The Liberal Gun Club Forum

I can see some good arguments in favor. It's like having a car, you don't necessarily have insurance for yourself, you have it in case you hit someone else.

Still, I don't think I like the idea.

You beat me to it, Mark.

Anyway, screw this idea. Owning a gun is my right. This idea is just as stupid as requiring fees to vote. Or granting speech licenses for a fee.

Non-starter.

You would have a lot of poor people doing what they do with car insurance...

Absolutely not. This equals financial penalization of the exercise of an enumerated right. Baaad news. Maybe we should have to pay to vote too?

Well, when I decided to carry I added an umbrella to my insurance coverage. Does that kind of answer the question?

Mandatory? Being a right, I sort of doubt mandatory would fly. But...depends upon one's exposure. For myself, it just seemed to be an intelligent choice.

"In case shit happens"

3:40 "Lie to me Jerry!!!"

I'm in the absolutely not camp.

Just another attempt to make ownership of firearms so expensive as to deter people from having them. Infringement on Constitutional rights, straight up.



Regards,

CarolinaHiker

CarolinaHiker wrote:I'm in the absolutely not camp.

Just another attempt to make ownership of firearms so expensive as to deter people from having them. Infringement on Constitutional rights, straight up.



Regards,

CarolinaHiker

I agree its not a good idea and it would be a tax on a constitutionally protected freedom. However, I don't think its a nefarious attempt to take away arms. I think its well intentioned people who haven't clearly thought through what they are proposing. I think the sooner we stop saying that any idea that people propose, where they are trying to think of ways to minimize gun deaths (even if it is clearly wrong and misguided), is automatically trying to take our guns, the better. (that is one horrible sentence... oh well.)

mark wrote:I agree its not a good idea and it would be a tax on a constitutionally protected freedom. However, I don't think its a nefarious attempt to take away arms. I think its well intentioned people who haven't clearly thought through what they are proposing. I think the sooner we stop saying that any idea that people propose, where they are trying to think of ways to minimize gun deaths (even if it is clearly wrong and misguided), is automatically trying to take our guns, the better. (that is one horrible sentence... oh well.)

I agree that the majority of those who are anti-gun are simply misguided and misinformed.

However there are some who have another agenda entirely. Bloomberg would qualify. I'm sorry, but that guy is in no way "misinformed." He knows EXACTLY what he's proposing and most definitely has an ultimate agenda of disarmament. As a preposterously wealthy member of the corporate elite, he most definitely wants "the little people" disarmed so he can do whatever the frack he wants and get away with it with little to no chance of resistance.

Wurble wrote:

mark wrote:I agree its not a good idea and it would be a tax on a constitutionally protected freedom. However, I don't think its a nefarious attempt to take away arms. I think its well intentioned people who haven't clearly thought through what they are proposing. I think the sooner we stop saying that any idea that people propose, where they are trying to think of ways to minimize gun deaths (even if it is clearly wrong and misguided), is automatically trying to take our guns, the better. (that is one horrible sentence... oh well.)

I agree that the majority of those who are anti-gun are simply misguided and misinformed.

However there are some who have another agenda entirely. Bloomberg would qualify. I'm sorry, but that guy is in no way "misinformed." He knows EXACTLY what he's proposing and most definitely has an ultimate agenda of disarmament. As a preposterously wealthy member of the corporate elite, he most definitely wants "the little people" disarmed so he can do whatever the frack he wants and get away with it with little to no chance of resistance.

I don't know enough about Bloomberg to agree or disagree, but I am sure there indeed people who want to get rid of guns.

An armed populace are Citizens.

A disaramed populace are Subjects


Regards,

CarolinaHiker

An economist by the name of Robert Murphy has proposed a solution which I believe would work much better than mandatory firearm insurance. Criminal insurance for the individual. People pay into an insurance agency which agrees to pay out for any damages they cause by violence or destruction of property/theft. If someone goes around acting like a thug, their rates go up. Eventually they'll be uninsurable and thereby a huge credit risk. Guns, knives and cars don't commit crimes. Human beings do.

ArmedAznF wrote:An economist by the name of Robert Murphy has proposed a solution which I believe would work much better than mandatory firearm insurance. Criminal insurance for the individual. People pay into an insurance agency which agrees to pay out for any damages they cause by violence or destruction of property/theft. If someone goes around acting like a thug, their rates go up. Eventually they'll be uninsurable and thereby a huge credit risk. Guns, knives and cars don't commit crimes. Human beings do.

So, I have to endure being billed from my wages, just in case I commit some criminal activity? I've never heard such a dumb idea, and leave it up to some educated idiot, "economist" to come to that conclusion.

Screw that.

Prosecute criminals, and stop with the deal making and plea bargaining...and in general, letting them off with a slap on the wrist.


Regards,

CarolinaHiker

Murphy never said it should be compulsory.

One of the first sentences out of the mouth of my trainer for my concealed license was:

"Count on it, if you use deadly force, justified or otherwise, you will be sued. The mugger you defend yourself from or the lady who's cat got hit by your ricochet, makes no difference, both will not hesitate to bring a lawsuit."

Anyone want to take a guess about the cost of defending a personal injury / wrongful death lawsuit? I would wager that most of us here don't have that kind of cash laying around. Even if you win, you loose.

For myself, it was an absolute no-brainer. $300.00 additional per year added to my household insurance brought a million in umbrella coverage that I will probably never need...but if I should, there's an insurance company that will spend 10's of thousands defending me to protect their million.