this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1090 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1812 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

A bit about me for context: I'm Canadian, I have an interest in guns. I do not own any guns. I can imagine myself owning a gun, but don't want one right now. I know a bit about guns, but not a lot. eg Rim fire vs center fire, and that there isn't anything specific that makes a rifle an assault rifle. I support gun regulation but think Canada's recent changes go too far (it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada).

My two cents on this bill:

  1. Every responsible gun owner ought to have liability insurance that covers their firearms regardless of whether or not it's required.

  2. Objections to such requirements based on the cost of insurance could be overcome in a few ways. Two that occur to me off the top of my head:

    a. Individual insurance could be not necessary if the citizen is a member of a well regulated militia (but the state could define what qualifies as a well regulated militia, maybe: shared liability, annual training)

    b. The state could offer tax payer funded insurance, for gun owners that agree to certain conditions e.g. gun use, storage (and inspections)

I look forward to the comments.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 months ago

Ooh give the gun nuts socialized gun insurance. I’ll get my popcorn.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Every responsible gun owner

It's not the responsible ones that are the problem here.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

I agree, the point is that it's awkward for someone to oppose this policy because they're kind of confessing to being irresponsible.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it's now impossible for a normal citizen to legally obtain a handgun in Canada

Very good, be grateful you live in a modern and civilized place, go out and do things that normal citizens do then. Get a hobby. You don't need to own or use deadly weapons nor be part of a 'well regulated militia', no one does.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Hey I'm not sure this was your intention but the way you passed your response feels like you're criticizing me.

It makes it hard to respond without seeming like I'm on the defensive. But for example, I am grateful to live in a country with more sane gun laws than the USA. I do things normal^tm^ citizens do. I also happen to know normal^tm^ people that own guns. How do I know them? By participating in hobbies (with them). Like yeah I agree not many people need to own guns but a lot do, and if you want to improve the gun situation in the USA there are some legal and political realities you'll have to work within.