ALLOW THEM TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES THEY MUST
Sure, just as long as the equivalent fee is charged for voting.
I have written to everyone I can think of on this horrible and discriminatory idea.
In this state, if passed, it could cost law-abiding gun owners thousands of dollars for this insurance. I will not comply.
I pray that the people will remember this when the 2014 elections come around.
“Gun Insurance” is not only an affront to law-abiding citizens, but it’s a bloody back-door registration scheme.
DemonRATS do NOT support the 2nd Amendment, never have since Reconstruction Days.
RINOs don’t support the 2nd Amendment, either.
One notes that every punitive firearm-related law proposed will impose a burden on peaceful, law-abiding, citizens while having no effect on the criminal class.
I know, I know, lets force criminals to carry insurance for the crimes they are going to commit.
dats the ticket
Uh Huh...THEN the fed will go into the ‘gun ins.’ business, right!?
Wall-to-wall Obamacare accross the board. I want to throw up!
These people have learned nothing.
It’s gotta be a ‘tax’. That way Roberts will vote to uphold it when the lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court.
Sigh.
If I DO recall correctly, this additional 'fund' would be double dipping for the gunshot victim or victim's family while adding an (unecesary) burden onto the gun owner.
Just thinkin' out load and probably have my facts a little screwed up.
I aint got any guns..
So....how would they know who has guns and thus required to own said insurance????/
Backdoor effort to reduce the number of gun owners.
Ironic, too.
Millions of Americans purchase or drive cars without insurance, many of them illegal aliens.
They inflict billions of dollars of property damage and kill or permanently disable thousands of people.
The Democrats response.....
Yawn.
Same as 0bamacare except instead of health care it’s guns. ARE THEY SURE THIS ISN’T A TAX?
Wonder how she’s going to get the gang bangers to buy the insurance?
The Democrat talking points:
Voter ID: too restrictive and burdensome on the public to have to go through such a rigorous process; would disenfranchise tens of thousands.
Abortion Notifications/Information: too restrictive and burdensome on women - interferes with rights of privacy and it’s the government interfering between the rights of a women and her doctor. (Don’t even get me started on Obamacare)
Gun registration: Necessary for a peaceful society; must save the children.
Gun insurance: must transfer the societal costs of gun violence to the [lawful] gun owners.
I think it’s way past time to start hitting back to expose the hypocrisy.
Next they’ll want the same for my English Long Bow and Forged Steel Tip arrows.
Wasn’t there a time when congress passed a tax on printer’s ink, and this was found unconstitutional - for it suppressed the first amendment?
In a sane world, this would apply to second amendment as well.
Looks like they found some new spending money.
I know the answer to this question before I ask it, (making it rhetorical) but what do Freepers think as to Baloney’s constitutional justification for this legislation?
Perhaps from the area in her twat where she stores her other bright ideas?
ALLOW THEM TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES THEY MUST
AIds cost a bundle.
Register and require gays to get insurance.