NRA Conflict of Interest

**LTCcarrier** · November 14th, 2017, 09:25 AM

I am a Benefactor Life NRA Member and I support the NRA; however, lately all you see are ads hawking the NRA Concealed Carry insurance plans that are supposed to cover you if you are involved in a lawful self defense action. Currently many liberals are calling on a requirement that gun owners have mandatory liability insurance. They are comparing gun ownership with automobile ownership. Of course gun ownership is a right under the 2md A. However, I do not believe that the NRA which now sells such insurance will oppose this as much as if they did not sell such insurance. The NRA used to defend such cases for free.

**TaePo** · November 14th, 2017, 09:37 AM

I believe we are discussing apples to oranges.

The insurance by the NRA and other groups is to pay for your defense in criminal and / or maybe a civil case.

The liability insurance guarantees a payout should someone decide to file a lawsuit (civil) for wrongful death or pain and suffering via unnecessary shooting bullets etc. It deepens your pockets; so even if you are poor, criminals and their families can still profit from their nefarious activities. Of course, why should we help pay them for victimizing someone without money?

In such a case, why don't we require criminals to carry victim assault and accidental death or severe bodily injury insurance? On a liability condition of course. A criminal usually does not have deep pockets nor a line of income that can be tracked or accounted for so this makes sense. And after the fact, who should pay for the victims' bills? The victim? Us taxpayers? [/sarcasm]

**LTCcarrier** · November 14th, 2017, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by TaePo

I believe we are discussing apples to oranges.

The insurance by the NRA and other groups is to pay for your defense in criminal and / or maybe a civil case.

The liability insurance guarantees a payout should someone decide to file a lawsuit (civil) for wrongful death or pain and suffering via unnecessary shooting bullets etc. It deepens your pockets; so even if you are poor, criminals and their families can still profit from their nefarious activities. Of course, why should we help pay them for victimizing someone without money?

In such a case, why don't we require criminals to carry victim assault and accidental death or severe bodily injury insurance? On a liability condition of course. A criminal usually does not have deep pockets nor a line of income that can be tracked or accounted for so this makes sense. And after the fact, who should pay for the victims' bills? The victim? Us taxpayers? [/sarcasm]

Yes looking it over you are right. There is a difference. I gave u rep.

**SgtRecon** · November 14th, 2017, 07:28 PM

I brought this this up in threads some time ago when several folks were enthusiastically extolling the benefits of these policies. I warned of the slippery slope of this becoming mandatory for firearms ownership, for an event that 99% of us will never experience. these policies are peddled by fearmongering snake oil salesmen, when they can see a buck to be made they will lobby for it's requirement to possess or carry. much like I have to register/insure my ATV that rarely leaves my property.

Having an LTCF is a good thing, be prepared, be alert, be trained, and go about your life. Too many folks on the various firearms forums overthink and overanalyze the scenarios of an armed conflict that the odds are will more than likely never happen

**LTCcarrier** · November 14th, 2017, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by SgtRecon

I brought this this up in threads some time ago when several folks were enthusiastically extolling the benefits of these policies. I warned of the slippery slope of this becoming mandatory for firearms ownership, for an event that 99% of us will never experience. these policies are peddled by fearmongering snake oil salesmen, when they can see a buck to be made they will lobby for it's requirement to possess or carry. much like I have to register/insure my ATV that rarely leaves my property.

Having an LTCF is a good thing, be prepared, be alert, be trained, and go about your life. Too many folks on the various firearms forums overthink and overanalyze the scenarios of an armed conflict that the odds are will more than likely never happen

I agree that the ads for these policies scare people. I bet they will get some people killed in that they may hesitate to utilize self defense until it is too late. I think if a person does not believe that they can use a firearm in self defense get some non-lethal protection. If they do decide that a firearm is for them, then they should practice, know the law of justification and self defense, and always be prepared in condition yellow keeping an eye out for danger.