Published: Wednesday, Jan. 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Interesting concept.A market based approach to gun safety.Have special training? Premium DeductionProof of a gun safe or trigger
locks? Premium DeductionsNot packing a semi-Automatic? Premium
DeductionYearly Refresher courses? Premium Deduction
Everyone who owns a fork and a spoon should be required to have an insurance
policy incase they become obese. Because as we all know, just as guns cause
crimes, spoons and forks cause obesity.
No, the write has it backwards. Every citizen should be required to be bonded
with a $1,000,000 policy that he/she would forfeit if he/she ever broke a law.
Put the onus on the criminal, not on those who honor the laws.
Typical response from the left these days. If you can't get your agenda
through the legislature or get the majority of the populace to vote for it, then
attack it's opposition from the bench or regulate it to death.Don't like guns? Then make it so hard to actually own one legally that
few people will be willing to jump through all the hoops necessary. The goal of
course is eliminate all guns, but unintended consequence is that only people who
are willing to ignore the laws will have them.Too many liberals
think we could just pass a few laws (e.g. ban assault rifles) and the problem is
solved. That approach worked so well with making drugs illegal, didn't it?
I suspect that intelligent gun owners, with anything saved for retirement, do
carry a large liability policy.So how are you going to get the
criminals to carry a policy?
Judging by the comments here the GOP has resorted to mudslinging anyone who
disagrees with them or otherwise offers alternatives to their DO NOTHING
approach. According to repubs, nothing should be done to gun laws. No additional
training, back ground checks, or anything should be done. Merely...
Kick the can down the road and avoid any personal accountability. Just as
they've done with every single major issue the past decade. Why
is it that the party which touts accountability complete resolves itself from
any responsibility? From the 2 wars, the large debt, the
unsustainable defense spending, Patriot Act, fiscal cliff, to now guns. They
just don't have a hand in anything other than giving tax cuts to the super
Chris, I just checked with my daughter, who is an insurance agent. She says
that many -- perhaps even most -- standard homeowner insurance policies
explicitly rule out coverage for guns.She also said that she has
never heard of anyone -- other than some gun shops -- actually seeking insurance
for gun related accidents.Want to try your post again?
On the other hand, Mike Richards may have just made a pretty good suggestion.
Judging from the comments here, those in favor of "gun control"
don't know what "shall not be infringed" means. They seem to think
that they can infringe on a guaranteed right by their excessive rhetoric. They
seem to think that they have the right to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
They seem to think that they can be a law unto themselves, totally ignoring the
Supreme Law of the Land.Let's get back to basics on all points.
Frist prove that any level of government has the right to overturn the Supreme
Court decision that stated that NO level of government can restrict our right to
keep and bear arms. Then, prove that you have the right to "infringe" on
our guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
What a GREAT idea!You own it, you pay for it.Discounts for
training, gun safes, and no accidents.Thanks Saeed.Propbably stands an excellent chance of getting through Congress too!The
Insurance lobby is one of the strongest in Washington.Look how they
mandated Auto Insurance, and how they ram-rodded and became the middleman for
And judging by comments here, the pro-gun folks either cannot comprehend or
choose to simply ignore the words "well regulated."
@J ThompsonJust like those who don't believe in any gun control
don't ever mention the "Well regulated militia" section of the
One Old Man,You have completely ignored the Supreme Court 214 page
decision that clearly stated that no level of government has the right to
restrict any citizen from keeping and bearing arms. You ignore the law and
replace the law with your own ideas. What use is there in having a
Constitution when citizens ignore the Consitution and replace it with ideas that
have been nullified by the Supreme Court? Are we a nation of laws
or are we a nation where "community activists" tell us what the law is
and what we can or cannot do?
Again, we are not living in the late 1700s. In many ways, the Constitution is so
out of date as to be embarrassing, not to mention dysfunctional. We need to
revise it so that it is relevant to the 21st century. The second amendment is
just the most current example.
Car owners are required to have car insurance. Gun owners should be required to
have gun insurance.
Mr. Thompson, with all due respect, how many times in the past have we heard
people like yourself yowling about how an "activist" Supreme Court has
made wrong decisions.Roe v Wade comes to mind immediately.Could it have been an "activist" court that made the decision you
cite? Could that decision be as wrong as Roe v Wade?However, if you
look more closely at the decision, you will discover some things that uphold the
right of government to place sensible restrictions on gun ownership and use. To
go into those would use more space than is available here.But like
so many people on both sides of this and other issues, you are simply seeking to
find only the cherries that taste good to you. Cherry picking is not wise, nor
is it honest.
As usual, we're debating whether Kings should rule or whether citizens
should tell the King to "take a walk". The "left"
continues to tell us that King George was right and that George Washington was
wrong. They keep telling us that "freedoms" are bestowed on us from
their King, even as we tell them that God gave us freedom and that we tell the
government what to do and how to act.The question was settled in
1776 for most of us, but there are still some who cleave to King George and to
the idea that we are not free to choose but still pawns of the throne, the
throne who tells us how to act and what to do in every circumstance. Those
"king people" ignore the constitution. They ignore the rulings of the
court. They listen only to their god, the great Obama who tells them what to
think and how to act.
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTJudging from the comments here, those in
favor of "gun control" don't know what "shall not be
infringed" means. ===========I looks as though that
would be you, J Thompson.in-fringe/ [in-frinj] verb, in-fringed,
in-fring-ing. verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or
infraction of; violate or transgress: . verb 2. to encroach or
trespass (usually followed by on or upon).So - the literal term
used by the Founding Fathers "infringed" means that the Government can
not come onto your property and confiscate your "arms"."Infringed" doesn't mean unrestricted or uncontrolled. There is nothing protecting your mythical right to got out and purchase any
weapon you wish.Restricitons and bans of sales [to any future] purchases
can therefore be Constitutionally enforced. Nationally - we are
talking about assault rifles.Designed and used by highly trained, and
certified Police and Military personal.Kept by law under lock and key, and
in armories by the Government.yet strangley allowed in Billy-Bobs
pick-up truck, or in Granpa Joe's un-locked bedroom closet.BTW - You Government haters on the Right constantly leave out
"Well-Regulated".Regulated means REGULATED.
Conservatives use the term "Activist Judge" when a judge (or a whole
court) seems to bypass the legislative process and create a whole new
"right" by reading "between the lines" of existing laws.Abortion became a right out of a "privacy clause". Gay marriage
is becoming a right gleaned from the "equal protection clause".
Mandating that someone else pay for your health care is also now a
"right" (at least that one partially went through Congress).Defending a right clearly spelled out in the Constitution, does not make an
activist judge. So JThompson was not "cherry-picking".
If Conservatives followed the liberal game plan, we would try to get the Supreme
Court to completely throw out progressive taxation as unconstitutional under the
equal protection clause. A flat tax is the only "fair tax".After all, I am persecuted if my next dollar is taxed at 35% while your next
dollar is only taxed at 10%. The government is violating my civil rights.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments