Lovely: House Democrats pushing a bill requiring mandatory gun insurance

posted at 2:41 pm on April 2, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Chicago’s new tax on gun purchases — ostensibly meant to provide a revenue stream to help the locality pay for the associative enforcement and health care costs of gun violence — went into effect on Monday, and surprise: A handful of House Democrats are wondering why we shouldn’t do something kind of similar at the national level. Womp.

Last month, New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” that would impose a $10,000 penalty on any gun owner who fails to purchase mandatory liability insurance.

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said in a written statement. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.” …

Six states — California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania — have all introduced gun liability insurance legislation over the past few months. None has produced any results. …

Still, Maloney maintains she won’t back down from the fight.

“We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products — and no one disputes that guns are dangerous,” she said in her written statement. “While many individual states are debating this issue right now, it makes more sense for Congress to establish a national requirement to allow the insurance markets to begin to price the risks involved consistently nationwide.”

The bill would require gun buyers to provide proof of insurance from a company approved by a state insurance regulatory authority for “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” In a nutshell, you need to take out a preemptive policy for any violence you might inflict with your firearm — which doesn’t really make sense, because the people inflicting non-defensive gun violence are criminals anyway. This is just another poorly disguised legislative attempt to deter gun ownership, and man, talk about regressive! Looks like self-defense is only for people who can afford to take out an extra insurance policy.

No way the bill has a chance making it out of the House, obviously, but the number of hoops liberal legislators are trying to force law-abiding gun owners to jump through, on behalf of measures that wouldn’t actually do anything to address gun violence itself, is pretty jarring. I don’t think we’ve posted it yet, and Bill Whittle’s virtual State of the Union feels pretty darn prescient right now:


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

How are these gunowner taxes any less unconstitutional than a poll tax?

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

They aren’t. Good luck passing this you dopes. Nothing like wasting the taxpayer’s time and money.

deadrody on April 2, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Thank you Justice Benedict Roberts for setting the precedent and letting the Demtards think they can get away with it.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Democrats Marxists have a serious problem with “Shall not be infringed

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congr

ess)

SWalker on April 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

How are these gunowner taxes any less unconstitutional than a poll tax?

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM

They aren’t. Good luck passing this you dopes. Nothing like wasting the taxpayer’s time and money.

deadrody on April 2, 2013 at 2:46 PM

And no more or less Constitutional than Obumblescare “taxes”.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

I want a tax on gays practicing anal sex.
PUBLIC SAFETY!
PUBLIC RISK!
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

Czar of Defenestration on April 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Wuffor? Don’t we have universal health coverage now?

MassVictim on April 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

…shall not be infringed

You would think mandatory insurance amounts to quite a bit of infringing.

ZenDraken on April 2, 2013 at 2:52 PM

May the devil strike them all. What a bunch of tyrants.

Their constituents are the biggest dummies on Earth.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

- 10,000 drunk-driving deaths every year
- 3 million alcohol-related violent crimes
- Alcohol-fueled domestic & child abuse

Alcohol in your home? Here’s your new insurance policy.

Ox, gored, etc.

Bat Chain Puller on April 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Thank you Justice Benedict Roberts for setting the precedent and letting the Demtards think they can get away with it.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Another Bush mistake. Damn Roberts is a douche

MoreLiberty on April 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Time for some government mandated condom insurance for all the Sandra Flukes of the world in order to pay for the public costs of out-of-wedlock pregnancies

blammm on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

This needs to be taken very seriously. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something like this pass if just the wrong moronic convergence occurs – like a Democrat win in 2014 followed by some kind of very emotional crisis to exploit. Then the SCOTUS can call it a tax or something. It’s the Obamacare route into law.

forest on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

How about insurance for liberalism? All those who identify left of center must be required to have voter insurance.

nobar on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

So, the law abiding gun owners have to pay for the harm of the unlawful gun owners — and it’s not like someone who uses a gun in a crime will be able to pay the fine since working in the prison laundry is low paying.

Blake on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Mandatory health insurance – permissible taxing power.

Mandatory gun insurance – permissible taxing power.

There is no impediment to the disarmament goals of these political pigs in perpetuity.

Especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Liability? Insurance doesn’t cover purposeful acts. Accidental discharge or explosive malfunction maybe?
You have no liability if it is stolen, either.

redshirt on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

HIV can cause death–condoms fail. Tack on a condom insurance amendment and they’ll drop this like a hot potato.

Don L on April 2, 2013 at 2:58 PM

This is a BS piece of legislation. Insurance policies do not pay for intentional torts. If someone steals your gun and injures/kills someone with it, the policy will not cover it…any more than your auto insurance is liable for damages caused by someone, who steals your car, goes on a high-speed chase, and wipes out a school bus full of kids.

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Does this mean if a gang banger commits a crime with a gun, will he be charged with failure to carry insurance as well as murder?

VengeanceIsMine on April 2, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Yet another attempt at registration, leading towards confiscation.

rbj on April 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Liability? Insurance doesn’t cover purposeful acts. Accidental discharge or explosive malfunction maybe?
You have no liability if it is stolen, either.

redshirt on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

So you don’t care about the children then?! If it saves even one life, you should stop making sense immediately.

forest on April 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Hey…great idea…and we should require newspapers to show proof of insurance as to the truth of what they print…

krome on April 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Next:

Requiring “liability insurance” for people who vote idiots into office.

Requiring “liability insurance” for legislators who pass stupid laws that end up doing nothing to correct problems they allegedly address.

Carolyn Maloney may want to re-read the US Constitution. But then, she probably hasn’t read it before. Seems Democrats don’t read much of anything.

GarandFan on April 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

And some people say PA would be a good place for Magpul to move to. And what are Ruger and Colt still doing in CT? And Beretta in MD?

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 3:04 PM

So you don’t care about the children then?! If it saves even one life, you should stop making sense immediately.

forest on April 2, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Oh how I hate that “save even one life” argument. that could be used to ban everything!!

redshirt on April 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I can’t wait for the court to get hold of Connecticut’s new “Ammunition Eligibility Certificate.”

Let’s see how this sounds, “Voter Eligibility Certificate is required to vote.”

Or “Abortion Eligibility Certificate.” Yeah, their heads would explode on that one.

Or how about “Speech Eligibility Certificate.” Come to think of it, I best shut up. Democrats will like the sound of that one.

But come on, they have to know you can’t require any such nonsense to exercise a constitutional right.

Curmudgeon on April 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM

These are simply punitive measures to punish legal gun owners.

ronsfi on April 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM

And who would this HURT the most…???

The poor.

Should we also require a bond if you invoke your 5th Amendment rights?

Or a fee if you demand a warrent before your home is searched?

How ’bout a tax on pencils, or insurance if you have a interweb connection?

Ragspierre on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

How are these gunowner taxes any less unconstitutional than a poll tax?

No less, but since when does abiding by the Constitution affect leftist legislation intended to make criminals of us all if we refuse to toe their line?

All this talk of constitutionalism is irrelevant in our ever evolving political landscape.

/s

hawkeye54 on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

You have no liability if it is stolen, either.

redshirt on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Not so fast, the Marxists already thought of that. “Properly stored” is an evolving definition.

antipc on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Does this mean if a gang banger commits a crime with a gun, will he be charged with failure to carry insurance as well as murder?

Right. I’m sure that would go over well, along with every law that the gang banger broke in such an occurance.

hawkeye54 on April 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

More reasons to vote the jerks out.

Ukiah on April 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

You have no liability if it is stolen, either.

redshirt on April 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Not so fast, the Marxists already thought of that. “Properly stored” is an evolving definition.

antipc on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Give ‘em time and follow the money.

hawkeye54 on April 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Ragspierre on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

The “Democratic Coalition” is, essentially, arguing that only the 1% and criminals should be allowed to carry guns.

Guns are banned in Bermuda. Guess who got a special waiver for his security?

Michael Bloomberg.

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Question: How do they plan on enforcing it. Remember the old Grecian Formula commercial. “Doe he or Doesn’t he, only his hair dresser knows”. Who knows you actually have guns?

chemman on April 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Not so fast, the Marxists already thought of that. “Properly stored” is an evolving definition.

antipc on April 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

As is the concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures,” in the Fourth Amendment – re: ensuring the “proper storage” of a firearm in the home.

These political pigs in perpetuity will stop at nothing.

NOTHING!

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM

“We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products — and no one disputes that guns are dangerous,” she said in her written statement.

Well, time for mandatory liberal politician insurance, to help protect us from this particular high-risk, dangerous product.

I think premiums that reflect the national debt divided by the number of Congresspersons as an annual payment – with double penalties for non-payment – would be a good start. Who’s with me?

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Twerp to House democrats:Blow me!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 2, 2013 at 3:17 PM

How are these gunowner taxes any less unconstitutional than a poll tax?

Or… a healthcare tax? Which the SC said the government could do in requiring us all to have health insurance…

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Well, time for mandatory liberal politician insurance, to help protect us from this particular high-risk, dangerous product.

I think premiums that reflect the national debt divided by the number of Congresspersons as an annual payment – with double penalties for non-payment – would be a good start. Who’s with me?

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I’m in, but can we also throw in constitutional law education courses and sanity testing requirements?

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

No doubt this will be another tax that politicians and bureaucrats exempt themselves from…

… No doubt.

Seven Percent Solution on April 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

But come on, they have to know you can’t require any such nonsense to exercise a constitutional right.

Curmudgeon on April 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM

People keep talking as though the Constitution matters, or is being observed any more.

It. Is. Not.

The sooner people realize that the federal government’s actions are no longer based on Constitutionality – but rather on whatever they hell they want to do – the better.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

It really needs to be said here:

The insurance that these Democrats are insisting upon simply does not exist in the real world. Even if I *wanted* to purchase a policy as described in this bill, I couldn’t…because there isn’t one.

JohnTant on April 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

LoL. Somehow, I don’t think you are going to get Texas to go along with this.

bitsy on April 2, 2013 at 3:27 PM

More grandstanding. Last time I checked, the Democrats were a minority and there are a lot them who won’t vote for this anyway.

In case you have forgotten it takes 60 votes in Senate and half the votes plus 1 in the house to pass a bill. Introduciton does not equal passage. Everybody take a deep breath and watch the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation kill this bill with ease.

jerryofva on April 2, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Democrats are stupid. Living in the past. They don’t know what’s coming. A consistent new generations of gun owners growing up in the internet and modern warfare video games age.

These kids will one day own guns because the internet and video games influenced them. These kids will turn republican or libertarian because they realized at a younger age that liberals isn’t about freedom it’s about control.

As we already witness, these kids are much more militant in their gun rights. They have the energy and the willingness to push their ideology to their peers. Good luck Democrats because you guys are going to get hit by a full speed train in the near future.

jdun on April 2, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Be sure to include required insurance for the press and anyone else using their First Amendment rights or any of our other rights included in the Bill of Rights.

RJL on April 2, 2013 at 3:29 PM

jdun on April 2, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I hope you are correct.

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 3:31 PM

LoL. Somehow, I don’t think you are going to get Texas to go along with this.

bitsy on April 2, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Never gonna happen!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM

It really needs to be said here:

The insurance that these Democrats are insisting upon simply does not exist in the real world. Even if I *wanted* to purchase a policy as described in this bill, I couldn’t…because there isn’t one.

JohnTant on April 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Oh yeah Mr. fancypants bring facts to the table, just who the hell do you think you are?

/ Do I need this?

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

But come on, they have to know you can’t require any such nonsense to exercise a constitutional right.

Curmudgeon on April 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM

People keep talking as though the Constitution matters, or is being observed any more.

It. Is. Not.

The sooner people realize that the federal government’s actions are no longer based on Constitutionality – but rather on whatever they hell they want to do – the better.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Excellent post, Midas.

The Constitution is irrelevant to these pigs. Lest anybody forget:

Derrick Bell’s Critical Race Theory and the Necessary Misapplication of the Law

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Which troll in your own mind looks like this?

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Let’s tax stupidity instead.

It’ll bring in a lot more revenue.

AZCoyote on April 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Which troll in your own mind looks like this?

D-fusit on April 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM

After yesterday’s “you could tell at the end that [Obama] was missing (baskets) on purpose…prob to connect by seeming more ordinary,” I’m going to go with nobrain a/k/a the laughably “nonpartisan.”

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM

This strikes me as a fairly stupid law but the arguments that it is unconstitutional are equally dumb. Purcasing insurance for a gun burdens one’s right to bear arms no more than paying the sale price for it does.

righty45 on April 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM

The sooner people realize that the federal government’s actions are no longer based on Constitutionality – but rather on whatever they hell they want to do – the better.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 3:19 PM

No kidding. The Constitution requires the federal government to secure our national borders. Barry Obama, chief federal law enforcement officer, doesn’t like the idea of national borders, so he refuses to secure the borders, and signs Executive Orders giving amnesty to large categories of foreign border-jumpers.

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from receiving welfare benefits like food stamps. Barry Obama, who swore an oath to uphold and enforce federal law, doesn’t like the law, so he makes food stamps freely available to illegal aliens, and even spends millions more of our tax dollars advertising — in Mexico — the availability of U.S. food stamps to illegal aliens.

But hey, who can blame Obama? He knows the worst consequence for his lawlessness will be a sternly-worded letter from Senator Sessions.

We no longer live in a constitutional republic. We live in an Obama dictatorship.

AZCoyote on April 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM

It would make a lovely bumper sticker for 2016, though:

GUN CONTROL
A Democratic party core value.

“Race-based Law” would work, too, or “Higher Taxes”. Other suggestions?

Not that I expect the ‘pubbies to show fight or anything.

PersonFromPorlock on April 2, 2013 at 3:51 PM

A few weeks old, but something everyone might have overlooked:

NRA Stand and Fight: Universal Registration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKq3967hUgU

Schumer Promises Universal Background Checks Won’t Create A Gun Registry… Then Calls It “Universal Registration”…
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/schumer-promises-universal-background-checks-wont-create-a-gun-registry-then-calls-it-universal-registration/

Colbyjack on April 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Purcasing insurance for a gun burdens one’s right to bear arms no more than paying the sale price for it does.

Sorry. That was a stupid comment. No other way to put it.

Ragspierre on April 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Here’s an idea:

Boil the tar, and grab the feathers. Oh, and some pointed sticks for displaying heads.

One thing for certain about Fascists (Democrats) is they will stop at nothing to take your liberty from you. The notion that we’ll “vote them out” is absurd.

Other measures will one day be required, and by that time it will probably be too late.

Polish Rifle on April 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Arrghh! Try again:

It would make a lovely bumper sticker for 2014, though:

GUN CONTROL
A Democratic party core value.

“RACE-BASED LAW” would work, too, or “HIGHER TAXES”. Other suggestions?

Not that I expect the ‘pubbies to show fight or anything.

PersonFromPorlock on April 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

We no longer live in a constitutional republic.

OK, then government has no Constitutional authority to tell me what to do.

Works for me.

Bat Chain Puller on April 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

And some people say PA would be a good place for Magpul to move to. And what are Ruger and Colt still doing in CT? And Beretta in MD?

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Back off. It was a bill introduced by an idiot from Philadelphia. Be grateful we take these fools off your hands so that you don’t have to tolerate them in your state. We fortunately have enough bitter clingers around here to dilute their voting strength in elections when their EBT isn’t on the line.

blammm on April 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Ragspierre,

Perhaps there is no other way for you to put it because you are incapable of articulating a counter argument.

Put differently, if the federal government were to sell a gun to you, would it be unconstitutional for it to charge a sale price? If not, why is it unconstitutional to effectively raise that price by requiring that you procure insurance? Are you constitutionally entitled to free or cheap arms? Why?

righty45 on April 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Righty45, an insurance requirement on a RIGHT probably merits a great deal of court scrutiny, “strict Scrutiny.” Because, insurance requirments can have a “chilling effect’ on your right.

Imagine an insurance requirement on Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh. We require them to carry liability insurance, so that if a listener is inspired to commit a crime by their words, the victims can recover. Well, you are putting into place a requirement that can limit someone’s ability to speak…a Constitutional Right. The State would have to show WHY such an action was merited, and why an alternaitve policy would not be just as effective.

So that’s why this idea is so bad. Practically, were the Federal Government to “require” insurance up to $500,000for any damages caused by fire arms, depending on how it was worded, you could make fire arms ownership prohibitiely expensive, simply becasue you could not afford the required insurance premium.

JFKY on April 2, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Are you constitutionally entitled to free or cheap arms? Why?

No, but I can’t require you to pay $400/month for insurance for a firearm either, and any program that tries to would run afoul of just that sort of practical problem and legal argument.

JFKY on April 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM

righty –

poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional because it impinged on a right that is guarenteed by the constitution. The right to bear arms is also thus. You can charge normal taxes that are assigned under the taxing scheme (sales taxes) and I suppose you could impose property taxes on them. But requiring liability insurance on a fully owned object of which the second amendment guarentees your right to have and use I expect would go beyond it. Not that it would stop 5 left wing SCOTUS judges.

Zomcon JEM on April 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM

ostensibly meant to provide a revenue stream to help the locality pay for the associative associated enforcement and health care costs of gun violence

Associative? FIFY.

BuckeyeSam on April 2, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Anything to avoid talking about the economy, the deficit, and the debt.

farsighted on April 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM

The sooner people realize that the federal government’s actions are no longer based on Constitutionality – but rather on whatever they hell they want to do – the better.

Exactly. This means that our entire cluster f of a federal government is illegitimate. The laws passed by these illegitimate usurpers are null and void. We are doomed and there is really no way for the ballot box to save us when elections are decided by voters too uninformed and ignorant to pass a fifth grade civics quiz.

crashland on April 2, 2013 at 4:22 PM

It’s not LEGAL to insure criminal activity.

Idiots.

TX-96 on April 2, 2013 at 4:29 PM

welcome back stalinist jimbo3

tom daschle concerned on April 2, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Back off. It was a bill introduced by an idiot from Philadelphia. Be grateful we take these fools off your hands so that you don’t have to tolerate them in your state. We fortunately have enough bitter clingers around here to dilute their voting strength in elections when their EBT isn’t on the line.

blammm on April 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Plenty of idiots in my state too. If I were a gun manufacturer I wouldn’t move to Ohio either.

Fenris on April 2, 2013 at 4:47 PM

To those who find themselves scared silly of guns, then movies, TV shows, and video games where people use guns in violence, usually to kill people in a gory way, must be even worse for you. Make sense?

How about you guys in the House mandate a fine for people who entertain themselves with violence but do not carry medical and liability insurance for violent acts they perform causing harm to others?

How about taxing violence as entertainment? If you want to watch a violent flick or buy a first-person shooter video game, just pony up a hefty sin tax first.

Oh, after you submit your name for a background check of violent history, and waiting for thirty days to cool off.

Oh, and once you apply, you cannot be within three miles of a school where children are present.

And, once your name is in the database, your local newspaper MUST publish a map of known offenders with a pin at your address.

And, if anything of a violent nature happens to your spouse, the police have a duty to limit their investigation to you and must not pursue other leads until you can prove you are not guilty beyond shadow of any doubt.

And, you cannot be a scout leader or help in the boys and girls clubs, or any programs that involve youth. We don’t want impressionable minds being contaminated with you violence tendencies.

And, how about a special tax to actors who appear in such entertainment? How about a special tax on their pay for the movie or show, to help pay for the rest of us having to deal with the aftermath of violence? And an extra-special fine for such actors to appear in an ad decrying gun violence when they have appeared in violent movies shooting with a vengeance? Let’s have a three strike and you’re out, zero-tolerance policy for such folk.

Thought experiment: Imagine a weapon in front of you on a table. Imagine the circumstances in the real world where a gun can animate itself to a shooting position and fire at a person in anger with no human intervention of any kind. How’d you do? Could you imagine the gun doing that? Neither could I.

Now imagine someone who has been playing first-shooter video games where he can blow up people into a bloody pulp while sitting in the dark in his underwear. Imagine that person picking up a real gun and shooting at real people having no clue as to what he is really doing. How’d you do? It wasn’t much of a stretch for me.

To me, in order for a person to shoot someone that person must feel so separated and detached from fellow beings that he believes he can harm others and not harm himself. Talk to police officers who have shot people in the line of duty, to soldiers under war conditions, even to locomotive engineers whose train has killed a motorist who tried to beat the train at a crossing and find out that memories of killing, even justified killing, haunt one for the rest of one’s life.

Indulging in violence through entertainment can lead you to believe that violence has no repercussions except to stop the other guy. Watching to much of this gratuitous violence can serious impair you judgement. It can lead you down a slippery slope where, at some point, you can never come back.

How about a sin tax for consumption of excessive violence?

billrowe on April 2, 2013 at 4:50 PM

FBI statistics show that more people are killed each year with hammers and clubs . . . than rifles. Therefore, I’m calling for mandatory liability insurance on all hammers, and double premiums should be charged anyone in possession of the Beatles’ Abbey Road album, and the song Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.

TarheelBen on April 2, 2013 at 4:54 PM

This is just another poorly disguised legislative attempt to deter gun ownership

I think that’s just a side benefit for them. The real reason is to create lists of who owns firearms. Well, everyone but criminals, that is.

bofh on April 2, 2013 at 5:06 PM

It will all pass and you will all pay. We ‘gun-nuts’ have been warning of it and while you moan and groan and stomp your feet. The tax guys are already taking a bead on your wallet. The politicians will giggle with glee as the first insurance premium payment hits and roar with pleasure as they are able to collect their first fine. I can’t believe any of you think this won’t happen. They’ll make some rule to make all mortgages, rental agreements, leases, dependent on this liability coverage. For your own good, of course.

Limerick on April 2, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I’m sorry that Maloney’s husband was murdered/son severely injured by Colin Ferguson. I’m also sorry that after all these years she’s still blaming the gun rather than the evil creature who pulled the trigger that day…Colin Ferguson.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Pfft

Not unless they are going to institute “insurance” for all the other rights too.

Free Speech tax in case you libel someone or incite them to do something stupid

Voter tax. In case you are dumb enough to elect dikweeds like these..

Etc

Etc

HotAirian on April 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Does anyone think that the proposed $10,000 penalty will not be taken into account when the insurance companies price their products?

meci on April 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM

FBI statistics show that more people are killed each year with hammers and clubs . . . than rifles. Therefore, I’m calling for mandatory liability insurance on all hammers, and double premiums should be charged anyone in possession of the Beatles’ Abbey Road album, and the song Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.

TarheelBen on April 2, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Well darn, now I’m screwed. I have Abbey Road on vinyl, and I own several different types of hammers…..

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Does anyone think that the proposed $10,000 penalty will not be taken into account when the insurance companies price their products?

meci on April 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Uh, ya – $9000 a year for premiums.

dentarthurdent on April 2, 2013 at 5:31 PM

No way the bill has a chance making it out of the House, obviously, but the number of hoops liberal legislators are trying to force law-abiding gun owners to jump through, on behalf of measures that wouldn’t actually do anything to address gun violence itself, is pretty jarring.

If only the GOP worked as hard for conservative principles as the Dems do for their communist ones.

JellyToast on April 2, 2013 at 5:33 PM

…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If anything infringes on the Second Amendment, it is this proposal.

The job of Congress is to serve the people and protect and defend the Constitution.

When a legislator makes a proposal so boldly in conflict with the peoples will and the Constitution they should be removed from office. Period.

Marcus Traianus on April 2, 2013 at 5:42 PM

In the warped words of Justice Roberts–it’s not a mandatory purchase–it’s a tax!

Don L on April 2, 2013 at 6:03 PM

If this same technique were applied to voting, it would be legitimately be called “Jim Crow”, but of course, it was the Democrats who proposed and passed the “Jim Crow” laws.

J_Crater on April 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM

it makes more sense for Congress to establish a national requirement to allow the insurance markets to begin to price the risks involved consistently nationwide.

Well, it makes sense… except for that little bit about Congress not having any jurisdiction, and that meddlesome 2d Amendment. But, he11, that’s never stopped you before.

GWB on April 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

When a legislator makes a proposal so boldly in conflict with the peoples will and the Constitution they should be removed from office. Period.

Marcus Traianus on April 2, 2013 at 5:42 PM

A small jacketed lead pellet, placed in the offenders cranium, will suffice.

III/0317

dirtengineer on April 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Where are the usual liberal trolls to tell us how awful this poll tax on self defense is, and how it will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities?

Newman?

Consistency?

Newman?

Consistency?

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2009/02/04/109312-literacy-test-for-gun-ownership-a-threat-to-civil-rights/

NotCoach on April 2, 2013 at 6:37 PM

That’s what my guns are…insurance.

Saltysam on April 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM

So would my NRA membership coverage be good enough?

clement on April 2, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Justice Roberts set the roadmap for the collapse of America.

pat on April 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Come get some libtards…aka fools…oh, and “what difference does it make”?

OldWeaselKeeper on April 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM