TexasCHLforum.com

In the ever growing world of leftist attack... We are now being told that carry insurance is "Murder Insurance".

I guess if you beleive in the second amendment you dont get to have an attorney... Just shaking my head.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/art ... cases.html.

"Some are calling it "murder insurance," and say that rather than promoting personal responsibility and protection, it encourages gun owners to take action and not worry about the consequences. And, they say, it's being marketed in a way that feeds on the nation's racial divisions."

I am not giving my opinion for that but I truly believe only a ignorant mindset or the influence of drugs can cause such a statement.

"The reason I call it murder insurance is because if you look at the way this is marketed, it's really sold in the context of 'There's a threat around every corner, dear mostly-white NRA member,' and that threat is either a black man or a brown man or some other kind of person of color," said Guns Down director Igor Volsky.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/art ... z4vzXH5iq4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I must have missed the advertising campaign that presents all threats as coming from minorities. The only one making this about race is Mr Volsky himself.

Carry Guard insurance was launched this past spring by the NRA. Rates range from $13.95 a month for up to $250,000 in civil protection and $50,000 in criminal defense to a "gold plus" policy that costs $49.95 a month and provides up to $1.5 million in civil protection and $250,000 in criminal defense. The coverage kicks in if a court finds the person lawfully shot someone in self-defense or the case is dropped.

I'm not sure if this part is accurate, but it really undercuts the whole point of the article, IMHO. If the coverage only "kicks in" after a court finds that the shooting was lawful / justified, then where is the insurance benefit I get from murdering someone? Murder insurance would only pay out if a shooting was ruled unlawful. Or the exact opposite of how this very article is characterizing the insurance.

A better slang term for these policies would be "frivolous lawsuit insurance" since they only pay out if you are first found justified in a shooting.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:A better slang term for these policies would be "frivolous lawsuit insurance" since they only pay out if you are first found justified in a shooting.

Exactly.
The state requires me to have insurance to drive my vehicle. Is that to encourage me to drive into people?

These people aren't smart enough to be doing this on their own. They are funded and coached by the anti-2A people. With Soros dumping $18B into the coffers of his Open Society organization, expect increases in attacks on every thing that has any connection to legally owned and operated firearms.

I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories such as the UFO mothership, tin-foil hats, and Elvis, however, this smacks of that "Russian operatives" sowing discord in the USA that we have heard about recently. I heard Facebook turned over thousands of "Russian Operative" social media posts to the Justice Dept. for investigation. Murder insurance? You gotta be kidding me.

What's amusing is that in one breath the anti-gun left advocates for the requirement to carry liability insurance if you are to own a gun and in the next decree it murder insurance. There is no pleasing some people.

Syntyr wrote:In the ever growing world of leftist attack... We are now being told that carry insurance is "Murder Insurance".

I guess if you beleive in the second amendment you dont get to have an attorney... Just shaking my head.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/art ... cases.html.

"Some are calling it "murder insurance," and say that rather than promoting personal responsibility and protection, it encourages gun owners to take action and not worry about the consequences. And, they say, it's being marketed in a way that feeds on the nation's racial divisions."

I don’t give a crap what they call it. It’s none of their business. If they refrain from attacking me, then I won’t need to use it, will I? Car insurance is murder insurance because it protects you if you run down pedestrians.

Leftist opinion regarding...anything, especially guns is always good for a laugh.

I can't get worked up about those nut-jobs and their weirdo opinions.

They want to be sacrificial animals and that's ok, but they don't get to include me.

I'll go the self-defense route when and if necessary. I just hope that day never comes, but if it does, I'll do my best not to be a victim...

I would guess in leftist opinion, it's good to be a martyr. It feels just like the opposite of victory and boy howdy is that a superior leftist position to be in. Besides, being a martyr provides jobs for morticians, florists, and a whole host of others in their community. It's good to be killed or if not, merely beaten to a pulp at least provide lots of jobs for doctors, nurses, MRI operators, florists, Hallmark card sellers, etc. So, do the economy some good if your a leftist by being helpless. It's cool...

SQLGeek wrote:What's amusing is that in one breath the anti-gun left advocates for the requirement to carry liability insurance if you are to own a gun and in the next decree it murder insurance. There is no pleasing some people.

They push for mandatory insurance for every gun owner, and in some cases each gun owned, but then decry the practice of those who choose to voluntarily, carry said insurance, as not only murderers, but racist as well. They want to not only want to eliminate the 2nd amendment, but the 6th amendment as well. I defy anyone to show me a case where this so called "murder" insurance, has produced a single incidence of someone being exonerated, for an obvious crime being committed, or any ethnic group, being targeted, by the carriers of such a policy. I don't recall seeing anything, that excludes any group of people being denied coverage based on race, or any other identifiers. JMHO

Doctors don't carry malpractice insurance because they hope to commit malpractice.

It's more accurately described as "Self Defense" insurance, though it's not technically insurance now is it.

No one who buys this 'item' if you will, hopes never ever having to use it as they are law abiding, peaceful, people who don't necessarily have the martial art proficiency of Chuck Norriss, but if attacked can defend themselves rather efficiently...

Yes, I carry murder insurance everyday. Glock is my insurance agent! And I carry it to prevent myself from being murdered.

But I have nothing against someone being enrolled in a "self defense" plan that provides legal counsel to them in the event they have to use a gun to defend themselves.

These leftist idiots want it to be mandatory that gun owners get some type of insurance, but when some voluntarily do get a "self defense" plan, they get upset, the reason is because it protects the gun owner and not compensates the criminal. The problem is they see the criminals as victims and not the law abiding gun owner.

Last time I checked no insurance company covers criminal acts perpetrated by the policy holder. Not that I would buy or support such insurance, mandatory or not, as proposed by the anti gunners anyway.