Skip to main content

View Diary: What to put in the Gun Insurance Bill HR-1369 (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  should bullets be free? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dream weaver

    Or would charging for them be "infringement all day long"?  There are costs inherent in gun ownership, many would argue.  Certainly the discussion of the mechanisms in which those costs are paid can be discussed without devolving into an "infringement!" argument.  The insurance proposed in this diary creates a class of people who would pool their money to protect society at large from having to pay the costs that arise directly from gun use.  That class, as argued in this diary, would be those that wish to engage in their protected right to gun ownership.  Who do you think should foot the bill?

    "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

    by TheFern on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:29:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bullets costs are not a government mandate, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, erush1345, Neuroptimalian

      neither is the gas to get to a voter's booth.

       Infringement against a constitutional right can only come from the government.  The government is not allowed to infringe upon those rights with costs or fees or mandates as that was the exact purpose the Bill of Rights was protect the people from government infringement of certain rights.   In certain circumstances, some government regulations and such of rights have been allowed, but it is a slippery slope that is not crossed often and is often challenged in court.

      In voting, no one has to pay your gas or bus fare so you can vote, no one has to reimburse you for a day off of work....but the government can't charge you to vote either.  Hence the reason Voter ID laws are being look upon as unconstitutional.

      Same applies for all of the one has to buy you a gun or pay for your bullets but the government can not put a price, especially one as high as insurance, on that right.

      •  Sounds like you want everyone else to pay. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dream weaver

        That's fine for you.  But, certainly, other people would agree that compelling gun owners to pay for the costs incurred with gun use is a reasonable expectation for executing their 2A rights.  Insurance keeps the rates out of the government's hands.  The state isn't telling you what to pay, the insurer is.  If the cost was zero, then it wouldn't cost anything extra to use the gun  Just like free bullets would make it cheaper.  Same concept.  You just don't want to be on the hook for the damage.  I don't blame you, but you're the one holding the gun.

        "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

        by TheFern on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:13:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  TheFern - the difference is between market costs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345, Neuroptimalian

      and those imposed by government. Government has no control on the market price of guns and bullets.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:07:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the arguements by some here... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheFern these comments seems to be that the finantial damage done by lost or stolen guns is so great that even the vast teams of actuaries emloyed by insurance companies cannot calculate the number.

        Now, maybe this diary has been invaded by anti-gun nuts who really do believe that the damage done by lost or stolen guns is essentially incalulable, but there are those of us here who beieve that actuaries might in fact be capable of calculating the numbers.

        We're talking about market costs here.

        Even libertarians ought to support this proposal.

        •  Maybe we ought to force criminals to buy insurance (0+ / 0-)

          for when they steal a gun.....nah, that would be unfair.

          •  I assume that they would be required... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   purchase insurance for stolen guns or be prosecuted for not doing so.

            Should they decide to purchase said insurance, I would see no problem with their insurance policy being moved up in line wih respect to the insurance of the person they stole the gun from from when it comes to determining which policy should pay.

            These rules of precidence don't seem to me to be all that difficult to write out explicitly.

            What is so complicated about this?

            It seems quite simple to me.

            •  That would be something, wouldn't it? While (0+ / 0-)

              putting a robber in the back of a cop car....

              the cop asks: "Can we please see your gun insurance card so the victims of this robbery can get reimbursed??"

              "Ohhhh...Don't have one you say??"  (yeah, duh)

              "Hey Fred, find the owner of this gun that he stole and make sure to get their insurance card....or book them if they don't have one!"

              •  An additional charge. What's your objection? (0+ / 0-)

                Are you claiming that criminals who steal guns ought not be required to purchase insurance for their stolen guns?

                And that they not be proseccuted for their refusal to purchase said insurance?

                •  NO, I'm saying that the likelihood of a robber (0+ / 0-)

                  actually having insurance to cover his gun crimes is zero to none!

                  So guess who would have to pay for a robber's crime....the victim, that's who. Actually twice.....first time because their property was stolen and whatever costs come with that part and the second time... when they have to foot the bill for the crimes the guy who stole their gun committed.

                  Yeah, that seems fair.

                  •  I'm confused. Is your objection to the... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...additional charges that would be brought?

                    •  My objection is to a stupid law that doesn't do (0+ / 0-)

                      anything to the criminal.  What new extra 6 months....maybe??  wow, big deal when they are already facing other charges.

                      All the while,  the law abiding will have to spend the rest of their lives to pay monthly premiums for insurance to cover the criminal's butt, for a constitutional right they should be able to have because they have committed no crimes...and without government mandated fees attached to it.

                      •  If you feel that the penalty is too small... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...for refusing to purchase gun insurance, what penalty would be high enough to satisfy you?

                        What new extra 6 months....maybe??  wow, big deal
                        There would seem to be some room for negotiation here.
                        •  What penalty would be high enough? Hmmm (0+ / 0-)

                          well calculate a law abiding gun owner's average lifetime cost to provide coverage for a criminal and use that dollar figure as the cost to buy your way out of prison....after you do the time for every crime you committed along the way.  

                          If the criminals doesn't have it....oh well.

              •  Incedentally, it seems like a slam dunk to me. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Refusal to purchase insurance would seem to me to establish beyond any reasonable doubt criminal intent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site