Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Gun owners should have liability policies’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Interesting concept.

A market based approach to gun safety.

Have special training? Premium Deduction
Proof of a gun safe or trigger locks? Premium Deductions
Not packing a semi-Automatic? Premium Deduction
Yearly Refresher courses? Premium Deduction

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

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?

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

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?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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 rich.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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?

one old man
Ogden, UT

On the other hand, Mike Richards may have just made a pretty good suggestion.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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 Obamney-care!

one old man
Ogden, UT

And judging by comments here, the pro-gun folks either cannot comprehend or choose to simply ignore the words "well regulated."

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT

@J Thompson
Just like those who don't believe in any gun control don't ever mention the "Well regulated militia" section of the second amendment.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

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?

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

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.

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

Car owners are required to have car insurance. Gun owners should be required to have gun insurance.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT
Judging 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.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

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".

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments