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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Politicub

(12,163 posts)
62. I doubt it. Most people are going to pass a background check.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jan 2013

No one is guaranteed an income stream. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business, too.

I don't like the idea of a small business going under, but I prefer it to them trading in weapons built for destruction of human beings.

Sounds good to me. Winner all around. graham4anything Jan 2013 #1
Yes - A Step In The Right Direction cantbeserious Jan 2013 #2
That is a start liberal N proud Jan 2013 #3
Fabulous Idea. Make it a national requirement. on point Jan 2013 #4
This will pass, because someone is getting rich off of it. n/t Ian David Jan 2013 #5
That's the only reason anything gets passed... apnu Jan 2013 #38
My thoughts exactly. dotymed Jan 2013 #82
I know.... FarPoint Jan 2013 #104
I've been telling my "more cars kill people than guns" buddies then in that case... BlueNoteSpecial Jan 2013 #6
On the other hand, might someone be more willing to shoot if he's covered for damages? Ian David Jan 2013 #7
Terrible Tex's Steel Smokewagon Rental w/ full coverage?!... BlueNoteSpecial Jan 2013 #11
That coverage doesn't cover intentionally criminal acts. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #12
I should probably go and read the whole article. Ian David Jan 2013 #21
Car insurance covers your car wherever it is. It is only mandatory for public use. A Simple Game Jan 2013 #54
Can't be killed or injured by a car that isn't in a public space? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #57
But this isn't automobile insurance. Guns aren't cars and need a different type of policy Politicub Jan 2013 #60
As long as you never allow any other person into your home pnwmom Jan 2013 #85
Sure, that's totally reasonable. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #86
An unlicensed, uninsured, undriven car on your property isn't going to accidentally pnwmom Jan 2013 #87
Guns don't either. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #88
Guns go off all the time without someone deliberately pulling the trigger. pnwmom Jan 2013 #89
Those firearms were loaded. (Gas in the tank) AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #90
The point is, no one accidentally opens a car door, sits down, pnwmom Jan 2013 #93
Are you kidding? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #94
And yet you don't you think gun owners should have liability insurance, licenses, etc. pnwmom Jan 2013 #96
You took it to an extreme that doesn't parallel. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #97
When you allow other members of the public into your house, pnwmom Jan 2013 #98
And what of the unlicensed, unregistered car sitting on my property? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #99
People will see a parked car in your yard and are unlikely to be hurt by it. pnwmom Jan 2013 #100
Still not articulating a principle by which one is more dangerous than the other. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #101
It won't preclude criminal liability Politicub Jan 2013 #59
Great idea Kalidurga Jan 2013 #8
Potentially. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #17
Good idea... Harriety Jan 2013 #9
Sounds good to me. nick of time Jan 2013 #10
Perfect RLmn Jan 2013 #13
I think it's a good idea too! jreal Jan 2013 #16
excellent. bunnies Jan 2013 #14
This message was self-deleted by its author jreal Jan 2013 #15
Definitely A Step In The Correct Direction. Paladin Jan 2013 #18
It will just boost NRA Membership Indydem Jan 2013 #19
NRA free liability coverage for members?? I don't think so.... DreamGypsy Jan 2013 #44
An ordinary homeowner's or renter's insurance policy covers that kind of liability slackmaster Jan 2013 #20
Yep. Makes sense to couple it to a CPL. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #26
And for those who don't own a home and the lease isn't in their name? Ruby the Liberal Jan 2013 #71
It's a good idea for a gun owner to get it even if it's not required - And it's very inexpensive... slackmaster Jan 2013 #73
Ah, but the second amendment only applies to white male property owners, don't cha know? Ligyron Jan 2013 #110
Its will not save a life Jughead Jan 2013 #22
who is defining the threshold required to adopt a new law? Justice Jan 2013 #25
It's the usual NRA crap Skittles Jan 2013 #51
By this logic, there shouldn't be any liability insurance required with cars either. eggplant Jan 2013 #36
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Skittles Jan 2013 #50
Sounds like NRA bullshit to me Hugabear Jan 2013 #55
Make the premiums as high as medical insurance!!!!! nt valerief Jan 2013 #23
If you make it prohibitively expensive, people won't buy it slackmaster Jan 2013 #27
Then you don't get to buy more guns Politicub Jan 2013 #61
In many states, car insurance Diego_Native 2012 Jan 2013 #70
You know this just prices the poor and middle class out of guns, at best, right? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #28
I'm a Bay Stater. I'd love to see gun owners priced out of guns. nt valerief Jan 2013 #29
Where do you think the guns would go? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #31
Yes, existing guns, not new guns. nt valerief Jan 2013 #32
That's a lot of guns. This state's portion of the 300+ million in circulation. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #37
They're already in bad people's hands. I'm afraid of the "good" people. nt valerief Jan 2013 #69
I doubt it. Most people are going to pass a background check. Politicub Jan 2013 #62
Perhaps the NRA can offer financial assistance thucythucy Jan 2013 #65
I know it's all fun and games but AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #66
What strikes me as a problem thucythucy Jan 2013 #67
Uh, no it isn't. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #68
Sorry, I still don't buy it. thucythucy Jan 2013 #74
He can't use that tank AS a tank. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #80
we can only assume that many people want only 1% and those in their employ to have transportation? LanternWaste Jan 2013 #112
So require it for people who carry guns in public, just like for people who drive cars on public AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #113
That would totally work because medical insurance continues to increase in cost. Pterodactyl Jan 2013 #43
good. Shadowflash Jan 2013 #24
Ha! And yet they do such a terrific job of killing nonetheless. nt valerief Jan 2013 #30
At least the insurance could cover "accidental' shootings DreamGypsy Jan 2013 #33
Great news Politicalboi Jan 2013 #34
Exactly, what's the point of having mandatory insurance hughee99 Jan 2013 #40
this is beautiful and appropriate samsingh Jan 2013 #35
Oh yes, owners would make sure their kids and their kids friends never have access larkrake Jan 2013 #39
Makes no sense Devoid Jan 2013 #41
most criminals use stolen weapons larkrake Jan 2013 #46
Of courcee they will, oldbanjo Jan 2013 #48
Nothing is a panacea, so you won't find one no matter how hard you look. Politicub Jan 2013 #63
Where, exactly, do you think criminals get guns? jeff47 Jan 2013 #91
Insure and chip each weapon, bake that chip into a metal part larkrake Jan 2013 #42
The metal part would likely interfere with any transmission. Pterodactyl Jan 2013 #45
good idea larkrake Jan 2013 #47
credit cards can be traced by illegal trackers by just passing them larkrake Jan 2013 #49
tin foil cover Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #106
I like that idea. appleannie1 Jan 2013 #52
about goddamned time rurallib Jan 2013 #53
OF COURSE!!~! robinlynne Jan 2013 #56
You mean to say Turbineguy Jan 2013 #58
Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. geckosfeet Jan 2013 #64
+1 HuckleB Jan 2013 #72
Perfect. Thank you. judesedit Jan 2013 #75
What acts would be covered under this insurance? ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #76
Because only the rich are entitled to self defense? dkf Jan 2013 #77
It is shameful when guns are more dear to one than innocent lives lost in mass shootings. Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #78
Yeah!!!!! Now we need this done in the rest of the states Tumbulu Jan 2013 #79
Doesn't the NRA offer/broker Firearm Insurance? OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #81
Hmm. That would not be good. Maineman Jan 2013 #83
An insurance company affiliated with the NRA sells liability insurance slackmaster Jan 2013 #84
Simply another way to assure more non-compliance with any registration law.. virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #92
Cool. Now let's get free speech insurance as well The Straight Story Jan 2013 #95
Actually as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit I see no real problems with this idea. ... spin Jan 2013 #102
This is a great idea... Sancho Jan 2013 #103
your last suggestion (demographics) is discriminatory bossy22 Jan 2013 #107
Insurers charge much higher premiums for very young drivers slackmaster Jan 2013 #108
The last suggestion (#7) is law in Massachusetts. Probably some other states as well. geckosfeet Jan 2013 #111
That's exactly what they do now.. Sancho Jan 2013 #114
Now THIS is a good idea. CanonRay Jan 2013 #105
You seem to want this to be implemented for punitive reasons, which is not how insurance works. slackmaster Jan 2013 #109
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Massachusetts bill would ...»Reply #62