You will have to take my word for it, and excuse my memories from the early 1970s when I was a newlywed and getting the least expensive whole life insurance as well as homeowner's was a priority. I received advertisements for USAA through the US Navy, and it looked like a good idea to me. And then my insurance agent wife got her hands on policy paperwork and found language that indicated that the homeowner's was null and void if firearms or ammunition were stored as they deemed improperly, which included just having a gun in your house for self defense. At that time I saw that as insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession, and have seen nothing to change my opinion since. At the same time we checked into similar clauses by other insurance companies and eventually bought from a company that did not have such a clause.b322da wrote:In my opinion this discussion, in general, is really wandering off into never-never land, Jim. I say this just after your post not because you are alone, but that you repeat a common theme of this thread, and it may just be the use of loose language.jimlongley wrote:I was, briefly, a member of USAA in the early 70s, right after I got off active duty. My late wife, who was an insurance agent herself, read some of their literature and talked me into rescinding my membership and I haven't regretted it until now. Now my only regret is that I did not "know my enemy" and keep track of them and their insidious campaign against legal gun possession. They can be assured that I will never even consider doing business with them at any time in the future too, even if they do change their public policy, as I do not think they will ever really change.
Neither USAA nor any other 30.06 poster is, according to my reasoning, insidiously campaigning against "legal" gun possession. Does that proper 30.06 sign mean that a CHL-licensee is guilty of illegally carrying a concealed handgun if she ignores the sign? As we all know so well, it only means that if one enters ignoring the sign, if correctly worded, shaped and posted, she would be trespassing. Is she not still legally carrying the handgun? Could she be arrested for illegally carrying a handgun? If USAA is "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession" I could be accused of insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession if I courteously tell a visitor to my home that my home is not open to anyone carrying a handgun, whether CHL-licensed, or not, and she may not enter if she is carrying a handgun.
With the greatest of respect for you and your invariably intelligent well-reasoned postings here, Jim, I feel that it is simply not right, once again in my personal opinion, to assume that my having said this to a visitor is because I am "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession." Nothing could be more untrue of this particular NRA member, CHL-licensee from the very beginning, and tireless advocate of the 2nd Amendment.
I cannot close without observing that absent the wide circulation given on this forum, and others similarly oriented, to USAA's sign on its premises, one, my being one of them, would not even know of USAA's policy on this, unless they visited the offices, which gives me a serious question as to whether USAA is being "insiduous."
Elmo
When my first (late) wife turned 50, she was sent an "automatic" membership in AARP, and shortly thereafter we became aware of their well known anti-gun policy, and she resigned. I see AARP as insidiously anti-gun too.
And I see an outfit that posts its physical property without notifying ALL members of its policy, as particularly insidious, they are depending on the ignorance of their members to keep them from quitting due to their, now stated, anti-gun policy (not just anti-CHL.) My statement has its initial basis in the anti-CHL policy, to be sure, but their stated policy goes far beyond that.
