Aguila Blanca
Member
Where in the Constitution does it say that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if I carry insurance?
IMHO, a stronger argument, if preventing violence is the goal, can be made AGAINST insurance. Insurance is discriminatory -- it can be expensive, to the extent that only those who don't need it can afford to have it, while those who could not afford a claim against them also may not be able to afford expensive specialty insurance.
If ALL states were to enact laws protecting citizens from civil liability in justified self-defense use of firearms, but leaving the door open to getting clobbered in civil court as well as criminal court if you use a firearm negligently or criminally -- that would be at least as effective as requiring insurance.
Insurance requirements for motor vehicles don't work. It's required in most (all?) states, yet part of my premium every month goes toward "uninsured motorist" coverage -- which is an actuarial acknowledgement that people drive without insurance even though they are required to have it. So what? No insurance means the state won't register their vehicle. They don't care -- they just go steal a current license plate and keep on truckin' -- they don't have drivers' licenses, so what's a little thing like registration or insurance.
This another anti-gun proposal wrapped up in a pie-in-the-sky story to try to sell it. Bad idea all around. Completely and totally unenforceable.
Innovative, though. The antis have already tried equating "gun violence" with epidemiology, now they want to bring in actuary. What'll they think of next, in the name of "reason"?
IMHO, a stronger argument, if preventing violence is the goal, can be made AGAINST insurance. Insurance is discriminatory -- it can be expensive, to the extent that only those who don't need it can afford to have it, while those who could not afford a claim against them also may not be able to afford expensive specialty insurance.
If ALL states were to enact laws protecting citizens from civil liability in justified self-defense use of firearms, but leaving the door open to getting clobbered in civil court as well as criminal court if you use a firearm negligently or criminally -- that would be at least as effective as requiring insurance.
Insurance requirements for motor vehicles don't work. It's required in most (all?) states, yet part of my premium every month goes toward "uninsured motorist" coverage -- which is an actuarial acknowledgement that people drive without insurance even though they are required to have it. So what? No insurance means the state won't register their vehicle. They don't care -- they just go steal a current license plate and keep on truckin' -- they don't have drivers' licenses, so what's a little thing like registration or insurance.
This another anti-gun proposal wrapped up in a pie-in-the-sky story to try to sell it. Bad idea all around. Completely and totally unenforceable.
Innovative, though. The antis have already tried equating "gun violence" with epidemiology, now they want to bring in actuary. What'll they think of next, in the name of "reason"?
