Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.
Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.
"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.
So what is your tantrum about? The things have a cost that is now higher.
I genuinely can’t figure out what you were expecting with that argument. Do you think guns are sold for the cost of materials and labor?
Tantrum? Lmao cute.
Yes, and higher cost = harder for poors.
This isn’t rocket surgery my dude. Keep pretending you’re an idiot idgaf, you know and I know you know.
You made it clear “the poors” were nothing but a prop when you rushed to justify a for-profit firearms industry.
Lmao you expect things to be handed out for free, then start to donating or advocate for firearms to be provided to all by the government. However evidentially you expect an industry to continue on it’s own without the money with which to sustain itself and grow, well wish in one hand and shit in the other see which fills up first.
You champion that government rifle providing program and I’ll be your first backer, but “things cost money” isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
What, do you think I’m rich? I’m poor as fuck, I had to save up to buy a gun, like most Americans I live paycheck to paycheck, adding ~$50 a month for some horse shit is definitely more of a problem financially than saving $20 a paycheck for a year on top of the monthly ~$50 I’d be required and you can stop pretending that isn’t the case anytime, I live it, you can’t fool me.
Isn’t it funny how when you complain about a cost being too high, it isn’t “expecting things to be handed out for free” but if I suggest it, the standards change?
But you want to know some more things that aren’t free? Sewing up bullet holes. Cleaning children’s blood and brains from their classroom floor. Processing the 4 women who are murdered by their partners in America each day. Locking down a mall because someone who couldn’t get their dick sucked bought an AR-15.
Maybe its time for the fucking gun owners to pay.
Because “not charging me extra for mandatory insurance” isn’t a physical item or even a service. It’s literally the opposite of that actually, it’s “explicitly not providing goods or services.” I didn’t say “make the insurance free” which would have made this little “gotcha” make sense, I said “unduly increasing the costs arbitrarily will disproportionately negatively affect poor people.” You’re really bad at this.
WeLl ThEn MayBe We ShOuLd MaKe It FrEe.
Oh I understand now. You’re fine with paying more than the cost of materials when that extra profit goes towards the services that the gun lobby provides.
Services like “ensuring far-right Republicans have plenty of money for their campaign” and “coordinating anti-vax astroturfing campaigns during a pandemic”. You know, the usual pro-gun stuff.
What you will not tolerate is any of that money going to the victims of gun violence.
Yes, they should make medical care free. Unfortunately it sounds like you’d get upset and threaten to kill them if they did because it’s not a “physical item” like “record profits for evil people” is.
No, they provide a good, and for that they deserve to be compensated for their time and materials if you so choose to support their business. You see the people who work for these companies and yes even the owners typically like things like “food” or “housing,” (I know, what needy little bitches, huh? Food AND shelter?)
Just quit while you’re behind. You’re not advocating that the gun companies divert their funds, as your comment would suggest. You’re advocating that people, including poor people, pay $50 a month that they didn’t need to just to have the right to protect themselves from victimization. Why do you hate the poor? You’re seemingly rich enough that an extra $50 a month is nothing to you, but that isn’t the reality for like 85% of Americans, so step out of your ivory tower or quit screaming bullshit out the window.
Healthcare is a service not a good. Jesus christ you’re stupid.
Help us make a sense out your long comments. How are guns ‘protecting you from victimization’ exactly, any anectodes you want to share?
I’m loving watching you awkwardly try and reconcile “I am a defender of the poor” while also simping for neoliberalism.
You don’t even know who the owners are do you? They’re not wanting for food nor shelter.
Nope, I’m not advocating that, I’m openly mocking you. Good that you finally noticed.
Yep, we’ve already covered that. Poor people couldn’t afford guns and you didn’t even pretend to care, let alone do anything about it. Now you don’t want to pay a subscription fee for your guns so you’re pretending it’s because you’re a hero to the poor.
As is liabilty insurance.
Maybe you should stick to the opinions the gun lobby feeds you.