Posted on 01/22/2013 1:44:53 PM PST by Daffynition
As the gun debate heats up, one idea seems particularly suited for Connecticut to consider: liability insurance for gun owners.
This is the kind of mandatory insurance you have to get to drive a car — and the kind of protection that costs more if you want to take what the industry knows is a calculated risk. Letting your teenager get behind the wheel is a good example.
(Excerpt) Read more at courantblogs.com ...
Hey Rick Green, go back to reporting about the Hartford Public Schools. That was your forte.
That’s like getting insurance for your right to vote, you ignorant ninny.
Nope.
Already been discussed by MA Libs. Minimum $500K insurance on each separate firearm owned. For a small collection, annual premium would run between $20K and $50K.
Will the state provide “Obamadork Felon Insurance” to give me some Obamabucks when I successfully defend myself against one of his voters?
Liberal idiots need liability insurance.
Crimes (including negligence) are not insurable. Accidents are few and far between. Guns are less dangerous than other items.
Insurance for the right to vote IS the Second Amendment.
Driving a vehicle on roads paid for by taxing the citizenry is a privilege.
Owing a hadgun in defense of one's life and property is not. It is a right, endowed upon us by our Creator. And per the Constitution, government is enjoined from infringing on that right. Period.
Liability insurance for gun owners? Puhleeze. I will not comply.
That sounds a lot like infringement.
It needs a clause requiring magazines and newspapers and TV stations to pay a truth tax on every issue they print.
It’s not the same as car insurance. With auto insurance you put other drivers and pedestrians at risk by driving on public roads. If you own a car but don’t register it and simply keep it in your garage, you don’t need it insured. So, if you’re going to walk around randomly spraying bullets, by all means, lets require insurance for that. Secondly, if the purpose of requiring insurance (stated or otherwise) is to make it prohibitedly expensive for someone to own a gun, then that in and of itself is infringing on ones right to own firearms.
Poll tax.
I’ll pay a 2nd Amendment tax when all the libtard journalists pay a First Amendment Free Speech tax for spewing their biased propaganda everyday.
How about actual GUN CRIMINALS being fined/taxed?!?! The law abiding aren’t criminals shooting others. And even if they do, shooting in self defense arguably keeps costs down, by reducing the number of people the criminal thug can injure or murder. uncalcuable really, how many future families won’t be robbed or injured or murdered because a lawful gun owner shoots that criminal in self defense?
Every shooting, insured or uninsured, legal or illegal will drive costs up.
How convenient.
This is a registration scheme.
Also a huge amount of money, which would attract some people.
Hmm, it’s a scheme to get the burbs to pay for urban ER care as well.
The gov’t is preparing to bill your family for the bullet used to put you down.
Spot on.
remember folks,
the MAJOR push opposing self defense RIGHTS via stand your ground was from PLAINTIFF’s Lawyers.
They mooched off of the home owner insurance. Stand you ground laws WERE TORT REFORM because it eliminated libility and hit the plaintiff’s bar in the wallet.
I have a $2 million liability umbrella policy.
Maybe I should review what all it covers.
Hmmm, illegals don’t have to get liability insurance for their illegal cars which they drive with illegal licenses which provide them the ability to illegally vote.
(Don’t try that “the law says they have to be insured Obamastuff with me...we all know that illegals obey the law about as much as the Obamadork and the Holder “MyPeople” dork.)
But we should get gun insurance for what - exactly?
Using a gun to defend ourselves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.