| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| New plan: mandatory gun insurance |
| 2013-02-09 |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #20 Unfortunately, there will always be people like Nanny Bloomberg who would see the insurance premium as just a cost of doing business. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2013-02-09 21:54 |
| #19 ..one added feature, incumbents would finally be in less advantageous positions than fresh new challengers who don't have a record of bombastic rhetoric and grandstanding. Think of it as a way of drying up reelection funds as the rates shoot up with a logarithmic curve each year. Just like progressive tax rates, what's good enough for the rich is just as good enough for our pompous pols. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-09 19:42 |
| #18 As long as - and this is the most important thing - the politicians have to pay for the insurance out of their own pockets. No sticking the taxpayers with the bill, no raising their pay to cover the premiums, no getting the premiums paid for by the DNC (or RNC), the unions, George Soros, etc. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-02-09 19:00 |
| #17 Well, premiums would be high for a start, then the eval would be interesting, all similar to drivers. DUI, speeding tickets, etc seem to start the precipitous climb in costs that doesn't effect most good drivers. Same for politicians. Reckless pattern of behaviors, spouting off ridiculous assertions, etc should raise the rates to the point [as they're trying with guns] where they can't afford the insurance and without proof of insurance, register for election/re-election. Let the market forces decide - or - let them put their money where their mouth is. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-09 18:31 |
| #16 "Hello? Mutual of Gaza?" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-02-09 17:59 |
| #15 "can we make all politicians pay for "Stupid Ass Insurance" before allowed to run for office?" Doubtful, P2k. What insurance company would be dumb enough to insure against that? That would be like insuring a convicted arsonist against future arsons. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-02-09 17:35 |
| #14 Sounds like infringement to me. |
| Posted by: gorb 2013-02-09 16:42 |
| #13 Why, just the other day I was getting my homeowners re-evaluated and was asked specifically if I had any firearms...you know for special coverage against loss. I didn't like the way it was asked, it was not in a casual as an example type of way. Changed the subject as at this value of coverage what about computers and tablets and such... OS, should also include if any injury or death caused by the use of the firearm, if found innocent of any felony behavior, insurance would cover any and all civil court damages. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-02-09 15:54 |
| #12 Make me get insurance? Fine, then let me carry concealed anywhere I go, including schools and federal facilities - Im INSURED! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2013-02-09 15:39 |
| #11 P2k, I'd sign on for "Stupid Ass Insurance" for politicos. Premiums should be proportional to the harm and damage they cause. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2013-02-09 15:34 |
| #10 Protection racket |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2013-02-09 15:23 |
| #9 I'm still looking for wet Sunday Newspaper insurance. I have many claims to backfile. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-02-09 14:43 |
| #8 So...can we make all politicians pay for "Stupid Ass Insurance" before allowed to run for office? That way when the courts decide the crap they sponsored trampled the basic rights of citizens, they pay for misusing the office they hold. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-09 13:36 |
| #7 The government subsidizes every imaginable right from cell phones to housing and healthcare. But one the most explicit rights is routinely ignored, stepped on and discouraged. If the feds cared at all about rights we should have line for free guns, training and tax credits for purchases. |
| Posted by: airNdee 2013-02-09 12:11 |
| #6 Good ole Skeeter. Never let a crisis go to waste. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-09 12:09 |
| #5 The gun control campaign has gone fully into the “Big Tobacco” strategy. In short, they figured out that schemes that attempt to penalize the individual are met with fierce resistance and therefore ineffective. Hint: Remember President Skeet-shooter recently telling his minions not to call the average gun owners names? And of course, he neglected to chastise his friends when they called the NRA “gun-runners”. Funny how that works huh? Proposals like these are diversions. Control proponents believe they can achieve the same ends with increased taxes and fees on the firearms industry. Occupy Smith & Wesson! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2013-02-09 12:06 |
| #4 Will that include 'uninsured Thug' insurance - just in case an uninsured Thug decides to shoot someone and ends up shooting themselves in the nuts you can pay for their longterm medical care. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-02-09 11:17 |
| #3 The "Firearm Owners ID" has been a huge crime fighting success story in Illinois for the past 40 odd years as well. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-02-09 11:10 |
| #2 Gee, that will work as well as mandatory auto insurance did in Illinois. 25% of drivers here have neither a license or insurance, which of course really jacks up the cost for those of us silly enough to actually obey the law. Here's a concept, how about putting law breakers in jail instead? Just think of all the new Government Union Members! |
| Posted by: Griter Crart8496 2013-02-09 11:00 |
| #1 And thus drive guns into the black market. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2013-02-09 10:00 |