Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

For anyone not already aware, this would constitute a de facto ban on firearm ownership. While there are some insurers for self-defense, and some insurers for accidents, there are no insurers for "anything that results from gun use" because no one insures wilful, non-defensive gun use. E.g. murdering someone, discharging a firearm into the air, brandishing, etc are all covered by precisely zero insurers.

For anyone not already aware, this would constitute a de facto ban on firearm ownership. While there are some insurers for *self-defense*, and some insurers for *accidents*, there are no insurers for *"anything that results from gun use"* because no one insures wilful, non-defensive gun use. E.g. murdering someone, discharging a firearm into the air, brandishing, etc are all covered by precisely zero insurers.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (4).
[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

I scanned the Second Amendment and do not see any exceptions allowing this, any more than I see exceptions to the Constitutional ban on a Head Tax. The government is not allowed to use taxing authority to effectively outlaw something that is considered an enumerated fundamental right.

[–] • 1 pt

ATF tax stamps laugh at your functionally defunct constitution