Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Well the fundamental difference is that a gun could be operated anywhere, on a person at any time, etc. I hear ya though... Its yet another reason why Ive always disliked the automobile argument, yet it is one that MANY bring up over and over again when talking about this stuff.
So the argument then would be that a car cannot be taken off private property without this insurance. OK, so be it. If that is the case, then it would be insurance associated with ccw, etc. These things may or may not be as "fundamental" a right, and based upon my travels to many states where they habd out carry permits like candy, MANY places do not allow the firearms to stay on a person... which I speculate would then be why 150 THOUSAND guns are stolen each year.
On and on.
I hear ya. Again, Ive always hated the automotive argument, but so many pro-gun people use it. As I said before, it comes back to bite you, like it is here...
But in terms of costing, which is where the argument may be the slightest bit relevant - liability for death and dismemberment is liability for death and dismemberment. And is the costing of that liability excessive for car insurance? Heck, I pay something like $30/yr for million dollar coverage on my antique cars. On my daily drivers its a bit higher because the risks are higher.
What it MAY do is create a private means of double checking mental soundness, etc. Since the govt cant do it, a private entity can encroach and make decisions on a ton of non-PC things that the government cant. So it is a way of getting some of the tighter regulations that we should have, like better mental and background done by the private sector vs the public, which will apparently be so much more efficient and cost effective than the government can anyway.
Since so many on here scream less government, why not use the private sector to do our background checks and other constitutional stuff that they can apparently do so much better?