nation

"both sides of the gun debate seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry to play in a heavily armed society." - Rediculous and unconstitutional. Civil rights are not dependent of purchaseing any private product. This is just another way the left is making society more dangerous by the second. The divide in society may be irrevocable. You know what happend last time we reached that point. Think again democrats.

Tell me why this is needed again. There's about 100,000 shootings every year, as opposed to 5,000,000 car accidents. Next step will be a requirement that you buy insurance if you want to exercise your right to free speech in case you slander someone.

Good. Liability insurance on each gun you own. Tied to homeowner insurance.

I figured this would happen. Makes sense. Mess with something that could hurt or kill someone, it's a good idea to have insurance. Ultimately, as the article says, businesses and governments concerned about shootings on their property will probably hasten the end of concealed/carry. Not right away, of course, but if they can't pass along the costs somehow. And yes, mdcastle, organizations in the business of exercising free speech, like newspapers, do carry insurance--and retain media lawyers--in the event of libel suits.

I don't much care for the NRA, and I really really don't like insurance companies. I am also in the super majority when it comes to my opinion of congress. So I think I will sit back and watch these three heavy weights slug this one out with each other. Then maybe we can get a few lawyers (also on my list) involved, all the way up to the supreme court, where they will rule that gun corporations are people too. This is all a farce and a joke called "politics" and we will spend a tremendous amount of money on this issue, that could be used for something worthwhile in our country.

PS... perhaps the right thing to do in this case is to let the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention" take hold. Do we need legislation? No, yes, or I don't know, but if the worst happens, and several gun owners are taken to court and lose everything they own, then perhaps responsible gun owners will be forced to buy liability insurance or risk the same fate as an uninsured motorist. Ironic isn't it? That I have to carry insurance on my auto insurance plan that protects me from an uninsured motorist. I wonder if someday, my homeowners insurance will be required to have a clause and increased premium for an uninsured gun owner. This all boggles the mind.

The gun hating crowd reminds me more and more every day, of Ahab chasing the whale. Sink all coffins into one, eh?

"but if the worst happens, and several gun owners are taken to court and lose everything they own, then perhaps responsible gun owners will be forced to buy liability insurance or risk the same fate as an uninsured motorist" - I'd worry more about the gun owners who chose to defend themselves against rebels acting against our constitution by attempting to a fee on exercise of a civil right. Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't happend more to date. Maybe the media is squashing the stories for all I know and it is. You cannot mandate a fee for exercise of civil rights. Any legislation along this line will die either in court or elsewhere.

As a gun owner, it sounds like a good idea to look into. I need to carry liability insurance as a carpenter/contractor. Responsibility!

Hey, how about this? Anyone who speaks in public or publishes a writing must purchase liability insurance to indemnify them against libel and slander suits? Sounds like a plan.