Mandate to buy gun liability insurance?

[davester]

swampy wrote:
The people are the militia. And I guess you think using guns to hunt for food should have been unconstitutional? Our forefathers would have starved. Again davestar, you look like a fool.

There's a fool here, but your nonsensical post shows that it sure ain't me. Thanks again for your detailed, logical and comprehensive discussion of the issue.

[davester]

double post

[swampy]

How will this liability insurance prevent some nut using his insured (or not) gun from killing someone?

[rjmacs]

swampy wrote:
How will this liability insurance prevent some nut using his insured (or not) gun from killing someone?

It won't, just as automobile insurance doesn't prevent drunk or negligent driving. But, it does cover some of the damage done by the irresponsible use of or accidents involving the property involved. It's required in recognition that the possession and use of such property carries inherent risk to the public.

[OWC Jamie]

swampy wrote:
How will this liability insurance prevent some nut using his insured (or not) gun from killing someone?

it doesn't
it does separate the elite who can afford tthousands of guns in their arsenals from the average joe who barely can afford his taxes every year who doesn't deserve one.

[davester]

billb wrote:
[quote=swampy]
How will this liability insurance prevent some nut using his insured (or not) gun from killing someone?

it doesn't
it does separate the elite who can afford tthousands of guns in their arsenals from the average joe who barely can afford his taxes every year who doesn't deserve one.
You can say the exact same thing about cars. It doesn't serve as an adequate excuse there either. Like a car, a gun is capable of immense harm to others, far out of proportion to the actual cost of buying the gun. To deal with this issue we require people who operate cars in public to take out insurance that covers the risk of that immense harm happening. It is unfathomable why this requirement is not applied to guns. If the risks are small then the cost of such insurance would be a pittance.

People who are killed or disabled due to gun violence often receive (or their survivors receive) no compensation because there is no insurance requirement associated with gun ownership. The victims bear the costs because of the irresponsible lack of regulation of firearms and their risks to society.

[swampy]

It's discriminatory.

[Bill in NC]

Whether one agrees with it or not, Heller is the law of the land.

How do you mandate insurance given the above?

Wouldn't SCOTUS just treat any mandatory insurance scheme as the equivalent of a poll tax?

[deckeda]

swampy wrote:
It's discriminatory.

No it isn't.

You have the right to own them, not to afford them.

swampy wrote:
How will this liability insurance prevent some nut using his insured (or not) gun from killing someone?

You have confused insurance with assurance. Those words don't mean the same thing.

[deckeda]

billb wrote:
it does separate the elite who can afford tthousands of guns in their arsenals from the average joe who barely can afford his taxes every year who doesn't deserve one.

Yes, let's all buy guns and not pay taxes. We'll just all live off the land, killing our own prey, never needing any social services, modern conveniences/businesses/products/opportunities ad infinitum.

I'm really sorry guns and ammo have a monetary cost to purchase. It's a darn shame that making things costs money, isn't it?

Just think: if we pay just enough taxes for the government to supply us all with guns, no one would have to buy them, and you and swampy and the other geniuses would be happy campers.