A Complete Waste of Space

This shit has nothing to do with assault rifles. It has nothing to do with the mass killings. It has to do with forcing us to give up our guns. It's only the start, and exactly what I predicted.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... 1m-insura/

I don't know, Buzz.....seems like a reasonable expectation, if you are going to own a weapon, you should be prepared to cover the potential for damage. Now, I can see haggling over how much coverage should be mandatory, and the proposed premium seems a bit steep(but, I suspect that is but a guess), although cheaper than car insurance in New York. Still, you are more likely(due to more frequent usage) to incur damage with a car, versus a gun. Like I say, not a far-fetched idea, if the premiums could be reasonable(say $600/year, 50 per month), and in no way something that would by necessity lead to anyone confiscating anyone unless you were caught with an uninsured weapon. Nothing suggesting door-to-door jackboots grabbing guns in that legislation.

So, bottom line, nothing unreasonable to me.

Now, with those museum pieces you shoot, you should have to carry insurance on your own welfare!

I guess you didn't read the article again. The cost is $1600-$2000 a year. With so many out of work that can't come close to affording it. They have to give up their guns.

GIVE UP THEIR GUNS SLICK!!

Of course you think it's ok, because you have a hard time putting yourself in other peoples position. You see the world from your cozy little space.

Buzz wrote:I guess you didn't read the article again. The cost is $1600-$2000 a year.

re-read what I wrote.....

With so many out of work that can't come close to affording it. They have to give up their guns.

GIVE UP THEIR GUNS SLICK!!

show me how many out of work folks cannot afford it, and I might have sympathy.

Of course you think it's ok, because you have a hard time putting yourself in other peoples position. You see the world from your cozy little space.

I stated pretty clearly that I had questions about the coverage level and the premiums. You don't think the idea of insurance isn't a reasonable expectation for someone to own, and especially carry a deadly weapon? I don't. In fact, I would have a very minimal requirement for home ownership and storage, and a whopper of a requirement for public carry.

in fact, one part of that bill, I've been advocating for over a decade on these pages in some form:
"The bill also states that if a gun is stolen, the legal owner of that gun is responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police department"

Doesnt the NRA have any coverage as a member of the SSAA the last i looked i was covered for up to $15 mill

It's just another Obama Tax on the poor.

Pudfark wrote:It's just another Obama Tax on the poor.