House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

[305tillimove]

This is going no where...

[priell3]

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death...statistics.php

[Grey Bearded One]

Driving is a privilege while my right to bare arms is well my right.

I really don't like going sleeveless.

[Hodgie]

I really don't like going sleeveless.

I don't mind so much it's been pretty hot.

I do know it's bear arms the damn auto correction doesn't. Oops

[c45man]

Hopefully, Maloney the political hack will go the way of Mccarthy. This proposed legislation will certainly go the way of mccarthy's war on gun shows. Tempest in a tea pot. No insurance company can be forced to protect criminal actions.

[Grey Bearded One]

I do know it's bear arms the damn auto correction doesn't. Oops

Now if I had bear arms, I might go sleeveless because the fur would be uncomfortable under the shirt.

[Carnes]

Well here's the easy answer for the jack was who introduced this bill.

Driving is a privilege while my right to bare arms is well my right.

Next bill on today's agenda?

That's a problematic argument. "Bearing a car," should be a right, just as much as bearing arms.

Perhaps my weapon of choice is a Plymouth Voyager? It's the right to keep and bear arms, not guns.

And if you don't like that justification, there are a slew of other reasons to demand the government to recognize the use of reasonable means of transportation as a right.

(And just to stem the flow of common responses to this position: You have a right to bear arms, not to be a harmful idiot with a gun, and a right to drive would not protect harmful idiots with cars either.)

[RTF92.5]

Would my insurance policy have to cover all the Brady Bunch cuckoos when their psychiatrists tell them their "concrete & rational" fear of firearms in public is actually an irrational phobia and puts them all on permanent disability so they don't have to go out in public any more?

[win67]

Cars are a good example of the how technological change can dramatically shift the practical value of rights.

The common law has always implicitly recognized the right of the people to move freely within national borders, but when cars were a new technology, the .gov started to regulate them because at that time they weren't a common means of conveyance. Now they are, but the .gov has yet to remove its "long-standing and accepted" regulation of automobiles.

Likewise, a general right to own arms has historically been recognized in the US, but when full-autos started to become widely available, the .gov regulated them because they weren't common then. Now they are, but the .gov hangs on to its regulation of them, and gets away with it because they've been doing it for so long that it's "long-standing and accepted".

The key in both scenarios was to regulate the items in question before they actually did become popular, thus ensuring that few people would be directly affected and complain, and that the regulations would therefore eventually become "long-standing and accepted".

[Berks_Iraq_Vet]

1. Fuck you. No.

2. All this will do is bolster the underground gun trade.