Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mandated Insurance?... getting hit from all sides

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by tarosean, Apr 2, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,218
    Location:
    TX
  2. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    I can see this potentially happening. The idea has been flirted with in recent months. We'll have to squash that quickly.
     
  3. Steve H

    Steve H Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,328
    Location:
    Southern Utah
    Just saw that on foxnews.com It does not seem to be a favorable idea even for the anti's
     
  4. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    It would not standup in court, it is an infringement on your right to keep and bare arms.

    These idiots need to go back to school to learn to read so they might read the Consitution.

    Jim
     
  5. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Virginia
    a lot of people thought Obamacare wouldn't stand up in court...

    We might need something like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for individuals
     
  6. hang fire

    hang fire Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,089
    The constitution is rapidly reaching a point of irrelevance., we are no longer a nation of laws. To the powers that be, the constitution is like a cafe menu, where they pick and chose what to order.

    And I will not bare my arms for anyone.
     
  7. leadaddict

    leadaddict Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Iowa
    It's sad that I laughed at this statement. Of course I agree with the second half of the statement, but given what we've seen before that in no way insures that the first part of your statement is true.

    In my opinion it doesn't have much chance of happening on a national level.
     
  8. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Virginia
    It is the rallying cry of the left wing antis that "the Constitution is meant to evolve"...by that they mean...we should be able to cut and paste whatever we want into the Constitution.

    The Constitution is not meant to evolve at all...if it were, we might as well just toss it and start over. Laws are meant to be bent into the framework of the Constitution. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. IT IS THERE AS A FRAMEWORK. The left wingers are more than happy to ignore it though.

    The Bill of Rights is there as a protection...it isn't meant to evolve or to be tossed aside whenever the government deems fit.
     
  9. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Hell (FL)
    Technically, it is meant to evolve or there would be no amendment process. The BOR itself is a set of amendments. There are 27 of them thus far, allowing the Republic to amend the Constitution to, for example, address matters that the original documents failed to consider (or intentionally did not belong on the document itself) or meet what Congress and 3/4 of the States deem as the prevailing needs of the nation. Clearly mistakes have been made, but overall it's been a (relatively) successful process.
     
  10. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    These people are idiots. Isn't there some kind of law someplace against 'frivolous lawsuits'. I wish politician like this could get tossed out for bringing up stupid, inane, 'frivolous legislation' like this.

    Aside from just being ridiculous on its face, they really spit in the face of people who cannot afford this stuff. Some person who has to save their hard earned money to buy a lower priced firearm now has to buy insurance!?

    These politicians really think they are royalty, and that they have subjects. They are ridiculous human beings.
     
  11. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    Agreed. It's just that these people want to supercede that process, because they know their idiotic nonsense would never make it the proper way.
     
  12. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Gun control is always classist and racist.
     
  13. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Virginia
    Amendments are a lot different than laws though. The left wing antis seem to think "evolving" can be done with laws.

    To even be proposed the Amendment needs 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the State legislatures approval

    To be passed they need 3/4 of the State legislatures or ratifying conventions to approve it.

    Hardly the overnight quashing of rights that happened ni New York and Colorado.

    Any new Amendment would basically have to repeal the Second Amendment. Can you imagine repealing an Amendment from the Bill of Rights? That isn't evolution, it is destruction.
     
  14. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,604
    Location:
    USA
    The courts have become a joke. They are just another way that statists circumvent the legislative process. Even, so called "conservative" judges like Roberts have showed us that they are activists, and rather than enforce the Constitution are willing to let things go for social reasons.
     
  15. DsbJax

    DsbJax Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    27
    The whole insurance mandate is rather pointless, as insurance goes. The insurance would only cover accidental damages, not damage done involving a crime. So the idiot who cleans his guns without clearing them would be covered, but not the nut job that flips out and shoots up his office. The new result is the number of true “accidents” vs. the number of lawful gun owners would result in a minimal insurance premium. Since your average criminal with their illegal guns is not likely to run out and get insurance what is the true nature of this mandate? Again it builds a list of law abiding gun owners, while ignoring the true problem.
     
  16. Baldman

    Baldman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    Location:
    SE PA
    The whole insurance aspect is a joke. What do they intend to cover? Will it limit liability for accidental discharges? How about victims of illegally owned weapons, we know the criminals won’t buy the insurance and that they caused 90% + of the harm. Since torte law runs state to state there is no way this can really be enacted or enforced. This legislation does two things, 1) makes the sponsor feel good that they tried to do something and 2) if passed becomes a defacto gun registry.
     
  17. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    There'll have to be a new branch of government to monitor/enforce it. That's why it'll happen.
     
  18. HOWARD J

    HOWARD J Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,117
    Location:
    S/E Michigan
    Obama's flunkies are enjoying themselves----maybe some day we will find a way to pay them back for all their hard work.
    Being that this is the new America it will not be easy but we will try
     
  19. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    You certainly got that right.
     
  20. hovercat

    hovercat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    299
    Location:
    Texas
    This is really just registration. You would have to list what firearms you are insuring, and the .gov would be sent a copy, or know where to get it if a ban comes.
     
  21. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    5,503
    Location:
    Deep in the valley
    not just registration, but registration WITH a financial burden tacked on.

    In other words, digging into our rights AND our wallets (for no discernible good)
     
  22. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,278
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    Forcing people to buy insurance for anything is just plain stupid. The only thing I see out of this is someone's pockets getting deeper. What are they going to do next have you take out insurance on your trampoline in the back yard in case your neighbor's kid comes over and uses it while you are gone? Yes, one could conclude that your home owner's would cover this but not necessarily. And if that is the case then why can they not include firearms? I think people would be shocked if they really knew just how much their home owners covered or did not cover.
     
  23. PRM

    PRM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,057
    2014 - a year of reckoning
     
  24. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,607
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    It doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing.
     
  25. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    Meanwhile 1/4 of all motorists drive with no insurance.
    I remember around 5-10 years ago, they passed a law here banning smoking at Pioneer Square.. they never as much as fed one of the thousand bums down there a green boloney sandwich, let alone fine them the $800 fine.. they don't have a dime and would appreciate the sammich.. so they smoke down there. go figure
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page