proposed mandatory insurance for owning firearms and carrying them - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: proposed mandatory insurance for owning firearms and carrying them

  1. #11
    This insurance crap is just another way to get your weapons registered and then confiscated.

  2.   
  3. My reply..."Guns? What guns? I don't own any guns. They've all been lost or stolen or sold or given away. I got rid of them all cause they're just too dangerous!"

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Pool ownership can actually be quite dangerous ... a good many people drown in them.

    And the premiums will NOT be reasonable because the whole point of this exercise is for them to be too expensive for Joe Plumber to own guns.
    That's exactly my point....they want to ARTIFICIALLY make it too expensive....BUT if the premium were based on ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (ie: far less gun related accidents than pool accidents), a pack of gum would be more expensive than what the actual risk based premium would be!!

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnerbob View Post
    But it's okay to require people to have the money and time to take a CCW course, as well as pay the taxes thereof to carry? Something's off here... what's to say they won't pass this slowly, over time? There is already a financial requirement to "legally" carry a weapon in most states. This isn't too far fetched BC, it really isn't. Will it pass right now...? Probably not, but down the road....? I think it may.
    Yeah, I think down the road they're gonna figure out a way too. Like Obama care... it wasn't constitutional until they made it a tax.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    223
    Most insurance companies already have a problem with this plan. The insurance is based on a illegal act being done, hence you can't insure it.
    CT thought about doing it and was not enacted. I would worry less about this than other outrageous proposed laws.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by lessthan0 View Post
    Most insurance companies already have a problem with this plan. The insurance is based on a illegal act being done, hence you can't insure it.
    CT thought about doing it and was not enacted. I would worry less about this than other outrageous proposed laws.
    Exactly. Can you imagine... "hello Prudential? I intentionally crashed my car into someone. Will you fix it?"
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast