Only if every American is forced to have a liability policy for misuse of free
speech, for liabling another person.
A solid Idea. Most states require liability insurance before you are allowd to
drive because of the potential for harm to others. Why not Guns, with higher
premiums for certain types of weapons. But while this might discourge some from
owning certain types of weapons it probably won't really stop the gun
violence or keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. So, while I
like the idea, it is somewhat of a band-aid.
@guninsurblog Effective gun insurance that will protect everyone and be a
minimal burden on gun owners is possible. The problems are real but solutions
exist that will cover lost, stolen and diverted firearms. The costs can be kept
to normal insurance margins over the risks that are really there. It will
require designing a system with care but the insurance industry has done that
many times. About $57 a gun on the average would be enough to pay for no-fault
insurance covering all guns even stolen ones with a $200,000 death benefit.
Calculations are on my web site. http://www.guninsuranceblog.com
@mike how exactly would requiring every person to have a bond not be
placing the onus on everyone?
Rights come with responsibility. Liability insurance is just a way to put the
costs (responsibility) incurred by society from private gun possession onto
those who possess the guns. Have guns. Have as many guns as you
wish. Just also be required to bear the societal financial burden of your guns.
@Ford DeTreese"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many ways, the Constitution is so out of date as to be embarrassing, not to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"Any proposed Amendment must be supported by two-thirds in Congress, both House
and Senate. A second step requires a three-fourths majority of the states
ratifying the amendment. That is why the constitution has held up for so long
because it is so difficult to make changes. It protects the country from people
who want to throw out the constitution because they think it is so out of date
with modern times.
LDS Liberal,Yes you can be held liable if something bad happens on
your property or if someone can prove in court that you were negligent. But so
far, other than requiring liability insurance when you register a car, no one is
required to purchase insurance to cover them for those things.Or are
you advocating that everyone be required to purchase million dollar liability
insurance for every tree that grows on their property or every mountain bike
Some totally ignore the Constitution. They pretend that it doesn't exist.
They pretend that they can re-define anything at any time to suit their needs
and their desires.LDS Liberal pretends that the Constitution does
not exist. He pretends that 'shall not infringe" is a meaningless
phrase. He pretends that our freedoms are constrained by his desires to dictate
law to us.Others like him pretend that the ruling from the Supreme
Court in 2010 is meaningless and that they have the right to define for us,
regardless of what the Court ruled, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They
pretend that "their" law is applicable to those whom they desire to
supress.King George is alive and living very high on the hog in
America today. He, Obama, and their followers, continue to ignore law and
continue to dictate to us what they want us to do regardless of what the law
says.They pretend that they are America and that Americans are their
pawns to by used by them and abused by them.
What's really odd to me is how repubs seem to want completely completely
unregulated society of guns. Absolutely void of government intrusion. Yet, when
it comes to marriage or women making personal choices, they are the first to
demand government intrusion. On one hand, they demand government out of their
lives and to regulate nothing then on the other they demand government to
regulate everything.So I'll use the same logic that the repubs
are using.If people of the same gender want to live together or if
people want to choose whether to abort a baby or not, they will, regardless of
what regulations you put in place. So instead of regulating something that you
cannot even regulate, then how about we just get rid of regulation? If we can't regulate guns then why should we be able to regulate marriage
or women's choices? I just want some consistency from the
repubs instead of merely following whatever foxnews says. think for yourselves
repubs instead of drinking all the kool-aid that rush, sean, and glen are
The more I think about this proposal, The more I like it.I'm held "liable" if I don't shovel my sidewalk and someone
slips and gets hurt.I'm held "liable" if my car collides, no
matter who's to fault.I'm held "liable" if my tree falls
on my neighbors house.I'm held "liable" and my Insurance
in-turn goes up for other dangerous "hobbies" or "sports" - be
it; sky-diving, auto-racing, motor-cross, or rock climbing. Why should guns be
exempt?Besides -- no one would be taking anything "away",
just holding you personally accoutable for it.These laws are such
that, I'm required to purchase "liability" insurance to cover the
costs in the event there is an accident.Which - BTW - also keeps the mean
old nasty "Government" out it, and protects tax payers and the rest of
Society from having to fit the bill for MY choices or negligence.You'd think Conservatives, and their business is good - keep Government
out of it, let me do what I want, and I'll accept the consequences and be
held personally accountable - mind-set would be all over this fantastic
I think the idea of a liability policy might make some sense, but I doubt the
mass killers in CT or CO would have bought a policy. And then ambulance chasing
attorneys would eat up all the proceeds when the policies are paid out.Old man,I don't see where Christian 24/7 said it was part of the
homeowner's policy. Was the distortion of his comment intentional or
LDS Liberal,What an interesting comment. You tell us
that the government has the right to regulate firearms. You tell us that the
government can infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. You tell us that
the "king" can decide what is right and what is wrong.I beg
to differ.The Constitution is a document ratified by the States to
protect the people from the "king". The Constitution clearly tells us
that government, on any level (as determined by the Supreme Court), has no
authority to regulate firearms. You're telling us that the
Constitution does not matter, that the Supreme Court does not matter, that all
that matters is the postings of those who hide behind a false name.Well, you can live in your "pretend" world where you make all the
rules, but the rest of us live in the United States of America where we are
protected by the Constitution and by the Court that clearly told us that your
"pretend" world exists only in your mind.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Car owners are required to have car insurance. Gun owners should be required to
have gun insurance.
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.
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?
@J ThompsonJust like those who don't believe in any gun control
don't ever mention the "Well regulated militia" section of the
And judging by comments here, the pro-gun folks either cannot comprehend or
choose to simply ignore the words "well regulated."
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
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.
On the other hand, Mike Richards may have just made a pretty good suggestion.
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?
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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