The next gun control angle – insurance scam

posted at 10:01 am on December 29, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

The tide has been turning rather quickly against the gun grabbing gang as the year draws to a close, and they’ve clearly noticed. With nearly three quarters of all Americans opposed to a ban on handguns, and a slim majority even opposing bans on so called “assault rifles,” Second Amendment opponents find themselves in need of more “creative” ways to go after your guns. The latest one being picked up from the reliable liberal arsenal and dusted off is the idea of forcing legal gun owners to purchase liability insurance for their weapons. This brainstorm is brought to you by Megan McArdle.

Novel gun control ideas continue to percolate through the commentariat. The latest idea is requiring liability insurance for gun owners, which seems to have first been suggested by John Wasik blogging at Forbes. Reihan Salam, one of my favorite thinkers, says it’s an idea seriously worth considering.

So… insurance. Well, insurance is supposed to help people, right? Maybe she’s just trying to make people’s lives better, not trample on their rights. Let’s read on.

In the end, I think it might be a fine idea to help a small number of people, but it wouldn’t do what proponents are imagining in terms of controlling criminal behavior. Mostly, it would be a way to compensate some victims of gun accidents…

The first question we have to answer is why we want to require the insurance. There are three reasons I can think of:

1) it will simply raise the cost of owning guns to the point where people aren’t willing to do it.

2) It will pay for the harm caused by guns

3) It will make insurers into de-facto regulators.

I like this article. McArdle is actually quite refreshing in her approach. Rather than trying to sneak around and disguise her intentions behind compassionate sounding paeans to save the children, protect the mentally ill and eliminate the sale of Grand Theft Auto, the author comes right out and admits what was fairly obvious to the rest of us already. It’s not going to cut down on crime, it will pose a significant barrier to law abiding citizens who wish to purchase weapons and it will convert insurance companies into a tool for doing what Congress should be constitutionally barred from enacting. This kind of brutal honesty about your intentions is to be admired.

Of course, it really is nothing but a new and less direct slant on the idea of taxing ammunition beyond affordability for most citizens. But that requires congressional action and could be subject to judicial review if it winds up being too obvious of a back door scheme to enact gun control. The insurance approach is interesting because, in the age of Obamacare, government mandated insurance can be used for all manner of social engineering under the guise of revenue enhancement.

We’ve been warning you since the news broke from Newtown… opponents of the Second Amendment have their teeth into this thing and they’re not going to give up while they think the window of opportunity remains open. And if a direct assault doesn’t work, they’ll be throwing every creative scheme they can dream up at the wall until they find something that sticks. Don’t let down your guard for a minute, because they aren’t just coming… they’re at the gates right now.

Update: (Jazz) I understand the point being made in some of the comments here. It’s true that in the lengthy discussion which follows the quoted text, the author discusses how such a proposal could be “problematic” and fail to result in the stated goal of acting as de facto gun control. And they are pretty solid arguments. But I still maintain that the entire discussion is based on the proposition that this could be a viable approach, but faces legal challenges along the road as well as failing to address key complaints being raised by those seeking to do this. My point is that the entire concept is a failure from the beginning and doesn’t even merit that level of discussion. This idea has nothing to do with anything but making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns. Do you really think that anyone willing to go out and shoot people is going to be deterred by breaching another law through failure to obtain some expensive insurance policy? Gun grabbers always want to compare guns with automobiles in terms of the law. Think about it. Plenty of people keep driving after their insurance expires. That’s no deterrent at all.

But, with that said, if Ms. McArdle feels I misrepresented her take on this, my apologies for not expanding on this further in the original post. Everyone is invited to read the full article and judge for themselves.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I feel you’ve misread McArdle. I read her article, and I didn’t come away thinking she actually supports the idea.
She considers the idea as presented by others, and logically disputes every conclusion they’d reached and point they’d tried to make.

MayBee on December 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

The biggest obstacle to some sort of sanity is the refusal to accept bad things happen in gun free zones.

We’ll always have bad actors, those aren’t going away, neither will the means to inflict harm, our inalienable rights are designed to give us the best chance to defend ourselves.

The only guarantee is that chance.

Speakup on December 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Sorry insurance companies are pretty smart and reality based. Even if this happened ,though it would be wrong, the cost to most people woulo be minimal. Also, note that most home policies would already cover accidents arising from the use of a gun. The chances of getting shot are minimal compared to the overall number of gun owners. They would not cover intentional acts.

CW on December 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The next gun control angle – insurance scam

Dianne Feinstein disagrees, she’ll just ban what ever she damned well pleases.

Dianne Feinstein wants to violate the US Constitution. Yea, real shocker…

SWalker on December 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

First, it doesn’t sound like the author supports this. But …

Maybe the government could pick that up for us since we are guaranteed a right to own weapons. Let them pay for my habits. Surely makes more sense than us footing the bill for Sandy Fluke’s sex habit.

Yep, next folks then that need extra insurance is rock-climbers and extreme sport participants like base jumpers. It’ll cover the cost of the search and rescue and all terrain paramedics that invariably have to rescue them.

hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

What is there in current law that would prevent your Home Owners Insurance carrier from asking if you have firearms in your home and taking that into account when underwriting the risk of issuing you a policy? Aren’t they already on the hook if they issue a general liability policy?

Lew on December 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The insurance and lawyer lobby will keep this alive as long as possible.

MarkT on December 29, 2012 at 10:15 AM

SWalker on December 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

- Requires registration of grandfathered weapons under the National Firearms Act, which necessitates a background check, registration of type and serial number, positive identification, certification that registered guns are legal under state or local law.

Great rundown SW. This is the meat of her potatoes within her bill. Grandfathered buy registered with a background check and possibility of weapon loss.

hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM

it will convert insurance companies into a tool for doing what Congress should be constitutionally barred from enacting.

Worked with Obamacare. Just be sure to call the required insurance a “tax” in the law you write, and John Roberts will be happy to rubber-stamp it for you, no matter how little constitutional authority there is for it. . . . On second thought, you don’t even have to call it a “tax” to get Roberts to rubber-stamp it; he’ll be happy to write in whatever you leave out.

AZCoyote on December 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

3) It will make insurers into de-facto regulators.

The private sector variance on the “unfunded mandate” Washington sends out to states. In the latter, the feds basically have the states do their tax collection dirty work by ordering a program and making the locals cough up the funds; here it’s a way for the liberal politicians and gun-control advocates to keep their hands clean — “

We didn’t keep you from getting that gun; it was the evil insurance company that priced it beyond your reach.

McArdle’s is more up-front about the goal than your average liberal, but the enacting of the plan is every bit as weasely. For someone with a supposed libertarian bent, it’s a way to say you’re for free markets while forcing those same markets to enact the regulations you want on the populous.

jon1979 on December 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM

The gambit is to get a victory, a win, and push the face of the losers into shit if you can, in order to gain momentum for the next victory, so that you can again humiliate and degrade any winger gun owners and intimidate any good folks who happen to have hunted in the past.

You start the process in motion with a win, and you aren’t sure which win will be the one win to start it, but you keep trying for it.

Ann Althouse’s take (via Instapundit).

Wethal on December 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I am happy I live in Maine where there is no mandatory registration or permits to own a firearm. You can buy a firearm second hand from anyone as long as you are both of legal age.

Pay cash and you have no paper trail for the gun grabbers to come after you. It’s the way that ALL firearms transactions should be done.

Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms belong on store shelves and not as a Federal Agency.

TKindred on December 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Are they sure? You know to be a member of my gun club, You have to be a member of the NRA for the insurance. just think, instead of 4 million murderers in their little libtard eyes, over 100 million! Just think of the lobbying power of an organization that includes 1/3 of the people of the USA. Be careful for what you wish for liberals.

stephana on December 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Reason number two would guarantee a double tap, wouldn’t it?

OldEnglish on December 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Great rundown SW. This is the meat of her potatoes within her bill. Grandfathered buy registered with a background check and possibility of weapon loss.

hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Not only is Feinstein attempting to violate the 2nd amendment, but she is also violating Article 1 Section 9 ” No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”. Her being the Senator from my state, all I can say is, the b.it.ch needs to go to prison for this.

SWalker on December 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

buy = but

hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Such efforts by all these morons will result in nothing but a massively expanded black market. It’s prohibition all over again.

WhatSlushfund on December 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Don’t let down your guard for a minute, because they aren’t just coming… they’re at the gates right now.

Time to break out the boiling oil. We need a shiny object to get their mind off their latest fad.

Vince on December 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Maybe the government could pick that up for us since we are guaranteed a right to own weapons.

hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

How do you know that the GOP Elite leadership are 100 percent in bed with Obama and his Marxist soft coup? If they weren’t, we would have seen this already.

Time for a Mandatory Federal Firearms Law, Enter the Affordable Firearms Act.

But we haven’t, and we haven’t because the GOPe are 100 percent Kabuki Theater designed to deceive the American people as they are slowly boiled alive as if we were frogs.

SWalker on December 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM

The other way to look at this is that homes without firearms are more likely to be robbed. With newspapers like the one in NY printing the names of the gun owners all other homes just became “gun free zones”. Shouldn’t non-gun owners be charged for the additional liability?

mad scientist on December 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Also, note that most home policies would already cover accidents arising from the use of a gun.

CW on December 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Actually, a lot of them don’t – at least, not if any negligence is shown on the part of the homeowner (that includes not locking up the firearm in a safe). And, most won’t cover theft of firearms, either, without a rider. At least, that has been my experience.

GWB on December 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

May I suggest an off-topic legal discussion…”Why not strict liability for Malls and the like that are gun-free zones?”

See how much fun liability issues can be? Now, I would be able to sue Mall of Two Sticks, if I or a family member were shot (at) if they prevented me from bringing my fire arm in….

Bottom-Line: The Mall/restaurant/barber shop is totally liable for my safety, IF they disarm me.

See how that flies and what effect it has, because right now a mall might as well prohibit guns, there’s no down side to it. Add a down side to it, in the form of increased liability insurance claims and they may change their tune/policy.

JFKY on December 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Reason number two would guarantee a double tap, wouldn’t it?

OldEnglish on December 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Not necessarily. The insurance would only cover gun accidents; no insurance policy covers intentional criminal acts of the insured. The existence of an insurance policy would have little, if any, effect on the actions of a spree shooter. It would only affect those shooters who wanted to pass off their shootings as accidental (and shooting one’s victim(s) multiple times tends to reduce the credibility of one’s “accident” story).

AZCoyote on December 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM

1) it will simply raise the cost of owning guns to the point where people aren’t willing to do it.

Great … let’s make it really expensive to defend yourself, your family and your home. Criminals thank you.

darwin on December 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

McArdle actually uses the article to shred the insurance scheme. It is actually a very good column.

Southernblogger on December 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I like this article. McArdle is actually quite refreshing in her approach.

I don’t – A “refreshing” gun grab is still a gun grab.

Tim_CA on December 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Don’t see how “insurance” would resolve “the problem”.

Insurance doesn’t normally cover INTENTIONAL acts.

GarandFan on December 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Great … let’s make it really expensive to defend yourself, your family and your home. Criminals thank you.

darwin

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Lawyers dream come true………being able to sue POLITICIANS for he damage they have done to the country!

Imagine the class action that would be.

PappyD61 on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

This insurance scheme only seeks to punish the law-abiding while criminals get a pass. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a criminal pay exorbitant restitution and fines as well as serving jail time?

Liam on December 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

lmao – safer how exactly?

By allowing the armed criminals you want to coddle unfettered access to your home and property.

Yeah skippy – I feel safer already.

Now go ask mommy for a popsicle and play with your transformers…the grown-ups are talking.

Tim_CA on December 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Great … let’s make it really expensive to defend yourself, your family and your home. Criminals thank you.

darwin on December 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

.
Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

.
Real Americans don’t call for the government to “keep us safe from ourselves”.

Real Americans don’t fret or have high-anxiety over the presence of physical instruments with that kind of “power/capability”, inside the home.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Lawyers dream come true………being able to sue POLITICIANS for he damage they have done to the country !

Imagine the class action that would be.

PappyD61 on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

.
Threadwinner !

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a criminal pay exorbitant restitution and fines as well as serving jail time?

Liam on December 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Maybe it would if the shooters intended to survive the shooting spree. But like the shooters in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Va Tech, etc., many of them don’t plan to be around to pay fines or serve jail time after the shootings, so it wouldn’t change their behavior.

AZCoyote on December 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Why not liability insurance for liberals?
Heck they cost the rest of us pain and suffering.
Shouldn’t we be compensated?
Let’s extend that to create a “Lying Politician’s Liability Umbrella Policy”. Wow! Imagine the payouts on that one!
Better yet why don’t we insist politicians and law eforcement simply enforce existing laws.
Hey newspapers, put my address on your map. It’s better than an NRA sticker on the front door!

Art on December 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I like this article. McArdle is actually quite refreshing in her approach

…you must be talking about her approach to feminine hygiene…right?

KOOLAID2 on December 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

lostmotherland

…t w i t …!

KOOLAID2 on December 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Guns are not sentient beings comrade lostinspace. They don’t shoot on their own, and they don’t take control of a persons mind forcing them to shoot.

Have you tried reading anything besides communist propaganda on the subject?

darwin on December 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

This insurance scheme only seeks to punish the law-abiding while criminals get a pass. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a criminal pay exorbitant restitution and fines as well as serving jail time?

Liam on December 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM

.
Most (not necessarily all) criminals can’t afford to pay fines, or exhorbitant restitution (or even minimal restitution).

If they could, most wouldn’t have turned to crime in the first place.

On the other hand, we could allow businesses to use prison labor specically for that purpose.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I live on a farm. My family is safer with weapons.

And you can’t have them. May as well move on to your next effort. This one’s settled.

hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Jazz, thanks for all your coverage of this issue.

I refuse to give one millimeter to the grabbers, and I think most everyone here thinks the same. We have to stand strong.

juliesa on December 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Not necessarily. The insurance would only cover gun accidents; no insurance policy covers intentional criminal acts of the insured.

AZCoyote on December 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM

That depends on the how the law is written, doesn’t it? If insurance covers liability then even intentional shootings are covered. What will discourage gun ownership is an Obamacare for gun insurance, where law-abiding citizens of little risk have to pay into a pool that also insures high-risk populations, and the cost of the high-risk population of gun owners (being too poor to pay the insurance and eat) will be shifted to the better-off, low-risk population. That might force many of the good gun owners to drop the insurance and turn in their guns.

This insurance idea is an attempt to get law-abiding gun owners to pay for the cost of all gun incidences. If enough people dump expensive policies (because of the intended cost shift from those responsible for violence to those who can afford to pay), the insurance company would go broke and then nobody could own a gun legally.

shuzilla on December 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

“The latest idea is requiring liability insurance for gun owners …”

Make Me.
As for your “viable approach”, Jazz, yer nucking futz.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Hey newspapers, put my address on your map. It’s better than an NRA sticker on the front door!

Art on December 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Your presumption here is that all criminals are ignorant bumbling buffoons frightened by your big scary assault weapons, which simply isn’t the case. Posting your address informing criminals that you have firearms in your home does not make you safer, it makes you a target for those who believe that they are smart enough and crafty enough to catch you unaware and deprive you of those weapons. Contrary to your presumption, yes, their genuinely are criminals out there capable of doing exactly that.

As nearly all gun owners know and understand, those area’s where conceal and carry permits either are not required or are extremely easy to obtain have the lowest incidents of violent crime. This fact is not because all of the criminals know exactly who is carrying and avoid them, it is precisely because they do not know who is carrying. What they know is that in an environment where anyone one can and is likely to be armed, even if their target/victim is not carrying, someone standing close by likely is.

Knowing exactly where the weapons are allows you to plan a strategy designed on where the threat is coming from, not knowing deprives you of that capability.

Do you take all of your firearms with you every time you leave your house? Do you have someone capable of using those firearms at your house 24/7/365? Understand, to many criminals, your firearms are the most valuable thing that they can steal from you. Finding out when you are home and when you are not is not that difficult. You coming home and finding a criminal in your house, unless you have a conceal and carry permit and are carrying, means that you having firearms in your house is of no value to you since now you have to get past the criminal to get to those firearms and you have to hope that the criminal hasn’t already gained access to them.

SWalker on December 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

2nd amendment supporters need to publicly declare what the gun grabbers will not admit – that the grabbers want a disarmed populace and that controls will eventually result in total bans.

And then ask the question: who benefits by disarming the law abiding public? What agenda would require that as a prerequisite for its successful implementation?

CorporatePiggy on December 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Guess what? It’s none of your friggin’ business if I or anyone else has a gun in their house.

At any rate, McCardle is trying to be as objective as possible but has made an incorrect assumption and given the gun grabbers a benefit of doubt they don’t deserve.:

Number one is unfair to advocates of stronger gun control, most of whom say that they do not want to take all guns away from law abiding citizens. I see no reason to doubt them, and so I’m basically discounting any interpretation of this proposal that seems like it would just raise the cost of guns until they were unaffordable for all but the very wealthy.

She doesn’t know enough about this debate to understand that the entire gun control crowd HATES the Second Amendment and would do away with it in a minute if they could. Were it up to them, we would have an almost complete ban on firearms similar to Australia or the UK.

RadClown on December 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Newsflash: to a non-criminal gun owner, a gun IS insurance.

Forcing someone to buy insurance on something specifically designed to insure safety is even more insane and idiotic than taxing people for creating wealth.

logis on December 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Its amazing how much time, effort, and money liberals will spend to strip us of our rights. Too bad they can’t put that effort into figuring out ways to get government spending under control.

Iblis on December 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Sorry insurance companies are pretty smart and reality based.

CW on December 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Wish it were true, but it isn’t, CW. Because if it were true insurance companies wouldn’t be using the phony global warming as a reason to raise property insurance rates, yet they are. Insurance companies are just as opportunistic as any other business. Why should they complain if the government forces them to make more money?

And if you need another analogy, did the banks and mortgage companies complain when the government forced them to make substandard mortgage loans, even though they knew it was unsustainable? Nope.

woodNfish on December 29, 2012 at 12:16 PM

This insurance scheme only seeks to punish the law-abiding while criminals get a pass.

Liam on December 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The original article (not McArdle’s) actually ends up outing itself as a registration scheme. It’s a way for the government to have a database of all gun owners.

GWB on December 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Isn’t it about time you found your “Motherland” and got lost?

Barred on December 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I don’t know why you’re referring to this as ‘new’ or ‘novel’, I’ve been debating gun control for more than 20 years and I haven’t heard anything in the last month that I haven’t heard 20 years ago, including this one. Liberals have no new ideas.

Socratease on December 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

It may make the insurance company the defacto regulator, but it would be a real registration of every gun owned by law abiding citizens. So when the next wave of attacks come, the govt will know who owns what. No thanks to any scheme that would let the govt infringe on my rights. We already have too many as it stands now especially at the federal level.

AH_C on December 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Don’t let down your guard for a minute, because they aren’t just coming… they’re at the gates right now.

In the next year or so, executive orders and excutive agency regulatory measures will bring us de facto gun control. Bank on it. What they can’t do through Congress, they’ll do through power grabs.

petefrt on December 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Are we giving Ms McArdle credit as NOT being an “anti-private ownership of guns” journalist?

If we can verify that she’s “on-the-level”, then she’s simply an idiot.

Otherwise, she’s a “wolf in sheeps clothing” (like the rest of them).

listens2glenn on December 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Apparently facebook suspended a groups account for posting this quote.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

JellyToast on December 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

In the next year or so, executive orders and excutive agency regulatory measures will bring us de facto gun control. Bank on it. What they can’t do through Congress, they’ll do through power grabs.

petefrt on December 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

100% correct.

They’re relentless. Our side isn’t. They play to win. Ours doesn’t. They have no respect for the things they should. Our side has too much respect for things it shouldn’t. They’re losing all fear of our side. Our side grows more fearful of them each day.

rrpjr on December 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Liability or libel?

= liberal=leftists=commi gun grabbing a s s h a t s

Bmore on December 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Go find a ditch to die in.
lostmotherland on December 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Shallow grave for this one I take it.

Bmore on December 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I’m surprised that gun control wasn’t stuck someplace in bhocare? Everything under the sun was put in that bill that has tentacles that goes on forever? And, it appears not many in dc that voted for bhocare read the bill?
L

letget on December 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

There are a lot of underutilized walls in America today.

tom daschle concerned on December 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Are any of these gun control enthusiast aware of the advancing technologies? And if so, how do they plan to regulate the ability to print your own gun?

If I print my own gun that Congress makes illegal, or I think the media will publish my name on an interactive map, do you think I’m going to register that gun? What is the likelihood that people will still own guns, they just won’t tell anyone about it?

ramrants on December 29, 2012 at 1:28 PM

rrpjr on December 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

As the Founders admitted, our system won’t work except for a honorable and virtuous population. The Obama regime is neither, but contemptuous of both.

petefrt on December 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Typical. The leftist feels a need to control how someone else protects their family – just because he feels the state should do his job.

Solaratov on December 29, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I’m surprised that gun control wasn’t stuck someplace in bhocare?

letget on December 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Oversight. How careless of them.

petefrt on December 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Great, you are still a tyranny-loving fool.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

After two recent deaths of commuters being push to their death in front of subways, Mayor Bloomberg has decided that they should get rid of the subways completely, stating “… if only one life is saved by this …”

First, they came for the transfats, and I did nothing …

J_Crater on December 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Go find a ditch to die in.
lostmotherland on December 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Shallow grave for this one I take it.

Bmore on December 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Coyotes and crows gotta eat, too.

Solaratov on December 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

After two recent deaths of commuters being push to their death in front of subways, Mayor Bloomberg has decided that they should get rid of the subways completely, stating “… if only one life is saved by this …”

First, they came for the transfats, and I did nothing …

J_Crater on December 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Now. Now. The good mayor has admonished everyone to “keep the subway deaths in perspective”.

After all, no guns were used – and the police are scouring the psychiatric services providers as we speak. (Evidently the homeless woman has a therapist. It’s just a matter of finding which one.)

Solaratov on December 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

in the age of Obamacare, government mandated insurance can be used for all manner of social engineering under the guise of revenue enhancement.

Exactly. OboobaCare will want to know, under penalty of perjury, how many guns you possess. Bank on it.

Then of course, you will be required to undergo psychological testing to see if you’re prone to shooting up schools and theaters.

Akzed on December 29, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Feinstein’s bill is going nowhere quick especially in what most seems the most dangerous internal dynamics this country is having in my lifetime. NO WAY!!

The left knows we will not be disarmed and herded like left wing cattle as Feinstein is attempting to do here. The expense of a full court press would not only be dangerous but impossible so go ahead and pass that law Dianne. We’ll follow it in the same spirit that Obama follows the law which he doesn’t, got it?

Let me go a bit further here. Obama only has 4 years left but he has this nation on tilt pushing assertively and unlawfully the wrong direction. If we sense our military coalescing around Obama during some stringent socio-geographic exercise with one molecular whiff of citizen control then it’s time for our respected retired Military Officers, Commanders and Warriors to get engaged and step it up big time. Begin working with market leading global sector leaders for economic strategy and financing. We’re also going to need Israel’s help as well in many ways IMO should our military begin firing into their own homes. I never thought this would happen in my lifetime but this is the first time I truly fear my government.

Tangerinesong on December 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house. lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Especially when an axe-wielding meth head invades your home.

Akzed on December 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Here’s a petition to prevent these malicious morons from stopping a gun show in New York.

http://www.change.org/suggested?petition_id=944265

rrpjr on December 29, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Well isn’t this special? Guess it is nice to have ‘friend’s’ in high places if you are above the law on your ‘stunt’ on the tube with the gun magazine!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/david-gregory-to-interview-obama-on-meet-the-press-152956.html
L

letget on December 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Definitely sounds like something that obama’s supreme-b*tch-boy, John Roberts, would support.

Pork-Chop on December 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM

letget on December 29, 2012 at 3:27 PM

That’s how it works in Chicagoland.

rrpjr on December 29, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Megan was simply doing something that we all claim to want journalists to do- write an in depth story without bias that examines both sides of the story. The fact that she’s now been called out by left and right wing sites suggests that she’s doing something right…

Jandric on December 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Great. Maybe your own family will be safer without guns in the house.

lostmotherland on December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Scared of boomsticks in other people’s houses.

CurtZHP on December 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Plenty of people keep driving after their insurance expires. That’s no deterrent at all.

Tell me about it, we’re required to have insurance here in Texas, but the lady that t-boned me and totaled my car didn’t have any insurance. All i could do was take her to small claims court where she didn’t even bother to show up, but hey, i won and got the maximum damages of $5,000, not that i’ll ever see it.

clearbluesky on December 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You know, I have a number of really sharp, scary-looking knives in my kitchen right now. Lots of people get stabbed to death every year. [Make your own predictions...]

bofh on December 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Gee, I had a bunch of guns, but there are now missing. Someone must have stolen them. Oh well, sorry.

Metro on December 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

The response to Newtown by the gun-grabbers is a direct result, I think, of the recent court ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry. Once that law is actually struck down and crime begins to fall they know that they will have, once and for all, lost the argument for more gun control. Chicago has had 500 homicides this year- that number will tumble once citizens there are permitted to legally carry guns- and Bloomberg, Feinstein, et al, know it.

This is their last stand.

Crime- and gun crime- are both down in DC since Heller- once Illinois follows their whole platform crumbles.

I firmly believe that if gun rights advocates stand firm against this current round of attacks on the Second Amendment then the hoplophobes will be resoundingly defeated. Americans will be able to see for themselves that more legal guns leads to less violent crime, less murder and less gun crime.

Jay Mac on December 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM

So what Ms. McArdle is really arguing for is more National Rifle Association members, right ? I mean, isn’t one of the perks of joining the NRA the liability insurance policy that comes with the basic membership?

Glenn Jericho on December 29, 2012 at 9:58 PM

You have to find them as a controlling entity, or declare them as an individual, to establish a need for liability insurance.
Many of us have none, and never will. USED to, but: pesky backdoor lock never worked properly, and wouldn’tcha know that someone snuck in and stole all of mine.
Sorry, Comrade Inspector: nothing to declare. Try the next house down the street.

orangemtl on December 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Warren Buffett approves of this, and all other insurance scams

Can’t wait for the racist rates by zip code/area/city.

I feel a PPACA tax/fee/penalty/whatever coming on…because the Secretary deems…

John Kettlewell on December 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

“But, with that said, if Ms. McArdle feels I misrepresented her take on this, my apologies for not expanding on this further in the original post. Everyone is invited to read the full article and judge for themselves.”

Jass, what you and so many other liberals do not grasp is that this RKBA issue is vastly more profound than some commentariat circle-jerk or ‘what can we get away with’ policy debate. We’re talking Life, Death and Rebellion here, not this silly sort of jerkoff nonsense.

rayra on December 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Everyone talking about losing guns: the Kossacks have a plan for you.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something.

…I’m not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn’t have anything registered to his name. It’s a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn’t, that guy is not who I’m concerned with. I’m concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He’s the guy who warrants a raid.

Link not to Kos; I won’t give them the traffic.

SDN on December 31, 2012 at 8:24 AM

So what Ms. McArdle is really arguing for is more National Rifle Association members, right ? I mean, isn’t one of the perks of joining the NRA the liability insurance policy that comes with the basic membership?

Glenn, they would love that. Because any time an NRA member defends himself in a blue state without a Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, they can get an OJ jury to return a few billion dollar damage awards. Bankrupt the NRA.

SDN on December 31, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.

You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM