Gil223
Regular Member
New Backdoor to Gun Control - Federally Mandated "Firearms Liability Insurance"
A blurb just received from the Daily Caller -
1. It's simply another means of infringement, and
2. Some people won't be able to afford the insurance, and
3. It's an open door for insurance companies to charge outrageous rates!
If it is so important that new gun owners are forced have this bogus insurance - or face a huge fine - why does it not apply to all existing gun owners? A gun is a gun is a gun. And how much can the insurance industry extort from gun owners for said insurance when the firearms enthusiast faces the possibility of a $10K fine without that insurance? And, if the courts think that having a $3-$5 photo ID at the voting booth is discrimination against "poor people", how about a $200-$500 insurance fiat?
The attitude of the lame and liberal left seems to be, "If we can't simply outlaw guns, let's make them too expensive for most people to own!" In this case "most people" is everybody but them and their elitist friends. Any thoughts?
Pax...
A blurb just received from the Daily Caller -
This places an unreasonable financial burden upon future gun owners, for a couple of obvious reasons."A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress are proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced this legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is 'the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.' Maloney’s 'Firearm Risk Protection Act' requires gun buyers to have 'a qualified liability insurance policy' before being able to legally purchase a firearm. It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect. '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 bill text reads."
1. It's simply another means of infringement, and
2. Some people won't be able to afford the insurance, and
3. It's an open door for insurance companies to charge outrageous rates!
If it is so important that new gun owners are forced have this bogus insurance - or face a huge fine - why does it not apply to all existing gun owners? A gun is a gun is a gun. And how much can the insurance industry extort from gun owners for said insurance when the firearms enthusiast faces the possibility of a $10K fine without that insurance? And, if the courts think that having a $3-$5 photo ID at the voting booth is discrimination against "poor people", how about a $200-$500 insurance fiat?
The attitude of the lame and liberal left seems to be, "If we can't simply outlaw guns, let's make them too expensive for most people to own!" In this case "most people" is everybody but them and their elitist friends. Any thoughts?
Pax...