California bill to mandate insurance

California bill to mandate insurance

This is a discussion on California bill to mandate insurance within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A bill introduced by Democrats in California would require gun owners to buy extra insurance. Insurance companies are all for it. Reason given is that ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree10Likes
  • 7 Post By gunthorp
  • 1 Post By BugDude
  • 1 Post By Richard58
  • 1 Post By Crowman

Thread: California bill to mandate insurance

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    home office

    California bill to mandate insurance

    A bill introduced by Democrats in California would require gun owners to buy extra insurance. Insurance companies are all for it. Reason given is that the public shouldn't have to bear the cost of gun violence. The problem with their logic is that facts demonstrate guns in the hands of good people save lives and property from loss. More guns means less crime and more the society saves.

    Therefore I propose legislation that would require anyone without a gun to pay a premium, because his disregard for his own safety encourages crime, the cost of which the public shouldn't have to bear. With the financial support of the insurance industry, I'm quite certain I will be elected in a landslide.
    Crowbait, PatAz, Eagleks and 4 others like this.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

  2. #2
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Western Missouri
    Ridiculous. Between Kalifornistan, NY, and Maryland, this kind of crap can only be taken for so long. It's just retarded; I can't even comprehend the mindset that these people must have to think that this is okay. All the same arguments apply; do we make people buy extra insurance if they own a knife? A tire iron? How about a hammer? Stupid, stupid, STUPID! Man this crap gets under my skin, but fast.
    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” --George Washington

  3. #3
    Member Array mbguy29577's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Coastal SC
    So will the criminals be exempted from this required purchase? Seems so ...
    (4) Springfield Armory XD-40 Sub Compact
    (1) Ruger LC9
    NRA Member

    "Molon labe" "From my cold dead hands"

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Under an old Volkswagen somewhere in Florida
    People's mouths cost them more than anything. Are they going to be required to buy free speech insurance?
    Crowbait likes this.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array Richard58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Charlotte area of North Carolina
    Going try to starve us out with insurance, taxes, and fees. Anything to make it less desirable.
    Bark'n likes this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    South Coast LA Cty
    I didn't even have boat loss insurance.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Moving - PM me if you want to know where
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member

    Moving to a new location

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    West Allis WI
    Yet another way to attempt to discourage people from wanting to own weapons.

    Reason given is that the public shouldn't have to bear the cost of gun violence.
    Now that is pure bunk. 99% of gun violence is perpetrated by the criminal element who sure will not be buying insurance. 99.99% of law abiding citizens do not commit "gun violence".
    stanislaskasava likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    I doubt any of the liberty-haters can answer how forcing citizens who are known to own firearms to obtain insurance coverage will reduce crime committed by other people who are not known to have firearms.

    Sounds like a scheme to deepen the pockets that victims and attorneys can dip into, in this land of deep-pockets lawsuits. Paid for on the backs of upstanding citizens who aren't the ones committing crimes in the first place.

    Reality Avoidance method #218.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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