New plan: mandatory gun insurance

posted at 8:31 am on February 9, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

What to do if the nation fails to fall in line behind new gun grabbing legislation and doesn’t want to put limits on ammo capacity? How about if they rebel against the idea of taxing the heck out of ammo? What if it just seems like there simply isn’t a majority on board with new gun control legislation? Well, if you follow the Obamacare model, you could always consider making extra insurance on weapons technology mandatory.

If you can’t force people to do what you want, force them to buy insurance: That seems to be the strategy of the liberal left in the Obama era. We refer not only to the ObamaCare health-insurance mandate but to the latest bright idea under consideration in mostly Democrat-dominated state capitals.

“Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons,” FoxNews.com reports. The idea isn’t brand new: “Bills have been offered unsuccessfully in Massachusetts and New York since at least 2003,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But the idea has drawn added attention amid the inevitable delirium following a horrific crime involving firearms: “Similar bills have been introduced in other states after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

Whenever people make the “slippery slope” argument, naysayers arrive in droves to proclaim that hyperbolic extremists are creating straw men to frighten the public. I seem to recall a time when Obamacare was being debated where some of us were asking the question, if the government can force you to purchase a product such as insurance to regulate private activity, is there any human commercial engagement which they could not regulate? Pshaw, said the critics. You’re clearly being hysterical.

In this case, we’re hearing the same arguments being made about gun insurance that we heard about health insurance. Proponents claim that it’s actually for your own good, not to mention being beneficial to society at large. And we’re not trying to take your guns away, we’re just making you safer. As Taranto notes, this is unlikely to be the real motive.

In Pohlman’s account of the virtuous incentives his insurance scheme would purportedly establish, he leaves out the most obvious: By burdening gun owners with an additional cost, it would encourage some to give up guns altogether. We suspect that the real goal here is to deter gun ownership or, failing that, to punish law-abiding gun owners. As for criminals, we doubt any of them will ever hesitate to use a gun because it is uninsured.

Does it pass constitutional muster? I’m hearing a lot of people saying no. But many of those same folks said that about Obamacare. And according to the Supreme Court, as long as you call the insurance mandate a tax, there’s no problem. So now, if gun regulations fail to pass, apparently we can start a new fight over “gun insurance.” And if the Supremes call it a tax, it would likely pass. Welcome to the 21st century. I hope you enjoy it. Or at least survive it.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

They very seriously want your guns and have stopped pretending otherwise.

Wonder why they are so obsessed with your guns…

CorporatePiggy on February 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM

wildcat72 on February 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I operate under the assumption that there are no 9th and 10th Amendments. Our government has for over a hundred years. :(

mintycrys on February 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I really want to vomit on these legislative fascists.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 9, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Vomit is too good for these snakes. Excrement would be more fitting, but then, they’re used to rolling around in the stuff.

HiJack on February 9, 2013 at 11:35 AM

So, they’re trying to require a contractual relationship, that at its very core, involves moral hazard, likely to encourage gun owners to engage in riskier practices because… at the end of the day… they know their negligence will be covered by a third party.

Brilliant…

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Be that as it may, I don’t see how Obamacare fits into this discussion from a legal and constitutional point of view. According to C.J. Roberts, doing nothing is taxable, which is what Obamacare does; if you don’t buy health insurance, you will have to pay a tax.

[Steve Tsouloufis on February 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM]

It would fit into the discussion if the insurance was to be carried by everyone in the form of crime insurance, not gun insurance, which, if they want to impose their insurance, I think it should.

Gun ownership reduces crime. It is irresponsible for people to not comport their conduct to further the reduction in crime since crime hurts everyone. Opting out of crime prevention in a responsible way and in ways that are well known to reduce crime and lower the cost to society is negligence, pure and simple. We can’t mandate that people carry guns but not carrying one should require that people pay a hefty tax for not doing so.

Not owning a gun is not taking care of your own health and safety forcing everyone else who does take care of their own health and safety to pay for it.

There should be discounts in the insurance, though. You could get a $5 discount if you carry a pocket knife. Approved kitchen knifes readily accessible is a $20 discount. Swords, machetes, and the like, $30 off. If you own a handgun but don’t have a carry permit, that’s a 10% discount. A carry permit would be a 50% discount. And AR-15 and 30 round mags allows you to buy the Platinum Prevent Tyranny Rider provided you show you’ve taken Safe From Government Safety Course every three years which is an additional 20% discount.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I have no guns nor do I associate with anyone who does.Make note of that internet monitors.

docflash on February 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM

I saw what you did there, docflash. Don’t think you won’t be immuned from having to buy conservative blog thread insurance.

hawkdriver on February 9, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Maybe the gun owners can get a petition started requiring the Democrats to buy liability insurance to help with damages caused by their policies. Naaaahhhhh.

banzaibob on February 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Why do the politicians always want to punish the innocent for the deeds of the guilty?

Galt2009 on February 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Maybe the gun owners can get a petition started requiring the Democrats to buy liability insurance to help with damages caused by their policies. Naaaahhhhh.

banzaibob on February 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM

We should demand that.

Galt2009 on February 9, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Why do the politicians always want to punish the innocent for the deeds of the guilty?

Galt2009 on February 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Professional courtesy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 9, 2013 at 11:46 AM

They very seriously want your guns and have stopped pretending otherwise.

Wonder why they are so obsessed with your guns…

CorporatePiggy on February 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM

…wonder why Homeland Security is buying so many millions and millions and millions of rounds… of ammunition…

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2013 at 11:47 AM

We can thank the Bush family for David Souter and Roberts.

And no Thomas and Alito does not make up for that. This court could have been so much more conservative if they had just made choices the same way Democrat presidents made choices.

William Eaton on February 9, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Maybe the gun owners can get a petition started requiring the Democrats to buy liability insurance to help with damages caused by their policies. Naaaahhhhh.

[banzaibob on February 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM]

Well, I do think that politicians ought to carry personal malpractice insurance for political acts. Bureaucrats should carry it also, at least the appointed ones and they should be required to sign off on the documents of opinion and regulations produced under their supervision.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM

…wonder why Homeland Security is buying so many millions and millions and millions of rounds… of ammunition…

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2013 at 11:47 AM

For skeet shooting?

CorporatePiggy on February 9, 2013 at 11:51 AM

hawkdriver on February 9, 2013 at 11:40 AM

LOL. Good one.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 11:53 AM

New Plan: Civil disobedience.

DavidM on February 9, 2013 at 9:06 AM

…they’re getting drones!

KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2013 at 11:54 AM

For skeet shooting?

[CorporatePiggy on February 9, 2013 at 11:51 AM]

Barry wants to hit one before the end of his term. HSA did the math.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 11:55 AM

We can’t mandate that people carry guns but not carrying one should require that people pay a hefty tax for not doing so.

Not owning a gun is not taking care of your own health and safety forcing everyone else who does take care of their own health and safety to pay for it…

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I like it. Roberts set the precedent. Imagine this as well; add the mandate to Obamacare, as it would drive Democrats to blubbering incoherently and to consistent drooling (picture Dan Aykroyd with the drool bucket from SNL back in the 70s).

Steve Tsouloufis on February 9, 2013 at 11:57 AM

…they’re getting drones!

[KOOLAID2 on February 9, 2013 at 11:54 AM]

Another New Plan: Revivial of Falconry

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM

If it was structured the same way as the Obamacare mandate/tax, i.e. failure to buy the insurance invokes a tax penalty, it would pass Constitutional muster in the same way the Obamacare mandate/tax did. Otherwise, only states can require insurance purchases in order to use a lawful product (e.g. drive a car.)

My understanding is that existing homeowner’s liability policies would cover any damages from discharge of an owner’s gun on their property (and possibly anywhere in a concealed-carry state.) Most homeowner’s insurers already ask homeowners if they have guns and if they are secured, and some charge higher premiums for people who own guns.

rockmom on February 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM

add the mandate to Obamacare, as it would drive Democrats to blubbering incoherently and to consistent drooling (picture Dan Aykroyd with the drool bucket from SNL back in the 70s).

[Steve Tsouloufis on February 9, 2013 at 11:57 AM]

LOL. Excellent.

Dusty on February 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM

“Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons,” FoxNews.com reports.

Sure. What’s going to happen is that the money collected will end up in slush funds and money-laundering operations. Who knows, maybe even contributions for the DNC.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The court eliminated pol taxes because it infringed with one’s right to vote. For the same reason, I would find it hard to believe using the insurance as a tax argument, as they did in Obamacare, will be an automatic winner in this case. Yet again, we are talking about the Robert’s court.

STL_Vet on February 9, 2013 at 12:19 PM

rockmom on February 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM

No it wouldn’t. As others have pointed out Healthcare is not explicitly covered in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is. Taxing someone in order to exercise a constitutional right, especially one as plainly laid out as the 2nd Amendment, it would be the equivalent of a poll tax. Therefore unconstitutional.

jawkneemusic on February 9, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Make them buy insurance specific to having an abortion. No, your regular insurance won’t count. How about higher premiums for electric cars, since they seem to have some higher explosion risks vs. standard vehicle. Howabout insurance if you’re a minority? Since statistically they commit a disproportionate number of crimes? Insurance if your college major is more likely to lead to being unemployed? After all you’re a high risk group likely to cost us all money when you go on the dole because of your worthless degree.
Remember: Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

teacherman on February 9, 2013 at 12:21 PM

The court eliminated pol taxes because it infringed with one’s right to vote. For the same reason, I would find it hard to believe using the insurance as a tax argument, as they did in Obamacare, will be an automatic winner in this case. Yet again, we are talking about the Robert’s court.
STL_Vet on February 9, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Why Roberts was 100% wrong in his ObamaCare ruling, he was 100% right in both of his 2nd Amendment rulings. While I lament his ObamaCare decision he was made the right calls in regard to gun rights.

jawkneemusic on February 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM

So, they’re trying to require a contractual relationship, that at its very core, involves moral hazard, likely to encourage gun owners to engage in riskier practices because… at the end of the day… they know their negligence will be covered by a third party.

Brilliant…

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The idea is…..we will all become federal criminals, (by non-compliance of regulation), allowing search and seizure to be perfectly legal under probable cause. Welcome to Amerika!

Rovin on February 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Here’s a thought for anyone who has never had an illegal or harmful incident with their guns they can opt out. For those that have sure go for it…..

this is ridiculous …..when you look at the number of gun owners versus the number of individuals using legal guns in crime or in an accident we have such a small problem ….just plain silly.

CW on February 9, 2013 at 12:46 PM

So, they’re trying to require a contractual relationship, that at its very core, involves moral hazard, likely to encourage gun owners to engage in riskier practices because… at the end of the day… they know their negligence will be covered by a third party.

Brilliant…

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM

What you don’t like me leaving my loaded gun on my coffee table?
/

CW on February 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM

What you don’t like me leaving my loaded gun on my coffee table?
/

CW on February 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Insurance!!

Just like I tell the rental car company when they make me buy damage waivers: You make me buy that, bet your arse this car is coming back with damage…

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM

I think the people who are being “targeted” for gun-insurance might take a bit more umbrage over charging them for exercising a Right guaranteed by the Constitution (Bill of Rights) than those who are nicked for health-insurance, which is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

“From my cold dead hands!”

Another Drew on February 9, 2013 at 12:59 PM

There already exists liability insurance for negligent acts. It’s commonly referred to as homeowners’ insurance or renters’ insurance, commercial general liability coverage. While it doesn’t cover intentional acts, such as intentionally shooting someone to scare or physically harm them, it does cover negligent discharge of a firearm as long as there is no criminal act associated with the discharge-like having an illegally obtained gun.

As someone above said, this is a stupid law being written by stupid people. It serves no greater purpose than to allow potential confiscation in the future via a back door.

totherightofthem on February 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM

New Plan: Civil disobedience.
DavidM on February 9, 2013 at 9:06 AM

It’s not going to be all that civil!

Another Drew on February 9, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Bobbertsan on February 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM

And all Clergy shall be required to have Blasphemy Insurance.

Another Drew on February 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Just like I tell the rental car company when they make me buy damage waivers: You make me buy that, bet your arse this car is coming back with damage…

JohnGalt23 on February 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM

I get your point but generally speaking of you have full coverage on your own policy it will transfer to the rental vehicle though I believe most rental car companies’ waivers have no deductible.
Best to check with your agent before renting. You never know when someone may hit you.

CW on February 9, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Americans Buying Guns Every 1.6 Seconds
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/americans-buying-guns-every-16-seconds

According to data compiled by the FBI, there have been 21,947,062 background checks completed since January 1, 2012 for individuals purchasing firearms.

If you divide the 34,300,800 seconds by the 21,947,062 background checks completed over this time period, it works out to one background check for every 1.56 seconds.

Southern by choice22 on February 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM

No Guns here :) Move along..

Fires1 on February 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM

What makes you think the criminals are falling all over themselves wanting to sign up for this insurance?

mixplix on February 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Just a reminder about cars/insurance/licensure…..
State regulations (for the most part) only apply if one wishes to operate your, or any other, vehicle on PUBLIC roads.
You do not need a DL, registration, or insurance, to operate a motor vehicle on your own property.

Another Drew on February 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Sure, OK, but only as long as the government also takes on liability for the mayhem that escapes the ‘safety net’ they’re charged to provide. You know, like mentally unstable mass murders who should have been institutionalized, but were not. Why shouldn’t the government be compensating the Sandy Hook victims’ families because of the their EPIC FAIL ? Sauce for the goose.

mdavt on February 9, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Very simple. Ignore these new ridiculous laws. I am not buying stinking insurance for my guns. CA legislatures can go to hell. I’ve already been contemplating leaving. This gun insurance will be the last straw if they pass it.

Jerry Bear on February 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Trial lawyer relief act of 2013?

paulus1 on February 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM

They want to take guns away from us, but they can’t do it unless gun ownership is made illegal. Hence the BS Aussault Weapons Ban – from their point of view, it at least makes some guns illegal, and therefore, legal for them to confiscate.

The fact that they have absurdly broad definitions of what an “Assault-style” weapon is has very little to do with their ignorance, in my opinion. They want as many guns to fall under that catagory as possible. Sure, your typical Soccar Mom is ignorant about these details but I think the lawmakers who propose that legislation are not.

This insurance crap is another way for them to make guns illegal to own, and therefore legal for them to confiscate. But this type of law will apply to all guns, not just the guns that meet their definition as an “Assault Weapon”.

Dork B. on February 9, 2013 at 2:23 PM

My answer to the Homeowners Insurance question: How Many guns do you have in the Home? None…and F*** Y**

Fires1 on February 9, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Dork B. on February 9, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Which is why if passed it will lead to a lawsuit and be declared Unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed means what it means.

jawkneemusic on February 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

They won’t make gun ownership illegal, they’ll make it “unhealthy”. Why else bring the CDC in on this issue, other than to provide a basis to say guns drive up health care costs. Then, Obamacare will simply mandate them out of existence. No legislation, no Constitutional problem.

And the IRS, again via Obamacare, will become the repo man, with back-up from DHS and their billion bullet Army. And so it goes. Again.

Kenz on February 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

My answer to the Homeowners Insurance question: How Many guns do you have in the Home? None…and F*** Y**

Fires1 on February 9, 2013 at 3:07 PM

My home owners insurance company never asked me such a question.

jawkneemusic on February 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Many of you are forgetting that while SCOTUS was wrong to declare the ObamaCare mandate a tax, this current court has been firm on gun rights. The text of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t get much clearer.

jawkneemusic on February 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Used to be that liberals claimed the power to restrict and ban guns and gun ownership because it wasn’t an individual constitutional right. Now that the Supreme Court has unambiguously declared it is one, liberals are showing us just how much they really care about individual constitutional rights.

Socratease on February 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

“Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons,” FoxNews.com reports

The CA communists will go along with it too. I would tell them to go to hell. But I live in TX where you are free.

TX-96 on February 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Gun accidents down, but other home accidents on the rise

Contrary to what you might expect from all the news about gun violence, accidental deaths from guns in the home are relatively uncommon, and have actually gone down slightly in recent years, according to a new study. But other deadly accidents at home, including poisonings, falls, and burns, are far more common, and on the rise.

Socratease on February 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM

The thing to remember when they equate this to car insurance, is that you don’t have to pay for insurance if you don’t license and drive the car on public roads. So, as long as you don’t carry and fire your weapon on public property, you should be perfectly fine. And, of course, if you don’t license your firearm……..

GWB on February 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM

What is gun?
A European mushroom?

losarkos on February 10, 2013 at 2:27 AM

losarkos on February 10, 2013 at 2:27 AM

….quit lurking…and comment more!…it’s okay!…I laughed!…you’ll fit in!

KOOLAID2 on February 10, 2013 at 2:52 AM

My home owners insurance company never asked me such a question.

jawkneemusic on February 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

You’re right; what they did was to insert a clause in the policy that unless you affirmatively declare your guns and pay an extra premium then they only have to cover a small amount of the loss, typically no more than 5 guns worth a total of $10,000 replacement value. Doesn’t matter if you have “total replacement of contents”, that clause is there as an exception.

SDN on February 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I will truthfully answer: “I do not own A gun”.

trs on February 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I’ll just buy one on the underground market and never register anything, I know cops, have a brother who is one, and damned few of them outside big urban unionista types want more gun control.. and they many times, swap and but them from other gun owners under the radar..

My wife a lief long democrat, is now, very interested in my training her, and buying her a handgun.. she too, thinks Obama is a Chavez wannabe.. and one minute of frustration away from simply declaring himself King.. all for “the children” of course..

when they radicalize even moderate democrats.. you know it’s not just us being overly suspicious. The left wants a disarmed public, and public safety has NOTHING to do with that,.. or these gun grabbing fascists would give up their armed security with out comment.. but they won’t..

it’s those damned peasants they want disarmed.

mark81150 on February 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM

If you can “Tax a Right” then it is not a “Right” because eventually, if you fail to pay your jyzia, they take your weapons…doesn’t sound much like a RIGHT that shall not be infringed to me.
WAR – AB

rgranger on February 10, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I am going to do some skeet and target shooting this afternoon on my farm with some family members. The gun grabbers are stuck on stupid. No we are not going to have any assault riles, but I would not mind someone bringing an AR-15 or an AK-47. As long as someone else would pay for the ammunition.

SC.Charlie on February 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

The insurance industry ought to give someone a discount if they are willing to defend their own property from thieves. With that nutcase of a cop on the loose in Southern California, I have to wonder how many people have recently bought weapons to defend themselves.

SC.Charlie on February 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

“Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons,” FoxNews.com reports

.

In order to make this work financially, everyone will be required to buy gun insurance, wheter they own a gun or not.

MichaelGabriel on February 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Wonder why they are so obsessed with your guns…

Two words: Penis Envy.

glcinpdx on February 10, 2013 at 2:20 PM

The Lyin kING stated he wanted to create a civilian army larger than the US Military!
He has! He didn’t even have to pay us. He just threatened our health care, our livelihood, our fiscal solvency and attempts at every turn to make us slaves to his non working do nothing professional baby makers.
In response we have bought nearly every gun and every box of ammo in stores throughout this country. Coast to coast we have heeded his words and mostly his actions and formed the militia the constitution talks about.
Now he seeks to disarm us, to tell us not just what our kids can eat, how much pop we can drink, what we should drive, what kind and how much healthcare we will receive but also what weapons we should not own to defend ourselves!
The good citizens of this formerly great country have formed a militia against the excesses of a runaway government and her Presstitute enablers and surprise, surprise the Lyin kING finds himself on the wrong side of said militia and does not like it. TOUGH!

ConcealedKerry on February 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM

I think liberals should be required to take out insurance against liberal policies. None of them work and they end up costing money, lives, property, and waste. Force the Democrats to take out insurance that their policies will do a certain thing and then, when they don’t let the insuance company pony up the $trillions. That would make it really expensive to elect Democrats.

bflat879 on February 10, 2013 at 5:46 PM

And if the Supremes call it a tax, it would likely pass.

What part of shall not infringe do you think they would not have enough brain cells functioning to understand? No sane and honest person could seriously argue that a tax is not an infringement.

VorDaj on February 10, 2013 at 7:38 PM

I wonder if these arrogant, liberal fools realize how much anger and hatred they’re stirring up.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 8:44 AM

This is tyranny, nothing less.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 8:46 AM

OK, I’m late to this but, what exactly is this insurance going to cover?

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 11, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Homeland Security is buying thousands of real assault rifles, and millions of rounds of ammo to feed them.

Is Homeland Security going to use these weapons to secure the border?

Fight terrorists?

Fight street gangters?

no, no, and no.

Guess who’s left?

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 8:50 AM

“… nor do I associate with anyone who does (own guns).”

docflash on February 9, 2013

===============================

That’s a relief.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 8:54 AM

I wonder if these arrogant, liberal fools realize how much anger and hatred they’re stirring up.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 8:44 AM

I a paranoid so I think they do. I thing they want to push it to the point that some group or groups commit some sort of anti-government violence so that BO or the next dem president, maybe even a repub one, can pull the trigger on martial law and let loose their DHS army on the people. We are looking at a machine gun toting thug on every corner stopping and asking for papers as well as illegal searches for and confiscation of firearms. I really fear for this country because we are not the wimps of Europe and we will do it bigger and a whole lot badder than anything seen there. If it happens we will not see people strapping on bomb vests and taking out a bus or disco. We will see tractor trailers parked near government buildings which will take out whole city blocks. I would not want to live in a blue state city during this time.

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM

If you can “Tax a Right” then it is not a “Right” because eventually, if you fail to pay your jyzia, they take your weapons…doesn’t sound much like a RIGHT that shall not be infringed to me.
WAR – AB

rgranger on February 10, 2013

===============================

I think we should bring back the poll tax.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I a paranoid so I think they do. I thing they want to push it to the point that some group or groups commit some sort of anti-government violence so that BO or the next dem president, maybe even a repub one, can pull the trigger on martial law and let loose their DHS army on the people. We are looking at a machine gun toting thug on every corner stopping and asking for papers as well as illegal searches for and confiscation of firearms. I really fear for this country because we are not the wimps of Europe and we will do it bigger and a whole lot badder than anything seen there. If it happens we will not see people strapping on bomb vests and taking out a bus or disco. We will see tractor trailers parked near government buildings which will take out whole city blocks. I would not want to live in a blue state city during this time.

Dr. Frank Enstine on February 11, 2013

====================

Are you aware of the Defense Autorization Act of 2013 signed into law by B.O.? In it, B.O. has authorized the military to arrest, and detain indefinetly, without charge, any American citzen the goverment decides might be a terrorist.

I also am not paranoid, but as a student of history, I am familiar with this tactic. It was used very successfully by the Gestapo.

Absolutely no hyperbole intended or implied.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 9:15 AM

We can thank the Bush family for David Souter and Roberts.

And no Thomas and Alito does not make up for that. This court could have been so much more conservative if they had just made choices the same way Democrat presidents made choices.

William Eaton on February 9, 2013

===============================

Great friggin’ point.

JackM on February 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Mandatory Gun Insurance? NO!

Flood Gates Open:
– Mandatory Health Insurance reinforced by a ‘punishment tax’ for those who don’t….

– Now Mandatory ‘Gun Insurance’…with a ‘punishment tax’ for those who don’t get it?

easyt65 on February 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2