Latest anti-2nd Amendment idea: Mandatory insurance for gun owners

Gun ControlIt’s no mystery that progressives in Washington, D.C. want to destroy the Constitution as the means of advancing their socialistic agenda, and there is perhaps no greater target than the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

The latest effort comes from the Democrat from New York, Rep. Carolyn Maloney–which fittingly rhymes with baloney because she’s full of it–and the Firearms Risk Protection Act. According to Maloney, the bill would curb so-called “gun violence,” much like car insurance has lowered vehicle fatalities.

While this is not a new idea–this is her second attempt–her rationale for H.R. 2546 sets a new standard for stupid ideas from stupid people. In a statement to The Hill, she said:

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25% in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.”

Talk about comparing apples to sewing machines.

Of course, whenever a liberal says “the results are clear,” they’re really saying they have nothing to support their position, so they’ll make something up. They also like to use the phrase to cover their non-existent “facts,” such as her ambiguous claim about gun fatalities continuing to rise.

In fact, gun fatalities have been on a steady decline since 1993. Maloney also claimed:

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives. Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.”

So according to this Einstein, if the guy who robbed the local bank, shooting the teller and a few customers in the process, had been required to carry insurance, he probably would have elected to stay home and reflect on his life. Hey, there’s another benefit — a drop in other types of crime too!

Maloney’s claim regarding a 25% reduction with car fatalities is also a made up statistic; not the 25% part, but the implication that insurance caused the decline. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, “vehicle changes–including improved structural designs and the addition of safety features–are the main drivers to declined risk from 1993 to 2006.”

“Gun-free” zones don’t keep people from getting killed by a gun as the Aurora, CO. theater, Columbine, and other mass homicides have proven. And this Wizard of Oz scarecrow idea–in other words, brainless–won’t keep it from happening either.

To be fair, the Firearms Risk Protection Act will accomplish a few things. It will line the pockets of insurance companies, lawyers and politicians; and it will deny the constitutional right to keep and bear arms from law-abiding Americans.