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

[Uncensored2008]

That's an outstanding idea!

Just like the "Poll Tax" you democrats came up with.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

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

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

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.

...

“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 sole path to regulating gun ownership has always been insurance. When Republican John Roberts became the man whose vote made Obamacare constitutional it was only a matter of time before insurance companies took a closer look at guns.

John Roberts was the go-between for Baker and Rehnquist in re Florida 2000. Following helping Rehnquist find his way to ordaining Junebug in 2000 Roberts was appointed to replace Rehnquist in 2005.

If insurers get to Roberts again it could be Obama isn't the worst result directly caused by the white trash of America re electing Junebug in 2004.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Neither does voter-fraud but look at the Republicans salivate over that.

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

 

[eflatminor]

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Uh, just because someone has insurance doesn't mean a lawsuit won't be filed and the courts utilized to settle the suit, thereby using 'tax-payer money'.

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Neither does voter-fraud but look at the Republicans salivate over that.

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Yep, just as you democrats thought a poll tax was a great idea.

Of course you dims do tend to attack civil rights on a pretty regular basis.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Neither does voter-fraud but look at the Republicans salivate over that.

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Yep, just as you democrats thought a poll tax was a great idea.

Of course you dims do tend to attack civil rights on a pretty regular basis.

Are you really so ignorant that you believe the Democratic Party of today is the same as it was in the decades of the 19th Century?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you really so ignorant that you believe the Democratic Party of today is the same as it was in the decades of the 19th Century?

Are you dims trying to engage in prior restraint of the exercise of constitutional rights by imposing a tax in the form of insurance?

Damn, you sure are - another generation of dims, another poll tax.

Color me shocked.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Homeowners policy would cover that, actually. The though process for the gun-grabbers leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Neither does voter-fraud but look at the Republicans salivate over that.

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Yep, just as you democrats thought a poll tax was a great idea.

Of course you dims do tend to attack civil rights on a pretty regular basis.

Are you really so ignorant that you believe the Democratic Party of today is the same as it was in the decades of the 19th Century?

Clearly, it isn't - back in the 19th century, they were honest.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Since gun insurance would inevitably be very expensive (few people would buy it, and payouts would be during tragedy, thus, expenisve- like hurricane (flood) insurance on the coast).......then only wealthy people would have guns in theory.

Hmmm. Only the rich have guns.

A Republican's wet dream!!!!!

Are you playing dumb,or are you really THIS FUCKING STUPID?

 

[hjmick]

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

It's not insurance, it's a tax...

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Homeowners policy would cover that, actually. The though process for the gun-grabbers leaves a lot to be desired.

A lot of gun owners rent. Renters insurance would not cover that. But keep making stupid assumptions. It's good for the soul.

 

[legaleagle_45]

A lot of gun owners rent. Renters insurance would not cover that. But keep making stupid assumptions. It's good for the soul.

What makes you think that Renters Insurance would not cover that? A standard Renters policy does cover liability associated with accidents:

Do I Need Renters Insurance Coverage? Common Renters Insurance Myths

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Homeowners policy would cover that, actually. The though process for the gun-grabbers leaves a lot to be desired.

A lot of gun owners rent. Renters insurance would not cover that.

You said this ^^^

But keep making stupid assumptions. It's good for the soul.

Then this ^^^

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Will they be including and "uninsured gun owner" clause as well, similar to the "uninsured motorist" insurance?

They should make the mandate accountable to everyone even those who don't own a firearm.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Uh, just because someone has insurance doesn't mean a lawsuit won't be filed and the courts utilized to settle the suit, thereby using 'tax-payer money'.

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

No shit.

I didn't say it would keep lawsuits from being filed but if it keeps some claims from going to court, it would be worth it.

It makes sense that gun ownership should require insurance.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Homeowners policy would cover that, actually. The though process for the gun-grabbers leaves a lot to be desired.

A lot of gun owners rent. Renters insurance would not cover that. But keep making stupid assumptions. It's good for the soul.

Wrong Kemosabe. Renters insurance automatically provides personal liability coverage.

 

[eflatminor]

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Uh, just because someone has insurance doesn't mean a lawsuit won't be filed and the courts utilized to settle the suit, thereby using 'tax-payer money'.

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

No shit.

I didn't say it would keep lawsuits from being filed but if it keeps some claims from going to court, it would be worth it.

It makes sense that gun ownership should require insurance.

Actually, you did, but what's the truth when we're really talking about what FEELS right.

Say, can we also require insurance for anyone that speaks? After all, it makes sense that free speech should require insurance coverage for slander.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Suing people uses tax-payer money. Forget it. Gun owners can insure themselves. I think it's a great idea.

Uh, just because someone has insurance doesn't mean a lawsuit won't be filed and the courts utilized to settle the suit, thereby using 'tax-payer money'.

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

No shit.

I didn't say it would keep lawsuits from being filed but if it keeps some claims from going to court, it would be worth it.

It makes sense that gun ownership should require insurance.

Every bit as much sense as the government requiring that the news media carry liability insurance for libel.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you really so ignorant that you believe the Democratic Party of today is the same as it was in the decades of the 19th Century?

Are you dims trying to engage in prior restraint of the exercise of constitutional rights by imposing a tax in the form of insurance?

Damn, you sure are - another generation of dims, another poll tax.

Color me shocked.

I was being kind in suggesting you're ignorant.