Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Is requiring liability insurance on guns a good idea?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(7)

SpankysLastDance

Jan-19-13 9:01 AM

No it is not. Requiring liability insurance is tantamount to imposing a tax. I believe it is unconstitutional to impose a tax on something that is guaranteed to us in the constitution.Next they will tax us for each word we speak! Insurance on cars is required because car ownership is not guaranteed in the constitution, it is a privilege that can be revoked. Healthcare is not a guaranteed right in the constitution, that is why the Supreme's consider it a tax. A gun tax is ludicrous.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Highland

Jan-19-13 11:52 AM

Well said, Spanky. The federal government would tax all of us - and our constitutional rights - out of existence.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Echobravo

Jan-19-13 3:13 PM

Like the question mentioned "liability" INSURANCE. Just like there should be one for all vicious animals (which should be enforced). Its for the protection of non owners and makes owner for responsible and accountable. The 2nd Amendment should be updated to reflect TODAY and not 200 plus years ago. If you own an assault rifle the liability should be higher. If person wants one, join the military and go on the front line and hear a bullet wiz back at them. They will truly understand what that weapon is for.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

widowmaker41

Jan-19-13 8:13 PM

"echobravo" You are correct, as the question asks, "liability". I really need you to open your eyes here and see what is typed. Liability means the person would be required to pay for any damages through INSURANCE to whatever or whomever gets hurt by the specific "gun" . To start, 99% of the shootings are by stolen guns, making the insurance a moot point. Secondly, in the idea of liability insurance, if your car is stolen and wrecks into someone, YOU end up paying for someone else's crime. Third, criminals (as far as I know) don't follow the rules to begin with, so again you are "TAXING" the wrong people. Next you will be saying an OBESITY tax should be implemented. or Liability insurance for fat people because they put more burden on the healthcare system which is UNFAIR.. Taxing things is NOT the answer, Holding those responsible for their crimes IS the answer. Make the punishment fit the crime. shoot someone and your found guilty in a court o

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

widowmaker41

Jan-19-13 8:21 PM

OK, 1000 character limit, sorry, To finish my statement, If you shoot someone and you are found guilty in a court of law, you should be SHOT. Stop the pandering to criminals. You become hard on crime, less crime is committed. Stop the crap about criminals rights, They TOOK away someone else's rights with their crime. Shooting? you get shot dead. Rapists? Tied down and raped by your "buddies" or if that is too harsh, make them UNICH's . Burglary/robbery? cut off a finger, do it again you cut off a HAND. Make the*****punishments fit the crimes and you remove 80% of crime. Criminals are NOT stupid (contrary to some peoples opinions) if they see the possibility of being caught and this type of punishment coming, they STOP doing the crimes. continue in the same bleeding heart liberalism we follow now as a justice system, and you empower criminals because they KNOW you can't hurt them, take their things or "violate their rights".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Echobravo

Jan-20-13 7:37 PM

First and foremost I am for the DEATH penalty and not by lethal injection. Killing someone is not humane and why should someone be put to death humanely. Whether the guns are stolen or not, they are still liabilities. Have guns made with micro-chips to locate stolen guns, but then government is being too intrusive. Assault weapons should not be sold period. Want a rush join the military. Bring back hanging, firing squad, and ole smokey (fry them) for murder and especially killing a child. NO PLEA BARGAINS.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

widowmaker41

Jan-21-13 5:06 PM

We agree on something in this then. I also agree that gun crime in America needs curtailed. I do not believe that insurance for weapons would work due to the reasons I stated. There is a difference in opinion about the second amendment. It is NOT about hunting or anything related to that. It is about protection from an oppressive govt. I AM NOT SAYING we are there. but that is the reason behind it.

Just for argument sake, haha, how does insurance help auto deaths? or Healthcare deaths? Sure people get paid for it, but that doesn't help those killed in any way.

I can agree with the limitations on clips to something such as 10-15 rounds. I can agree with stricter background checks. I can also agree with a mental health check as part of the background. This would not cut it all, but it would be a good start.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 7 of 7 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: