This isn't the first time we've heard this rhetoric, and it won't likely be the last. Every few months, a gun-grabber decides to re-introduce the “let's force gun-owners into buying liability insurance” baloney. I'm gonna cut straight to the chase: it'll never work for a multitude of reasons. Let's take a look at just a few of them, shall we?
Criminal Argument:
First and foremost. I'm a legal gun owner. Each time I buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, I go through a background check. I pass it each time—obviously, or I wouldn't own any firearms. The white-trash thug who breaks into my house in the middle of the night—the one who really wants to harm people—has likely never gone through a background check to buy his illegally owned gun. If a criminal acquires something illegally, do you think they'll insure it?
My guess would be a resounding “no.” And why would they? They're buying it so they could hurt people with it. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, so let's move on.
Car Argument:
But, but, but…you need insurance to drive a car! True, true. Almost had me there. LOL. Seriously, not all states require insurance, last I checked. I believe that at least New Hampshire doesn't require automobile insurance, and there may be one or two other states as well. But that's besides the point. You see, driving an actual car on an actual road is not a Constitutionally protected right. It is a privilege. It can therefore be taken away.
On the other hand, owning a firearm shall not be infringed. One can easily make the argument that making me insure my guns is a type of infringement. So, good luck with that.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!!
Dog Argument:
Okay, by a show of comments, how many of you have, or know of someone who has been told that they cannot buy a certain kind of dog because insurance won't allow it? It's usually dogs of the “bull” variety like Pitbull, Bull Mastiff, American Bulldog, etc. But, we had an issue with our insurance company because of a German Shepherd. I've also heard of issues with Belgian Malinois, Huskies, and other similar types of dogs. Imagine that, the insurance company can choose to not insure people based on the animals they own.
Strange…I wonder how that would apply to firearms?
So, let's say that I'm an AK47 fan (ya know, because I actually am), and I wanted to buy something based off of Kalashnikov's original design. The only problem I may run in to, is once I contact my mandatory insurance company, I might come to the realization that they don't insure “those types of guns.” Cuz, ya know, it's a “scary assault weapon of mass destruction and killing stuff!”
Huh, it never occurred to me before, but maybe my German Shepherd is an Assault Dog! If so, I think she's broken because all she does is lick people and try to convince them that she's actually a 90 pound lap dog…
If you don't think they would tell you which guns you can have, you'd be crazy. I'm not done yet, though, so keep reading.
Cost Argument:
What will insurance like this cost? They say it'll be cheap. But really? Personally speaking, I can barely afford the professional organizations I belong to right now, like the NSSF, NRA, Professional Outdoor Media Association, etc. I damn sure can't afford my medical, automotive, and home insurance. So, why make Americans, who are already struggling with this horrible economy we're stuck in, pay more money for insurance?
Oh, that's right… Because the real agenda is that they want to turn people away from buying guns as much as possible. After all, “guns r bad,” and stuff. Finally, each household has to insure each car in that household. I can't just buy a policy that insures all of them. My guess, is that guns wouldn't be lumped together under one insurance policy like your home goods probably are. They'd likely do it the same way they do with cars. So, people with 10,15, 50 or more guns, are going to have to pay a premium on each one of their guns. By the time they're done, they'll be forced to sell their guns to other people. Who, by the way, won't be able to afford them, either.
Other Weapons Argument:
We all know that anything can be used as a weapon. Personally, opportunistic weapons is one of my specialties. Did you know that if you roll up a newspaper or magazine it can be used as a club or as an extra-long extension of your arm to jab people without damaging your fist or putting yourself in harms way? I wonder if I'll have to insure the stack of gun magazines I have in the corner of my house? Of course, the fact that they have guns on the cover may already classify them as an “assault weapon.” But, what about something more obvious, like a steak knife or spoon? (Yes, I said spoon)
While on the topic of kitchen utensils, how about a spatula? Damn, those things can be dangerous and someone can go on a killing spree with one. Maybe we should have households all across the country engage in the re-donk-u-lous activity of insuring them so people cannot hurt others with them.
Making law-abiding gun owners buy insurance for their guns is nonsense and isn't meant to keep anyone safe. All it is, is another potential method of control that must be fought if it ever begins to gain momentum with the government. It is a bad idea for many reasons, and the end result is control—regardless of what anyone says. If they must be insured, we won't be able to afford them. Sound Off Gun Carriers! Do you agree with my assessment of this idiocy? Let me know in the comments below.
Oh, and this was spurred by a letter to the WaPo. Read with caution because you're guaranteed to lose brain cells.
