Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)11. Great ideas that don't do what folks think they will isn't a beginning, it's theater.
The unstated motive is to discourage firearms ownership via monetary barriers (shades of 'poll tax').
It's another variation on the 'Chris Rock bullet control' schtick. And just as silly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
211 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's a sure bet that the people who are most likely to cause harm with a firearm would be the least
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#101
Great ideas that don't do what folks think they will isn't a beginning, it's theater.
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#11
So, no insurance? Probably a small minority are going to have a huge investment in
libdem4life
Feb 2013
#131
Just plain silly in a gun liability conversation. No one I knew farmed with a beat up pick up truck
libdem4life
Feb 2013
#138
This is about weapon liability. Motor vehicles are a false equivalent...responding as such.
libdem4life
Feb 2013
#184
I didn't bring up the analogy, I just pointed out it's not quite the way people think it is. n/t
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#185
I was a major gift fundraiser and as I recall, the very rich are really well insured.
CTyankee
Feb 2013
#153
not per se, but I am interested in why people do/do not insure themselves. I was just
CTyankee
Feb 2013
#194
It's bad because the right tries to do the same thing with abortion and we cry foul
davidn3600
Feb 2013
#38
It's not 'bad', it's illegal- deprivation of rights under color of law. 18 USC § 242 n/t
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#45
for starters, I dont think anyone has the right to own a semi-automatic, period. We disagree about w
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#76
You clearly show that when 'bear arms' means 'self defense', that the use is specifically
jmg257
Feb 2013
#89
And some of those same guys wanted to add "for the common defence' after RKBA to
jmg257
Feb 2013
#104
'General Welfare' is not a blank check for legislators to do whatever they wish.
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#106
whatever they wish? The American people overwhelmngly want semi automatics banned. Legislators
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#159
The right to use force up to and including lethal force in defense of self or others?
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#121
Then why the "right" to semi-automatic weapons? The right to purchase firearms without a background
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#168
That is the reason was protected, yes. It in no way limits the right to that purpose.
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#173
thousands of dead very compelling reasons. More than 90% of Americans are quite compelled.
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#199
Lol, no insurance company would write such a policy, and you can't force them to.
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#15
You're wasting your breath; that lot regard ignorance as strength...
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2013
#115
Insurance companies can't be forced to do anything. They alwways have the option
BlueStreak
Feb 2013
#125
You are the one that brought up criminal acts. I talked about all consequences of
BlueStreak
Feb 2013
#130
I don't think it's legal for an insurance company to insure against a policyholder's crime
Recursion
Feb 2013
#94
It is only "illegal" to offer that because that is how today's laws are written.
BlueStreak
Feb 2013
#142
The fact that one has to ahve liability isnsurance, and that therer are consequences, makes one thin
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#21
No, your insurance would cover damage to your car, it would not cover claims by the victim's family.
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#41
not. Liability insurance for victims is the only insurance required by law. It is not required to
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#68
Right, I meant CC. The poster said 'insurance'.. comprehensive collision would cover your car, but..
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#70
if you hand your car over to an unlicensed driver, you are responsible for the consequences.
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#73
What part of 'car thief' did you miss? What you describe would be an authorized user.
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#75
I think the point would be to make the insurance cost give one pause before the purchase.
WinkyDink
Feb 2013
#105
An 'infinite' insurance policy? Why not just require all bullets be made out of jell-o?
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#17
And coverage limits are well-defined. X dollars of coverage. No intentional acts. n/t
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#42
exactly. someone is going to havae to check out the people are to write isnurance.Let the NRA pay fo
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#22
If you don't have auto insurance you can not own a car. Because it can hurt others. Of course this r
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#71
Is it a requirement to own the tractor, though? That's the equivalent to the proposed bill.. n/t
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#156
Well, it was mostly, "Slower! Push the brake harder, son!" (as the rest pitched square bales)
X_Digger
Feb 2013
#191
YES! just like cars. get caught without proof pof insurance? ticket or jail.
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#18
still much better than what we have now. I'm sure there is a way to resolve
robinlynne
Feb 2013
#116
No, that's not correct. My homeowner's policy doesn't mention firearms at all.
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#52
If I shoot someone who I incorrectly perceive as a threat, I will have committed a crime
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#195
If NRA gets into insurance, you can bet they'll start supporting things that reduce their risk.
Hoyt
Feb 2013
#53
I just paid the annual premium on my homeowner's policy, which includes personal liability coverage
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#49
I also have $10,000 of property coverage on my firearms, it's about $100 a year.
madville
Feb 2013
#59
That's the problem, it needs to change. People are held financially responsible when they have pool
Hoyt
Feb 2013
#90
Right now we are talking guns. Does being held responsible for your irresponsible behavior,
Hoyt
Feb 2013
#99
Let's see, you sell gun to a guy for a fistful of cash without background check, they shoot someone?
Hoyt
Feb 2013
#108
And if guns were habitually kept in people's yards, they would be like that too
Recursion
Feb 2013
#100
Or you could walk around with a gun, have S&W sticker on car, fly a confederate or tbagger flag, etc
Hoyt
Feb 2013
#111
That my feeling too. Make the "carrying" cost to great, especially for certain weapons and over a
Hoyt
Feb 2013
#91
Your motivation is ignoble; your idea would create obvious unintended consequences.
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#95
Ah, advocating deprivation of rights under color of law. How unprogressive!
friendly_iconoclast
Feb 2013
#110
I want to see them responsible for harm their guns do EVEN IF STOLEN, unless
kestrel91316
Feb 2013
#102
Actually, this isn't the same idea as insurance for shootings in self defense.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2013
#140
Pa. Lawmakers Introduce Gun Safety Bills, Including Assault Weapons Ban
farminator3000
Feb 2013
#137
You have zero ability to understand the unavoidable consequences of your policy recommendations
Taitertots
Feb 2013
#167
The only people who can't afford arbitrary and capricious fines are poor people
Taitertots
Feb 2013
#203
You insure your car in case you loan it to someone and they drive through a house.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2013
#207
You can try to re-frame your scheme however you want, but at the end of the day...
Taitertots
Feb 2013
#208
it insists that people be responsible and deters no one from gun ownership
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2013
#209
Every gun owner is already criminally and civilly responsible for their actions
Taitertots
Feb 2013
#210
Wrong. Car owners and house owners are regularly taken to court if they have no insurance.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2013
#211
I live in California. It is not necessary to register a car here in order to legally own it.
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#196
You only have to do that with a vehicle that was previously registered to be driven on the street
slackmaster
Feb 2013
#201
OK. Well, never having had a tractor or a race car...what can I say? Good to know.
libdem4life
Feb 2013
#202
EXCELLENT!! Insurance is required to drive a car, which is required in most parts of the country
madinmaryland
Feb 2013
#172
Lawmakers propose liability insurance for U.S. gun owners - CA, MA, MD, CT - hmm. blue states...
farminator3000
Feb 2013
#176