| There are 39 comments on this blog. |
|
|
How many crooks would carry insurance? NONE. Ridiculous idea..
|
|
|
Driving a car is a PRIVLEDGE and one must have insurance because there is an inherent risk.
Owning a firearm is a RIGHT and is protected by the second amendment. By making gun owners have to pay for insurance who may not be able to afford coverage is an infringement on their right to bear arms.
|
|
|
just another STUPID Liberal idea. Murders don't register there guns. Foolish to think they would buy insurance.
|
|
|
Just another way to tax the people.
Fuck you lawmakers.
|
|
|
Even in California it would never survive a court challenge.
|
|
|
Yes, just another tax proposed by the liberal Democrats in this state. If it moves, tax it. If it is sold, tax it. If it just exists, tax it.
Next thing you know, they will want to tax our drinking water....
Oh wait, that is a proposal by our beloved Governor Newsom....
|
|
|
will go down in flames in the courts, but the libs don't care how much taxpayer money they waste, it's not their money
|
|
|
Yes, all the gangbangers, murderers, robbers and burglars will all be buying this insurance, which obviously, would require giving the serial number of the firearm.
|
|
|
Move out ^^
|
|
|
yellowb2.....unfortunately, only law abiding citizens who are afraid of the crazy litigious world we live in with carry the coverage...and that isn't who the bill is directed towards...but heck...some additional fees to hit everyone with.
|
|
|
whatever happened to cpl anyway, michael avenati the ultimate ambulance chaser
|
|
|
He be runnin for or from the President... IDK
|
|
|
Those who are unable to purchase private firearm insurance may pay a fee instead, compensating taxpayers for public costs stemming from gun violence.
In his statement, Liccardo acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment protects gun ownership in the U.S.
"However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice," he said. "The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."
So is he saying that it's every gun owners fault when a crazy person goes off the deep end and commits mass murder?
I really don't understand the logic of a lot of these politicians.
|
|
|
The method to pull this off is the same bullshit Obama pulled with health insurance. Create a tax penalty for those that don't buy the insurance.
|
|
|
How would one be able to tax an undocumented (illegal, as in alien too) gun or rifle?
|
|
|
In the mean time... I’m selling firearm insurance for FX points.
|
|
|
A perfect reason for not buying anything in California on a 4473.
First registration.
Second insurance.
Third confiscation.
|
|
|
"However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice," he said. "The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers."
Well, that doesn't make sense. If you wouldn't require the mass group of "taxpayers" to bear the costs of an act of gun violence, why would you force the mass group of "gun owners" to bear the cost of gun violence? That makes zero sense.
Let them take their stupid bill and say that those who perpetrate gun violence will be held financially responsible for the violence, death, and destruction they cause? That would make more sense -- except that most crazies (except for that Las Vegas lunatic) don't have a pot to piss in.
Therefore, this is just another Democrat way to tax folks who don't vote for them anyway.
|
|
|
No bill like that, will make it out of the Senate.
|
|
|
Stupid idea. Mass murderers kill with intent which is not what insurance is for.
|
|
|
Will this scenario ever happen:
Cop walks up to a person he just shot and says 'sir you just killed 20 people can see your gun license and insurance please'.
|
|
|
I doubt this will hold up in court.
But perhaps the law would allow for a gun to be confiscated if the owner didn't have insurance. So the law could prevent some shootings if a would-be-shooter was ever questioned or apprehended for any reason, and the cops found him in a possession of the gun without insurance.
|
|
|
A tax by any other name.
|
|
|
Are you big bad ass guys that afraid you need guns?
But you sound so tough and bad ass in the net!
|
|
|
I need sperm insurance just in case I knock a birch up and she tries the keep a nigga baby trick.
|
|
|
in the old days, you had to show your ID to vote
I wonder what happened there............
|
|
|
Harthat why the hostility? I will assume you're anti gun and hate pro gun people hence the insult. All the comments so far have been civil so what's riling you up?
|
|
|
Triggered.
intended
|
|
|
Yeah, this one is stupid, and a violation of our rights.
Two things we CAN do for sure are to improve the quality of background checks, and enforce our existing gun laws.
Anybody who has a domestic violence restraining order/conviction or has an involuntary commitment in their history should not be able to buy a gun, under existing federal law.
Too many states and even federal agencies do a shitty job of putting information in the database. One guy in the news had a domestic violence conviction from when he was in the US Air Force, and the Air Force never bothered to put him in the database. That is inexcusable!
There are also plenty of people out there with 5150s who still have guns in their homes. That is a really bad situation.
|
|
|
Confiscate all handguns. Hunters don’t use them. You don’t see a guy in orange hunting elk with a six shooter. Gun related deaths will go down 90%.
|
|
|
Yeah, that'll do it all right.
|
|
|
I would like to see how hand guns are rounded up from gang bangers.
|
|
|
We are coming for your guns!!! At least here in Canada. Our hunters dont need 100 shot magazines.
|
|
|
Hunters don’t need high capacity magazines... but I do. The zombie apocalypse is coming. And I will be ready!
|
|
|
I know a lot of people my age who are capable and trustworthy of competent firearm use are care, and their spoiled young adult children who should not be allowed anywhere near cutlery, let alone a weapon.
This is a good start to curbing bad behavior with firearms. You want a gun? Sure, you ahve a right to it. But it will cost you more.
|
|
|
I own many guns but I'd give them up the second after the confiscates the guns from everyone of you sociopathic fuckers. I don't carry because of hardcore criminals, I carry because you never know when a white walker is going to snap.
|
|
|
White walkers?
Hah! Several years ago Jim Collins wrote a business book called, “Built to last.” In it he develops a concept called “The tyranny of the or.”
The idea being, we often put ourselves choices that do not have to be made.
White walkers, hardcore criminals, loopy exes (and their new boyfriends), Walmart terrorists, church shooters, space invaders, local lunatics, some type of crisis that shuts down access to food water and basic needs, a government that goes amuck....
I don’t don’t have weapons because of this one OR that one... but because of the slight possibility of all of them.
And for those who say, “Your little cache of weapons cannot protect you from a government with tanks and jets”
Well, you are right... but...millions of us with small arsenals is enough to give them “pause.”
|
|
|
With all due respect Joe, I think you should turn in your guns because your talking a little crazy.
|
|
|
I want to know. Who votes for these people?
|
| There are 39 comments on this blog. |
