Our gun control politicians are nothing if not persistent. They might also be called misguided, untruthful, angry, oppressive, emotionally driven and more. Dissatisfied with their lack of progress and declining support at the federal level for their outlandish attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights, they’ve decided to push for yet another attack that’ll cost more taxpayer dollars and probably lead nowhere. This attack has already failed in several states. You’d think they’d take that as a clear warning sign since their federal proposals are losing support even though they’re passing in some states. This new attack isn’t even passing in those states.
This latest attack is to propose mandatory $10,000 gun insurance for all future sales of firearms. It’s called the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” and it’s being pushed by Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York and other Democratic co-sponsors. Don’t worry, it’s estimated to cost ONLY $500-$2,000 per year. That’s up to $2k annually to exercise your constitutional right! It’s not mentioned in the article which of our other RIGHTS we have to pay annual fees to exercise. It’s not mentioned why our politicians are not being held individually, legally and financially liable for their irresponsible policies and fiscal management of our country. Shouldn’t the conductors of this train to astronomical national debt and fiscal irresponsibility be liable? Don’t forget their friends too. The Democrats seem to be driving this particular train, so shouldn’t all Democrats be held responsible like they’re trying to hold all gun owners responsible for the acts of a few?
It’s also not mentioned that some home owners insurance policies already provide some degree of this protection. I know some people who were involved in an accidental shooting. One of their group accidentally shot another of their group. The shooter’s home owners insurance paid, at least in part, for the medical bills of the injured friend.
But let’s be honest. This isn’t about insurance. It’s about two things: finding another way to penalize lawful firearms owners; and trying to make it too cost prohibitive for American citizens to do so.
The Fox News article, below, is the most descriptive. The first Washington Times article is very short and doesn’t really add any additional value. The second WT article an editorial that identifies this as the harassment tactic it really is.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/
===
May 16, 2013
Another suggestion to make liability insurance mandatory for gun ownership, this time in Washington DC.
The article states "At least a half-dozen states are considering insurance requirements for gun owners, although none of the bills has made it past the hearing stage." Well, there's something to be thankful for in that last part.
"Some gun-control advocates believe that insurance can help reduce gun violence by encouraging responsible gun ownership." Encourage? Are these the same people who believe that negative reinforcement doesn't work at home or in schools or relationships? Are they the same ones who think that competition in schools is bad, that everyone is a winner and that a failing grade in schools sends the wrong message?
"Insurance-industry representatives argued Thursday that there is no market for such coverage, noting that many accidental shootings are covered by homeowners’ policies." Get that? Homeowners insurance already provides (at least some of) this. I actually know a couple people who were involved in an accidental / negligent shooting and guess what - their homeowners insurance paid for the medical costs even though the incident occurred far from their homes. And since the insurance industry doesn't think there's a market or that it's necessary, what if they simply don't offer it? Does that mean there can be no legal firearms ownership in DC? (Yes, of course at least one company will offer it if there's money to be made, especially if the market is small and they can command profitable premiums, but what if they didn't?)
The DC Council Chairman asks "does this simply have the effect of increasing the burden of gun ownership in the name of good intentions?" Duh! Of course it increases the burden. For some it could increase the burden by making it financially unfeasible to exercise their constitutional right to "keep arms".
"gun owners who testified Thursday said government-mandated insurance would be onerous, unnecessary and potentially cost-prohibitive. “What induces me to take care with my firearm is prison. It’s not insurance.”"
What other constitutional rights require that we pay for them or that we have liability insurance in order to exercise them? Is it okay for me to require these people to have liability insurance for their speech in suggesting such ideas because it might hurt my feelings (or infringe upon my constitutional rights)? Maybe that would "encourage" them to be more "reasonable" with their hate speech and outlandish proposals.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/d-c-considers-mandatory-250k-insurance-policy-for-gun-buyers/
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Insurance Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment