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

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.

Not a good enough reason to infringe on a consitutional right. Dont like it? Change the 2nd amendment.
 
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.
Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?

Why do you want to deny anyone recourse in the event of an accident that takes one of your loved ones?

Why would anyone be entitled to recourse if it was his loved one taken in an accident?
 
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting.
Explain to us exactly how a requirement to have insurance before you can exercise a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution does not constitute an infringement of that right.

Funny that you can see that, but cannot see it is no different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.
 
Last edited:
(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.

Did you not read the part you actually quoted?

You produce proof of insurance AT THE TIME YOU BUY A GUN.
 
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.

you have a home owners policy don't you?? you where doing good,but then pulled up short at the last finish line. If not she could moving into her new house,your old one.

If someone wonders about their own abilities to NOT shoot someone,buy a good liability policy on yourself cuse your gun can't do it on its own.
 
Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?

Why do you want to deny anyone recourse in the event of an accident that takes one of your loved ones?

Answer the original question.

When a poor person can afford a gun, they can buy one, but they should have insurance just like everyone else. I find it hilarious how you guys scream about personal responsibility but then argue that nobody really needs to be responsible for themselves. You argue against people being required to do anything, even when it costs everyone else to pay for their irresponsibility.
 
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.
Not a good enough reason to infringe on a consitutional right.
Correct.
The current system provides recourse; there is no compelling state interest sevred by forcing people who choose to exercise their right to arms to purchase insurance.
 
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting.
Explain to us exactly how a requirement to have insurance before you can exercise a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution does not constitute an infringement of that right.

Funny that you can see that, but cannot see it is no different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.
Sssshhhhhhhh.. I'm getting there.....
 
(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.

Did you not read the part you actually quoted?

You produce proof of insurance AT THE TIME YOU BUY A GUN.

So no insurance on the gun you have had for 30 years?? I haven't picked up a new one in over 10
 
Why do you want to deny anyone recourse in the event of an accident that takes one of your loved ones?

Answer the original question.

When a poor person can afford a gun, they can buy one, but they should have insurance just like everyone else. I find it hilarious how you guys scream about personal responsibility but then argue that nobody really needs to be responsible for themselves. You argue against people being required to do anything, even when it costs everyone else to pay for their irresponsibility.
You didnt answer the question.
Why do you want to deny poor people the right to keep and bear arms?
 
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting.
Explain to us exactly how a requirement to have insurance before you can exercise a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution does not constitute an infringement of that right.

No different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I doubt insurance for guns will be $10-$20 every 7 years......

Voting is also a transient act, and the nature of anonymous voting requires that you know BEFORE the vote is made that the person can actually vote. Any good idea how to do that?
 
Explain to us exactly how a requirement to have insurance before you can exercise a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution does not constitute an infringement of that right.

No different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I doubt insurance for guns will be $10-$20 every 7 years......

Voting is also a transient act, and the nature of anonymous voting requires that you know BEFORE the vote is made that the person can actually vote. Any good idea how to do that?

Yeah. The way we have been doing it for over 200 years WITHOUT Voter ID.

It is already done!
 
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.

7/8 of your posts are radical left or just fucking pointless, not sure there's a difference
 
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 bitch 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

But asking someone to show photo ID when they vote violates their right to vote?????
 
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.

Can we get insurance against people like you, who want to strip away basic civil rights?
 
(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.
Did you not read the part you actually quoted?
You produce proof of insurance AT THE TIME YOU BUY A GUN.
I knew I'd have to explain this to someone.

The only way the governent will know that you did/didn't have insurance when you bought the gun is if it knows when you bought the gun.

Just like universal backgroud checks, this is just another excuse to enact univeral registration
 
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.

7/8 of your posts are radical left or just fucking pointless, not sure there's a difference

Is there a difference between radical left and radical right? You are about as radical right as there is, so anything that falls close to the middle seems radical left to you.
 
No need for insurance when it comes to all those accidental shootings? Interesting.
Explain to us exactly how a requirement to have insurance before you can exercise a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution does not constitute an infringement of that right.
Funny that you can see that, but cannot see it is no different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.
Similary, if you oppose the requirement for a voter ID, you must oppose this insurance requirement on the same grounds.
Never mind the fact that the argument for a voter ID is far far stronger.
 
No different than requiring someone spend money to acquire a Voter ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I doubt insurance for guns will be $10-$20 every 7 years......

Voting is also a transient act, and the nature of anonymous voting requires that you know BEFORE the vote is made that the person can actually vote. Any good idea how to do that?

Yeah. The way we have been doing it for over 200 years WITHOUT Voter ID.

It is already done!

And chicago has been stuffing ballot boxes for around half that time. The only reason its not been longer is chicago hasnt been around that long.

Voter fraud was rampant in NYC during tammany hall days as well. Is that the "system working?"
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top