I do not understand the "Violence Insurance" proposals out there. What makes even less sense is that it is something that seems to be supported by Dems and Repubs. Just one more example of how the right is willing to compromise away our freedoms. One more argument in favor of abandoning the two controlling parties in favor of a third party that is more interested in increasing and enhancing our freedoms rather than finding creative ways to hoodwink the people out of their freedoms.
It is WRONG and illegal to force insurance upon lawful gun owners. The argument from the left is that since we must have insurance to drive a car on city, state and federal roads, then why should we not require insurance for those who wish to own a gun?
I have two problems with this. The first is that the argument they are using is the typical use of half truths to make an invalid argument seem to be logical. But, the fact is that we have to have automobile insurance because driving on the roads is not a right, it is a privilege. It is something that is granted to us by the government and can be stripped from us by the same government. We do not, contrary to popular belief, have the Right to drive on the roads regardless of the fact that we paid for them.
Gun ownership is not a privilege, though. It is not something that the government can take away from people. It is something that is considered to be sacrosanct. It is off limits to the government. And for good reason. But I am not discussing that part of the issue. The government cannot require any kind of tax or other imposition which would create a hardship on a person's rights. Forcing people to have insurance on their guns would do just that, create a hardship on lawful gun owners.
The other thing is that the "violence insurance" first creates a mis-characterization of guns as something that are violent in nature when, in fact, they are not and it forces upon one an insurance that covers nothing that isn't already covered by other insurance.
Let me give you an example of what I am saying. Let us assume, for the sake of this argument, that I own some sort of firearm. Since I am a homeowner, my homeowner's insurance already covers any damage that could be caused by the use or misuse of that weapon. By forcing me to have additional insurance on the gun, I am now covered by an insurance I don't need. In other words, I am wasting my money. The "violence insurance" will not cover anything more than my homeowner's insurance already covers. So, what motivation would I have to get additional insurance? None. My gun is already covered.
"But, Robert, you racist, gun toting, ignoramus, not all gun owners are home owners," you are saying. That is true. However, renter's insurance covers gun use and misuse also. Automobile insurance also covers any damage that may be caused by transporting your gun.
It is WRONG and illegal to force insurance upon lawful gun owners. The argument from the left is that since we must have insurance to drive a car on city, state and federal roads, then why should we not require insurance for those who wish to own a gun?
I have two problems with this. The first is that the argument they are using is the typical use of half truths to make an invalid argument seem to be logical. But, the fact is that we have to have automobile insurance because driving on the roads is not a right, it is a privilege. It is something that is granted to us by the government and can be stripped from us by the same government. We do not, contrary to popular belief, have the Right to drive on the roads regardless of the fact that we paid for them.
Gun ownership is not a privilege, though. It is not something that the government can take away from people. It is something that is considered to be sacrosanct. It is off limits to the government. And for good reason. But I am not discussing that part of the issue. The government cannot require any kind of tax or other imposition which would create a hardship on a person's rights. Forcing people to have insurance on their guns would do just that, create a hardship on lawful gun owners.
The other thing is that the "violence insurance" first creates a mis-characterization of guns as something that are violent in nature when, in fact, they are not and it forces upon one an insurance that covers nothing that isn't already covered by other insurance.
Let me give you an example of what I am saying. Let us assume, for the sake of this argument, that I own some sort of firearm. Since I am a homeowner, my homeowner's insurance already covers any damage that could be caused by the use or misuse of that weapon. By forcing me to have additional insurance on the gun, I am now covered by an insurance I don't need. In other words, I am wasting my money. The "violence insurance" will not cover anything more than my homeowner's insurance already covers. So, what motivation would I have to get additional insurance? None. My gun is already covered.
"But, Robert, you racist, gun toting, ignoramus, not all gun owners are home owners," you are saying. That is true. However, renter's insurance covers gun use and misuse also. Automobile insurance also covers any damage that may be caused by transporting your gun.
RSS Feed