US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dems push for $10K fine for gun owners who don't buy liability insurance

This is a discussion on Dems push for $10K fine for gun owners who don't buy liability insurance within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance By Cheryl K. Chumley The Washington Times All these people need to be voted ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:12 AM
tinydancer's Avatar
Registered User
Member #25451
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sundown
Posts: 24,453
Thanks: 13,398
Thanked 10,257 Times in 6,664 Posts
Mentioned: 100 Post(s)
Tagged: 5 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 15790
tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati
tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati tinydancer gives orders to the Illuminati
Dems push for $10K fine for gun owners who don't buy liability insurance

Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times


All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb ***** to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times
__________________
You know I've always been a dreamer
(spent my life running 'round)
And it's so hard to change
(Can't seem to settle down)
But the dreams I've seen lately
Keep on turning out and burning out
And turning out the same
So put me on a highway
And show me a sign
And take it to the limit one more time Credit:Eagles

Last edited by tinydancer; 04-02-2013 at 11:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tinydancer For This Useful Post:
bripat9643 (04-02-2013), CrusaderFrank (04-02-2013), eflatminor (04-02-2013)
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:22 AM
martybegan's Avatar
Registered User
Member #23094
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 13,433
Thanks: 1,908
Thanked 5,596 Times in 3,546 Posts
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4818
martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute
martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by tinydancer Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times


All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb ***** to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times
And the attempted end runs around the constitution continue.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to martybegan For This Useful Post:
9thIDdoc (04-02-2013), Jarlaxle (04-02-2013), tinydancer (04-02-2013)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:28 AM
Little-Acorn's Avatar
Registered User
Member #3254
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,198
Thanks: 18
Thanked 1,558 Times in 847 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2745
Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute
Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute
They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.
__________________
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we're using now.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:32 AM
g5000's Avatar
Registered User
Member #34052
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 23,017
Thanks: 44
Thanked 9,333 Times in 5,773 Posts
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4974
g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute
g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Little-Acorn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.
About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.
__________________
.


We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. - Charles Mackay
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to g5000 For This Useful Post:
auditor0007 (04-02-2013)
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:34 AM
Little-Acorn's Avatar
Registered User
Member #3254
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,198
Thanks: 18
Thanked 1,558 Times in 847 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2745
Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute
Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute Little-Acorn has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Little-Acorn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.
About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.
Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.
__________________
The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we're using now.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:36 AM
g5000's Avatar
Registered User
Member #34052
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 23,017
Thanks: 44
Thanked 9,333 Times in 5,773 Posts
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4974
g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute
g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute
Here is the actual bill if you want to read it for yourself:
Full Text of H.R. 1369: Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2013 - GovTrack.us

Quote:
Prohibitions- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
Quote:
Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.’
Another insurance mandate.
__________________
.


We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. - Charles Mackay
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:37 AM
g5000's Avatar
Registered User
Member #34052
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 23,017
Thanks: 44
Thanked 9,333 Times in 5,773 Posts
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4974
g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute
g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute g5000 has a reputation beyond repute
Don't worry. The bill has been sent to the House Judiciary committee where it will die a quiet death.
__________________
.


We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. - Ronald Reagan

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. - Charles Mackay
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to g5000 For This Useful Post:
OKTexas (04-02-2013)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:44 AM
Registered User
Member #41061
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,375
Thanks: 311
Thanked 840 Times in 575 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 507
Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet Crackerjaxon is faster than a speeding bullet
The insurance companies must love democrats. First Obama forces everyone in the country to give them money, now they're forcing gun owners to give them money.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” -- Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crackerjaxon For This Useful Post:
ba1614 (04-02-2013), Jarlaxle (04-02-2013)
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:55 AM
M14 Shooter's Avatar
The Light of Truth
Member #6581
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,219
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2,064 Times in 1,543 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1102
M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court
M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court M14 Shooter could be on the Supreme Court
Quote:
(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

‘(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

‘(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.
How will the government know if I have insurance?
First, it has to know I have a gun.
How will the government know I have a gun?
Universal registration.
__________________
The dumbest statement ever made at USMB:
Quote: Originally Posted by Luddly Neddite View Post
Guns aren't allowed at gun shows.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to M14 Shooter For This Useful Post:
bigrebnc1775 (04-02-2013)
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:57 AM
eflatminor's Avatar
Classical Liberal
Member #30139
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,393
Thanks: 2,490
Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,138 Posts
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2506
eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute
eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute eflatminor has a reputation beyond repute
While I do not except such a blatantly unconstitutional bill will become law, it is yet another example of gun grabbers making rules to keep firearms from the hands of poor people.

Shame, shame, shame...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to eflatminor For This Useful Post:
tinydancer (04-02-2013)
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:00 PM
Registered User
Member #37101
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,887
Thanks: 900
Thanked 2,513 Times in 1,737 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1402
tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court
tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court
Don't worry. The bill has been sent to the House Judiciary committee where it will die a quiet death.
That's hardly the point, the idea that elected officials are wasting our time introducing ridiculous measures like this makes one wonder if they shouldn't be doing something a bit more constructive.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:00 PM
auditor0007's Avatar
Registered User
Member #12997
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 10,224
Thanks: 1,982
Thanked 3,044 Times in 2,104 Posts
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2052
auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute
auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Little-Acorn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by Little-Acorn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
They are even abusing the concept of "insurance" with this pitiful attempt at govt control of gun owners.

Insurance is for ACCIDENTS. Or at least thing you didn't intend to cause. Many life insurance policies will not pay off if you commit suicide. I don't know if your auto insurance will pay off if it can be proven that you deliberately crashed your car, or torched it etc. Ditto if you deliberately burn your house down, committing arson.

But most incidents of people getting shot with guns, are done deliberately by somebody, to somebody else (or to himself in a suicide). If these big-govt maroons try to force you to pay in advance for your gun shooting someone, chances are it's you doing the shooting in the rare event that it happens. I'm not sure what that payment policy would be called, but "insurance", it ain't.
About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.
Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.
__________________
The left hates me almost as much as the right.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:04 PM
martybegan's Avatar
Registered User
Member #23094
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 13,433
Thanks: 1,908
Thanked 5,596 Times in 3,546 Posts
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4818
martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute
martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute martybegan has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by auditor0007 Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by Little-Acorn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

About one third of shootings in the US are accidental shootings.
Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.
No you sue the person in question using the courts. If the person was negligent, it should be a simple matter to get compensated.

The concept behind auto insurance is that there are so many accidents, that ajudicating every single one would require a massive court system that would still be bogged down due to the sheer number of cases involved. The number of gun accident cases does not warrant this.

The real reason behind requiring insurance is to price people out of owning firearms, pure and simple.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to martybegan For This Useful Post:
gallantwarrior (04-02-2013), Jarlaxle (04-02-2013)
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:10 PM
gallantwarrior's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31362
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: So far in the boonies, I'm not on google street view.
Posts: 14,018
Thanks: 10,530
Thanked 5,445 Times in 3,644 Posts
Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 9994
gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow
gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow gallantwarrior is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by tinydancer Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times


All these people need to be voted out of office. They're freaking looney tunes. As if gang violence in any city is going to be curtailed by this new law.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. When purchasing a weapon illegally in the city of Chicago, the gun runner is going to demand the gang member purchase liability insurance.

Rep. Maloney is one hell of a dumb ***** to think that for one moment this is going to stop gun violence. Sheesh. Where do these fools come from?


A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the text of the bill states.

Ms. Maloney says her bill would shift the cost of gun violence back onto those who own the weapon. Gun rights groups call that logic ridiculous, however.

“[The bill] is ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, to The Daily Caller.



Democrats push for $10K fine for gun owners without liability insurance - Washington Times
Will they be including and "uninsured gun owner" clause as well, similar to the "uninsured motorist" insurance?
__________________

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty." Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:14 PM
auditor0007's Avatar
Registered User
Member #12997
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 10,224
Thanks: 1,982
Thanked 3,044 Times in 2,104 Posts
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2052
auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute
auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute auditor0007 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by martybegan Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by auditor0007 Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Quote: Originally Posted by Little-Acorn Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Thanks for supporting what I said. Most shootings are done deliberately. So the concept of "insurance" doesn't even apply.
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting. So if you come to my house and I accidentally shoot and kill you while I'm showing you my gun, your spouse should not be able to collect anything for my negligence? The thought process for those on the right leaves a lot to be desired.
No you sue the person in question using the courts. If the person was negligent, it should be a simple matter to get compensated.

The concept behind auto insurance is that there are so many accidents, that ajudicating every single one would require a massive court system that would still be bogged down due to the sheer number of cases involved. The number of gun accident cases does not warrant this.

The real reason behind requiring insurance is to price people out of owning firearms, pure and simple.
Good luck suing someone with very few assets. Most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Suing them won't get you a dime, but it'll keep the lawyers wealthy.
__________________
The left hates me almost as much as the right.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.