It’s been out for 90 days and has four co-sponsors. AIDS has more co-sponsors.
Any idiot can propose any stupid bill, that doesn’t mean it’s a serious bill.
Democrats deal so well with gun control issues.
http://heyjackass.com/
And those stats are a great example.
I thought Republicans controlled congress and support the 2nd Amendment?
Yup, which is why this won’t go anywhere.
It amazes me how many people don’t understand that.
I think that this is a great example of Progressive incrementalism. They are always putting pressure on and pushing their agenda. They push an issue, get a compromise and then start pushing again. The right pushes an issue, doesn’t get everything they want, starts to eat each other and eventually gets very little and just goes away. Progressives play a solid running game and conservatives just throw Hail Mary’s.
Sometime the left will be in control and this will be sitting there and it will be one of those ‘common sense’ approaches that has been ‘held up for years by the NRA’.
Have to say that it sounds original. I would never thought that gun ownership have to qualify with insurance, ever.
What a bunch of idiots. The real question, is will they make it illegal to be a criminal? cuz you know, I think that’s where it’s really at. If they would just outlaw illegal activity, I don’t see how there could be any more problems pretty much anywhere.
The first place we will feel this is in the cost of our homeowners insurance policies. Part of your coverage is general liability. If I have a nice docile little dog my cost is small. If I have a big or aggressive breed my cost are higher. If I have a pit bull I don’t get coverage!! Guess what is next???
Do you really think that the insurance companies are turning a blind eye to firearms related pay outs to protect our 2A rights??
Dog bites accounted for more than one-third of all homeowners insurance liability claims paid out in 2009, costing $412 million and up 6.4 percent from 2008, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.).
That might be why they ask about dogs. Add in slip&fall and I bet you have most of it. I don’t find anything about the amount of payouts for firearms related injuries. Considering a lot of gun deaths are suicides and gang-bangers, I don’t see that there would be a lot of cases. Don’t know about true ‘accidental shootings’.
The fact is there are very little costs to covering homeowners since there are very few lawsuits. That’s why they need to team up with lawyers to increase the number of lawsuits based on guns or get laws passed that make gun owners that have guns liable for crimes committed with stolen guns. That’s why things like the laws against suing gun manufacturers, guns stores, ammo manufacturers and gun owners are so important.
It’s not original. It’s been a tactic of the left for a long time. Here is an article written by Hugh Lafollete in 2000. I know this guy personally and he is one of the leading ethicists in the world. At least he recognizes that there is no possible way to get 400,000,000 privately owned firearms off the streets, and accepts the merit of their use in self defense situations.
His logic is that people would be less likely to store guns in cars, or in homes without secure means such as safes if their insurance premiums would be higher. This would prevent people from buying more guns than they really want as well.
http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/gun.control.pdf
To make this option more palatable, we could let gun owners pur-
chase liability insurance to cover potential losses. We might even re-
quire them to purchase insurance. After all, most states require drivers to
have automobile insurance. This insurance-based system of strict liability
would make people take more care with any guns they own while provid-
ing financial remuneration to those harmed by the use of those guns.
Odd I didn’t know driving was a constitutionally protected right…
F that noise. Ethicist/intellectual be damned.
So what happens when a local gangbanger shots an innocent person? Oh that’s right, nothing.
Is this a regional/state issue with homeowner’s insurance? I’ve never been asked about a dog, of course I’ve had the same homeowners policy except for upgrades for 30 years.
Interesting article to read Euro. Thanks for posting it.
They crap all over law-abiding gun owners simply because they can claim they are “doing something”. It has nothing to do with actually making things safer.
Google the subject. The sad truth is… If you own a dog the chance is real that one day it may bite someone. The chance of an insurer having to settle a claim is real. No different than owning a high performance car or a firearm. The problem is when they tell you they won’t insure you if you have a certain breed of dog or type of firearm. I can hear it now… Sorry Sir, We cannot insure your home because you own an AR15 and a Glock handgun. The Feds simultaneously require a GL policy to have possession and impose a mandatory life sentence for possession without insurance. Don’t laugh… We are already 95% percent there. They don’t have to take away your rights to limit ownership. They just have to hold the hoop so high that very few can jump through. They wrote the book on how to boil a frog!
Seattle is seeing this right now. City council voted 8-0 to impose a $25/ gun and $0.05 tax on each round of ammo sold in Seattle city limits. They say the extra tax income is going to fund anti-violence programs.
I’d leave skid marks.
Cool! Are poll taxes next?
Only if your white?
Haha…yes…yes…lol…well played.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk