was to offset the power of the militia. The constitutional militia is the military, NOT private citizens. The intent was to provide them with the firepower to oppose the military.

Militia is defined at the federal level, as every male ages 17-45 and up to 65 for former military. There for anyone who falls into that demographic, is considered part of the militia period, no matter your political leaning, or personal feeling on the matter that is the fact of the matter.

Next if we look to the dick act of 1903 (that cant be repealed and is the law of the land an has been being ignored since 1934) The National guard is considered the organized militia, BUT ALL THE REST OF US that fall in to that 17-45 group and are male are CONSIDERED THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA, there for we have the rights to any and all means afforded to the to the average individual rifle man in the military.

If we want to go by the spirit there, that would suggest that individual citizens are entitled to anything that military has. After all, they can hardly "well-regulate" the military without equivalent arms. (And training - which is what makes the whole notion so utterly laughable today.)

Well regulated does not refer to organization and playing army in the woods with your buddies it refers to being familiar with your own privately held weapons, and knowing how to use it.
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters


Yes tis true lack of actually military training is a pit fall, but think about the fact that if you take just 5 average states, WI, PA, MI, OH, MN, and add up everyone that arms them selves and heads into the woods to kill dear....... Equals more armed people than the 3 or 4 largest armies in the world Combined. Now think about the fact that a few people with little "military training" have stymied the greatest military force the world has ever seen for 10 years, and the 2ed largest for a decade previous to that.

Edit: And I'm not even going to bother responding to your utterly ridiculous and stupid and irrelevant argument about murder or manslaughter. It has absolutely no relation to anything I've said.

How so you brought it up
post #10

Why should you not have to carry liability insurance? If, through your negligence or actions, the gun is used to do harm, why shouldn't you be insured for that?

Again in post #15

If it is stolen due to your negligence, then I'd suggest that yes, you should have some liability. If you have a gun, you have a responsibility to secure it.

And post #17

Actually, if you are sufficiently negligent, you can be held liable for that.

Hence my point about a person using a stolen weapon to hurt some one else. You seem keen on holding that victim of theft financially responsible for a crime that was committed with his stolen property by someone else. Along with the fact one should have to carry a pointless and legally unneeded insurance policy to pay for such instances. Hence my posting of the proximate cause definition.

If I am some how mistaken on the interpretation of proximate cause, please point in the correct direction to the correct one so I can learn from my mistake

here's a couple paragraphs from kurt eichenwald's missive in Vanity Fair entitled 'let's repeal the second amendment'. just so there's no confusion about the motivation to require insurance. remember, a felony conviction prohibits gun ownership.

But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. That’s required for owning a car, despite the fact that such a rule could be deemed by the unreasonable as being an impediment to constitutional protections of interstate commerce. And, unlike government, the one thing insurance companies know how to do is assess risk.


You want a semi-automatic assault rifle? O.K., says the insurer. Where are you going to store it? Who else will have access to it? Your insurance won’t apply if someone else is firing it. Have you been trained? Do you have a license? You want another one—well, your rates just went up. And by the way—you have to notify us if you have been deemed to have any psychiatric problems, because we might cancel your policy. Then, just like with a car, people who want to carry around their gun have to have their insurance card on them at all times. And folks who have a gun without insurance? Well, that’s when the government steps in and deems it a felony

Dont like get the Constitution amended to reflect this. You cant "repeal" the 2A away, we could amend it to reflect that, but you cant repeal it. You never going to get 66% in the US houses and 66% in both houses of 75% of the states.

I am not going to say anymore than that about this

[2761377]

[


Dont like get the Constitution amended to reflect this. You cant "repeal" the 2A away, we could amend it to reflect that, but you cant repeal it. You never going to get 66% in the US houses and 66% in both houses of 75% of the states.

I am not going to say anymore than that about this[/quote]


if you didn't read the complete article. you might misunderstand the point of his desire. after spewing venom on Scalia for Heller, he admits actually repealing the 2nd amendment is not currently feasible. he offers the insurance idea as possible the best way to discourage semi-auto ownership.

which is typical of the tactics used by anti-gunners. 'reasonable limits' are what they feel they can get away with right now but CANNOT be the ultimate solution to the "problem"-

any thinking person realizes the only way to stop forever acts like Newtown and Aurora is confiscation of all 300 million guns in this country.
it is cowardly of the gun control groups to deny this. but tactically sound.

bottom line- unless the person admits this as the goal, he is a liar.


full disclosure- i'm a 'from my cold, dead hand' guy.

[Grand525]

If there's one thing I trust less than the government is poor people with guns. Can't afford the tax? Then you shouldn't have a gun. Simple as that.

Here is something you should think about the way you perceive yourself, prior to other people.

[ajackz]

These laws are ridiculous. I'm not one to automatically think about revolutions and revolts, but the laws that are being proposed and pushed through are certainly making me question my freedoms. Even if your not a gun owner you should still be concerned, these laws affect you more than you think.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

[Grand525]

These laws are ridiculous. I'm not one to automatically think about revolutions and revolts, but the laws that are being proposed and pushed through are certainly making me question my freedoms. Even if your not a gun owner you should still be concerned, these laws affect you more than you think.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

Sooner or later they will get them all, all of your rights and properties.

As long as greed is legal, they will find a way to make more money for themselves, and less for others.

Just pause for a second and think a little bit further, it's all about money.

[Wiglaf]

Here is something you should think about the way you perceive yourself, prior to other people.

cool vid. and it's true, the world is what you make of it.

[iamsam]

So, I've been playing Grand Theft Auto for years.........why am I not out stealing cars, robbing banks and murdering hookers to get my money back?

Mental health is the real issue.

My point was, I would rather ban video games than ban guns.

And no, video games aren't the real issue, I completely agree. But for people who are hell-bent on banning something as a knee-jerk reaction (read: liberals), I would rather they ban computer games than guns. Mostly because I can sure do without video games, but can't do so well without guns.

That said, I enjoy COD and other 1st person shooters.

Since when did I say that you have full liability for that? Having liability does not mean having full liability.

However, failure to secure firearms should be criminalized in my opinion.

I guess I am not totally following your question here, probably because i don't feel like going back and re-reading all of the pertinent posts.

But the idea is, if someone steals your gun, you ought to be liable for it being stolen, based on the level of security that gun was placed under at the time (i.e. if your gun was in a proper safe and a thief broke into your locked house and torched the safe open, you ought not to be liable at all), but what the thief does with the gun after the fact ought not to be your liability at all.

[Q5Quint]

[...
any thinking person realizes the only way to stop forever acts like Newtown and Aurora is confiscation of all 300 million guns in this country.
it is cowardly of the gun control groups to deny this. but tactically sound.

bottom line- unless the person admits this as the goal, he is a liar.


full disclosure- i'm a 'from my cold, dead hand' guy.

Exactly- I don't know how folks can talk about violent video games when I can was netflix and see far more disturbing things than call-o-duty could ever toss out.

I think the argument exists that we are in the least violent times the world has ever experienced. Sure there are some revolts and civil wars and genocide and child soldiers etc etc.... but in a country of 300 million, with nearly 300 million guns, the united states is statistically one of the safest places in the world. Maybe not great Britain with its 'super low gun deaths' statistics... but don't forget you are talking about the most imperialist nation in the world that you could attribute millions on millions of deaths to. How nice that they are so non-violent now.

Think about it. If your 'gun tax' was just a dollar per gun... straight from wikipedia:

Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.[7]

300 million guns... at a dollar each. That means you could give the families of every gun death victim in the country almost 10k bucks each.

Lets expand this. Say it was... 2 dollars per gun per year.

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.

So now we can give everyone that dies from a bullet 10k, and if you are non-fatal shot (75k people) we can give you about 4k bucks.

Since most people shoot themselves on purpose we would have to come up with some law so that people couldn't 'cheat the system'.... but maybe we should allow it for darwin-award type gene pool clensing?

[mrsleeve]

^

FYI the UK has a Violent crime rate that is 4 times that of the US, Yup they have less gun crime, but your 4 times more likely to be Assaulted, raped, robed, mugged or murdered with something other than a firearm in the UK If I remember the stats off the top of my head right, the US has a Violent crime rate of 480 instances per 100k people the Uk is just over 2000 Instances of Violent crime per 100k people.


Ok should we tax free speech? Its not really a fundamental right if it can be taken form me for failing to PAY for it or for not filling out a slip of paper now is it. Why would you want to just keep redistributing more and more money, dont we all pay enough taxes as it is now ??.