House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

Well, I don't believe you. Who is your carrier? What type of policy do you have?

No it wouldn't. Please stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. I do this for a living.
[AUOTE]My agent told me that should such a ridiculous law gets passed and since it is styled for just a few, that amount would probably double up to $2700. [/QUOTE]
And I believe that as much as I believe the other two claims above.

Thank you for admitting it's covered on your current insurance, showing you lied above.

Yep. And after we take your guns we will throw you in FEMA camps to prepare for the alien invasion.

lol, considering you just admitted to lying above............

 

Seems that there is an inexhaustible supply of people that have the potential to be liable...

http://fox59.com/2013/10/18/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-finger-while-cleaning-gun/

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-tequesta-shooting-brief-20150526-story.html

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/...mself-woman-while-cleaning-gun-265979411.html

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015...ts-himself-knee-while-cleaning-gun-police-say

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/police-fire/Man-shoots-self-while-cleaning-gun-6957156

And that is just a small sampling.

 

Thanks to the public education system there are far too many stupid people around today that would clean a loaded gun.

 

Common sense cannot be taught.

 

You might be right. The author of this bill seems to have none.

 

Yeah better the bad guy than my family. The rest of your rant makes zero sense.

 

It would price people out of owning a gun, such as an abused wife fleeing her husband because she is scared for her and her child's life. She hadn't worked because he brought home the income, so she has very little money and career skills. The husband is raging mad and looking for her, she thinks he will probably kill her if he finds her. But she cant afford to protect herself with a gun because she cant pay the monthly insurance cost.

 

What has been addressed, is your outright disbelief of the notion that government will arbitrarily determine that currently existing liability insurance policies, will not legally qualify for acceptable insurance under the proposed legislation.

Pass a bad law, allow the damage to occur as countless people are negatively affected, before they can go to court, and show that they have standing because they were harmed, before the merits of the case is argued in court, and the determination is made whether or not the law is unconstitutional.

It is a legal runaround. It would be simpler to simply refrain from passing bad laws.

Only if you can demonstrate that you have standing to challenge the law in question. Otherwise the case will be thrown out, and you cannot refile.

The links also state that border agents routinely ignore and violate the protections of the constitution, and are not subject to oversight for their actions.

 

Huh? It seems pretty clear that you didn't understand what I was saying at all.

Let's try this again: Do you think that mandated car insurance sets a precedent that would allow the US government to require a citizen to purchase an insurance policy before engaging in speech or exercising their religion?

Please answer that question.

 

Studies show that if guns aren't available, suicide rates don't change--the method of suicide does. Japan has a higher suicide rate than our combined murder and suicide rate, and they have almost no available guns.

 

Projecting?

You are the one present in this discussion, who is consistently arguing that government is well within its legal authority to deem a person irresponsible, based solely on their being economically disadvantaged, and deny them their constitutional rights for that reason.

Regardless of your assertion to the contrary, that is indeed a statement that constitutional rights apply only to those who are economically well off. No matter how many times you attempt to deny the claim, that is still the long and the short of your argument.

There is no standard codified into law, stating how a person is not responsible due simply to economic disadvantage. If you believe otherwise then prove your case.

 

They claim that the firearm discharged while they were in the process of cleaning it. Their claim is unfounded by how the real world works. It is nothing more than an excuse, meant to cover up the fact that they were engaging in stupidity.

 

Five instances is hardly 'inexhaustable',but then that's why they're called 'accidents'..NO amount of insurance has been able to prevent those

 

Because the idea that it wouldn't is completely moronic.

I agree. But that will never happen. Stop pretending so.

Rightfully so. If you can't demonstrate how you are harmed, you have no case.

Show me a court case citing they are not subject to U.S. Law.

 

Yes.

A person may be deemed by the government to be not legally entitled to own guns if they do not have a reasonable amount of liability insurance; if they have various criminal records; if they have been judged mentally disturbed; or any number of other reasons. And, yes, the government, acting on behalf of the people, can create regulations to help protect that public... which is one of their jobs.

Shocker here - I have rights too. So does everybody else. And we can expect as part of those rights to have reasonable laws to serve our rights.

That first sentence makes no sense to me. Anyway, if you are so freakin' worried about all of the poverty stricken John Does out there having their ability to own a gun infringed because they are destitute, then have them come into the courthouse (or wherever) and sign a pauper's oath, provide sufficient information for a background check, and then, if they pass, they'll be allowed to purchase the gun(s) of their choice. Given the price of guns these days, you might see a conflict between the pauper's oath and the gun purchase, but I'll set that aside for the moment.

 

Smells like "infringement".

 

Show us the legal basis on which this conclusion was ultimately reached.

Then you must be economically well off. Some are not so fortunate.

Then you are not paying attention. Let us see if it can be simplified.

Nowhere in united states law, is there any legal standard used to determine that the vague standard of "responsibility" is in any way tied to economic stability.

What is at issue, is the notion of economic standing being used as a litmus test to determine who does and does not have constitutional rights.

 

And I believe that as much as I believe the other two claims above.

Thank you for admitting it's covered on your current insurance, showing you lied above.

Yep. And after we take your guns we will throw you in FEMA camps to prepare for the alien invasion.



lol, considering you just admitted to lying above............[/QUOTE]

well, believe it or not, I don't think you area insurance sales man...you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Don't bother replying, I'm going to place you on ignore. like I did a year ago.

 

99% of gun fatalities are the result of gangbangers killing one another with guns they're not even legally permitted to own.

I love how progressives just lump gangbanger criminals in with lawful gun owners and attempt to portray them as doing the killing.

The best part is these morons think if they banned guns these retarded gangbanger criminals will defy logic and follow the law.

These idiots who want to ban guns are very stupid people and I think they just love the idea that they can ban guns because it makes their sorry stupid asses feel powerful.

 

I would love for a progressive to post why a gun owner would need liablity insurance? If you get shot that means your healthcare will cover it - and we all know that healthcare is now mandatory, so what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is the point of liablility insurance?

This is just another case of anti-gun nuts trying to make owning a gun as difficult as possible...

 

What if your house falls in a sinkhole? Is it covered by your insurance? What if an illegal Mexican truck driver rams his unsafe vehicle into your house?
You can what if all you want, but the fact remains the government cannot eliminate risk. But they can damn sure raise the cost of everything in our lives, and do a damn good job of that, don't they?

 

no, but if we already require a license to hunt or a license to conceal carry, we could require insurance to get the license, just like getting a license to drive

if you do not want the license, you do not need insurance

.

 

Talking points are rarely have anything to do with reality.

Right you dont know. Look at the Japanese suicide rate and come back and talk....

 

They should just pass it and let the Courts decide the Constitutionality of the law, it seems to me it could be and others disagree in the end the Federal Courts will work it out and decided this. If it gets passed into law.

 

Or congress could simply refuse to act on a nonsensical law that it without legal justification. The courts are congested enough with the cases they already have before them.

You are aware that in the time between enactment of the law, and the supreme court eventually hearing the case, many individuals will be put in the position of being forced to choose between death, and felony conviction for their inability to comply, correct?