Posted on 04/03/2013 10:47:17 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
Ok! Lets get real here. If the gun control whackos are going to require gun owners to carry insurance then convicted felons need to carry insurance also! If they are going to make you pay to own a gun then make conficted felons pay to be a criminal. Then when these idiots destroy property or worse injure or kill someone, their premiums go through the roof and they must be forced to compinsate those whose lives they have screwed up!
“having a criminal admit to having or registering a gun IS self incrimination.”
And having John Q Public register a gun is what?
It could be done. Landmark Legal Foundation (Mark Levin) could make the case for sure.
How about gays having to carry liability insurances against them spreading AIDS and other abominations and STDS. Register these idiots. How come we have no registry of AIDS carriers? IE disease carriers?
Require legislators to carry liability insurance for the damage thy do!!!!
You of course realize that if enough serial killers live in a particular democrip district and voted that they would be protected from registry, right?
All good examples! The list of “potential” threats to society goes on and on. Why should we pick on guns only?
Now this is a great point!!!! I’m in!
“Does every criminal pay this fee and if so is it law in most states?”
I don’t know of any that don’t. It is a standard line item on the list of “punitive actions” and if there is no actual victim, then the fee is actually handed over to MADD. I have to admit, I mis-named it in my other post, it is actually called the “Victim Impact Panel Fine” or something very close to that...
“Yes I am aware that many felony charges do not involve damage to property or persons.”
Then what is the point of increasing government reach to force these folks to buy an insurance product to protect no one from damage to their person or property?
If they are going to reach out after gun owners than they sure as hell can “reach out” after criminals...
So, your response to government over reach is to advocate more government over reach? And we wonder why the GOP is confused and on its last breath.
The fact is that we won this argument in 1791. It is settled. No response to their idiocy is even required. However, if you feel a need to debate the lunatics, then use an approach that at least is on the side of NOT increasing the scope of the government.
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.