• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Question Of The Month. (December 2018) (Gun Owner Insurance)

ripjack13

Resident Sawdust Maker
Staff member
Administrator
Supporter
"Philanthropist"
Howdy,
This is a monthly series of questions topic for everyone to join in on the discussion. Some of the later questions may have a poll, and some will not. Don't be shy now, go ahead and post an answer and vote in the polls...

Should Gun Owners be Required to Carry Insurance?





**Rules**
There is no minimum post requirement.
:popcorn:
 
This is a trick question... With the Carry Guard NY fiasco initiated by Cumhole LINK, it might be IMPOSSIBLE to get insurance in NY (for example). But my answer is NO, insurance should not be required.

Now I DO believe in a modicum of training, say a 1-hour self-taught course/test to get a firearms "card" to be issued by an FFL but not recorded. Lose the card and you have to take the course again.
 
I did want to add, im slowly leaning towards something I thought I never would. BUT prime example I was at chinamart couple days ago line at sports counter. A ypung fella requesting ammo from young female employee at guin cpunter. To abbreviate basiclly he says, i needs bullets for my rifle, she says what kind, he says it a Savage 22, she sys here and hands him box of golden bulletz , he says these remingtons mines a savage will they work ??? She says i dont know lemme call for help and pics up phone. I left. Back to beginning of my post, we MAY need some sort of educational requirements going forward, but I feel same way about voting also.......
 
No, No and NO!
it might be IMPOSSIBLE to get insurance in NY (for example)
I think NY and other anti gun state legislatures would be very happy to require insurance. They would make it very expensive and difficult to obtain. It would be used to lower gun ownership and punish law abiding citizens that could afford it.
 
No, No and NO!

I think NY and other anti gun state legislatures would be very happy to require insurance. They would make it very expensive and difficult to obtain. It would be used to lower gun ownership and punish law abiding citizens that could afford it.


Legislators already introduced in ny.
 
Well since IMO our constitution kind of requires the militia thing, I don't think it can also require us to buy insurance too. Then again, isn't there an insurance company called Minuteman?

It would certainly be in the public interest to foster a low-cost public insurance and education program for gun owners.

But no, as long as our constitution requires us to be in the militia I don't think they can require us to pay insurance for the privilege.
 
Well since IMO our constitution kind of requires the militia thing, I don't think it can also require us to buy insurance too. Then again, isn't there an insurance company called Minuteman?

It would certainly be in the public interest to foster a low-cost public insurance and education program for gun owners.

But no, as long as our constitution requires us to be in the militia I don't think they can require us to pay insurance for the privilege.


My reading of the constitution lends me to understand that it does not require militia service. Rather it recognizes the Right of the people to form a militia to secure a free state.
 
no American should be required to do shit. Let consequences dictate whether a person feels like they want to take a risk or not. Both pay off in the right situation........you could require me to do the best thing that i could ever do and I would question you because "required" .
 
My reading of the constitution lends me to understand that it does not require militia service. Rather it recognizes the Right of the people to form a militia to secure a free state.

IMO It says: militia is "necessary" & made of "the people" & so I thought, "this indirectly justifies drafting people too", under "public welfare".
Maybe that is all a stretch of the imagination though. I'm no constitutional scholar.
 
IMO It says: militia is "necessary" & made of "the people" & so I thought, "this indirectly justifies drafting people too", under "public welfare".
Maybe that is all a stretch of the imagination though. I'm no constitutional scholar.

You don't have to be. It was settled under heller.

Militia is composed of the people. Owning private arms to create a civilian militia is paramount to it. However there's no requirement to enlist in said militia to maintain ownership of private arms.

Edit

Article I section 8 grants congress to declare war and it's been case law that mandatory conscription falls under this during times of war.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top