House bill requires gun owners to buy insurance. What are your thoughts about this?

CPT Brian Cross, you've spoken like a true liberal. Throw a bunch of crap out there, get some responses that don't quite fit your liberal agenda, throw another response back, then block me so I can't even respond. Very nice. Typical anti-gun, anti-constitution liberal. Got it. Noted.

Very bad Idea.

Flat out ludicrous. I make no apology for being on the far right of this issue. I am a gun owner. As a federal contractor I carry an AR variant and a sidearm every day I am deployed. As a civilian on my off time I also carry a firearm (no worries the long guns stay home) I see this liability requirement to simply be a backdoor gun registry.
Yes, many will say that to drive a vehicle one must show financial responsibility (insurance) so it should be the same for a firearm. I say no way! You see, driving a vehicle, holding a driver's license, is a privilege whereas owning a firearm is a fundamental civil right.
Under the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights (which suffice it to say is not a bill about OUR rights as Americans, but a clear line drawn in the sand about the federal government's limits on their power over the people that they are beholden too) SCOTUS in the landmark Heller decision (2008) extends that the right to bear arms extends to the individual. Owning a firearm isn't about hunting, it can be but it is as I see it.......


What the 2nd Amendment Means to Me........

Probably the biggest source of contention between gun control and gun rights advocates is,” what exactly does the 2nd Amendment state?” It appears that many on the left have their own version. Truth be told, the same can be said for those on the right.

With that, I am going to go out on a limb here. More specifically, my interpretation is somewhat provocative. Some would go so far as to infer I am nothing short of an insurrectionist, guilty of treason, an enemy of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth. I an NOT Anti-government in any fashion. With that being said, I am anti-tyranny

Our Bill of Rights were ratified to offset some of the measures contained within our Constitution which meant to establish a stronger more powerful federal government. The reason was the Articles of Confederation (OUR nation’s precursor to the constitution) were so far on the right and thus a central government was powerless. After defeating the British, we wanted to ensure a tyrannical government like the one just defeated could NEVER occur again. Yet the Articles of Confederation went too far away from no central government.

So when the Constitution addressed that and established a powerful government, the framers drafted the Bill of Rights. Interestingly enough, the Bill of Rights were NOT drafted to give the people rights. It was drafted to ensure the central government knew they were limited in their power.
Accordingly, the words contained within the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I find it comical when liberals state the 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with fighting a tyrannical government. These folks have it absolutely backwards.

Here is my view of this and it seems crystal clear………….to me

When the Constitution gave power to the central government, the Bill of Rights set clear limits and thus:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, this means us, the militia is there to ensure we are NOT oppressed by the new government, accordingly the rights of the people to have the ability to defend themselves against this new government should they decide to go the way of the British, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So go ahead with this new central government, but should you decide to impose tyranny (to the likes by which we just came from) the people will have the power to fight this tyranny.

Thoughts?

MSgt Manuel Diaz - Politicians are using it for toilet paper, not wall paper, and it makes me sick.

I agree, it's another way of creating a paper trail. They already have one when you fill out the long form for every gun you purchase, it goes to the FBI and of course the ATF gets the information as well. I'm guessing this will help them better track when you've sold a firearm as well because I can't imagine someone would continue to pay for insurance on something they no longer own, similar to when you sell a car or buy a new one, you have to add or remove a vehicle from the policy.

My uncle had purchased a gun from a friend of his from work. Not sure the full story about why the ATF was interested, it may have been stolen and used in a crime, but I do know that they tracked the firearm from the gun store to the original owner, all the way to my uncle's door, and I'm sure to the guy who he sold it to etc. Perhaps this would save them time in figuring out the path of ownership so they can get to the last known owner faster.

Check this out, remember Red Dawn (the original) when the local commander sends his subordinate to the local sporting good store to see who has guns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mWKqhLzJQo&sns=em


Sent from my iPhone

and this is the same reason then we do not need voter IDs.

Sweet! Someone who feels STRONGLY about firearms issues!

Not only feel strongly but have organized rallies (up to 2000 attended) and testified in front of the legislature. I'm not letting these pansies take our rights away without a fight!

This has nothing to do with criminals or crime control. It's all about back door registration of lawful gun owners. The insurance aspect is to make it taste better and get gun owners to back it as a good idea. You can get liability insurance already. It's a really good idea to have it, no doubt. It's a terribly BAD idea for gun owners to back this mess and end up having the government mandate it.