7+1 Questions About Mandatory Gun Insurance

Article over at Yahoo discussing mandatory gun insurance. Details 7 points, and pretty much concludes  that it’s not likely to happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/next-big-thing-gun-control-7-questions-mandatory-190513780.html

Let me go for 7+1,…

I used to live in New Haven, CT.  Due to my zip code alone, my auto insurance quotes were $2,200-$3,500 a year. Now, that might seem reasonable, if I had had an accident in the last 10 years, or even if I had a single moving traffic violation – but I had neither. (And that was mostly for the basic mandatory collision insurance.)

What was the reason? Well, usually it was touted higher “theft” in that area. But I commented, I wasn’t asking for theft insurance, just liability.  Then they’d balk a little.  Let me tell you what I believe the real reason was. My zip code was attached to a neighborhood that was considered one of the three worst in the city. It was largely a minority neighborhood.   Yes, I truly believe that the sole reason my rates were exceedingly high was because of living in a zip code associated with a certain racial profile. Sure, the insurance companies say it was only based on zip code.  But I believe racial demographics were playing a huge part. ( I’d late move out of that zip code and pay less than a thousand dollars.)

So why do I mention this? Because the “+1” fact is that I believe the same scenario will play out with firearm insurance. If you live in rural Pennsylvania, you might have to pay a $150/year for your gunsurance.  If you happen to live in a neighborhood, or even close to one, in which there is a high level of crime and lots of minorities, rest assured those insurance companies will deny race is at play. But the expect your gunsurance to be $500/year…or more. Thus putting gun ownership outside of the means of many poor and minorities.

Don’t believe me? It’s not the first time this has been done? Read up on the racist roots of gun control…

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people

http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

Advertisements
Published in: on March 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Could the Martin-Zimmerman shooting be racially motivated?

The rosy picture of Martin continues to degrade. Claims (remember, just that ‘claims’) of pot use, drug dealer, burglar tools, stolen jewelry, punching a bus driver, all contribute to a less than rosy picture of Martin than his parents would like to portray.

“They’ve killed my son, and now they’re trying to kill his reputation,” Sorry Mrs. Martin, but your son killed his own reputation with his behavior. Bringing it out merely highlights it.

But believe it or not, none of those really affect the outcome of the decision for me. It still left Zimmerman leaving his vehicle. And whenever I came to his claim that Martin came at him from behing, I was left asking; “where is the motive?” I saw no motivating reason that Martin would have come after Zimmerman. And that was the biggest issue I had with Zimmerman’s story. For me to believe that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, I needed a motive for Martin to be assaulting him. Until today, I did not have one.

Zimmerman and Martin’s Girlfriend both seem to affirm this dialogue, or something close to it, occurred:

Trayvon: “What are you following me for?”
Zimmereman: “What are you doing around here?”

Seems innoculous enough at first glance, right? Nothing inflammatory. Nothing there that would seemingly make Martin rush George Zimmerman from behind is there?

Recently, there has been some mention that Travyon might have had some confrontational dealings with a gang of hispanics. If this is true, this becomes the missing piece in Zimmerman’s scenario – the motive.

Look at the following photograph of Trayvon Martin (recent, as opposed to innocent child) and George Zimmerman. Now picture in your mind not a confrontation between a Neighbor Watch but two rival gang members. Now re-read these statements:

Trayvon: “What are you following me for?”
Zimmereman: “What are you doing around here?”

Now these simple words take on a whole new confrontational meaning. Zimmerman’s response comes across as defending one’s “turf”. Could Trayvon Martin have interpreted the hispanic George Zimmerman’s comment as a challenge – believing it to come from a rival gang member.

Except that George Zimmerman was not a rival gang member, but a Block Watch (and yes, organized not vigilante / self-appointed as was first reported). Next thing Zimmerman knows he is being attacked by a Trayvon Martin who presumes he is from the rival hispanic gang.

The above is all speculative, but does provide an arguable motive. And this is why I have felt from the beginning that this particular case needed judicial review. Sadly, now with the media frackus and twits like Spike Lee tweeting out the address of Zimmerman’s residence. We’ve have to be careful that the judicial review is allowed to proceed with integrity and that Zimmerman gets his fair hearing in a court of law.

An Article on Daily Beast is espousing racism. But I question, what if Trayvon Martin is in fact dead because he was racist against hispanics? It’s presumptive but a possibility. However, it’s an topic that is unlikely to ever be broached publicly. And that right there is the problem with our nation, and what the author of the article does not understand. The problem is that race as been made a one-sided heirarchal dialogue. That is not the equality of Martin Luther King’s dream, nor does it further progress toward a color blind world.

Some additional links with good commentary (H/T PAGunBlog.com)

Published in: on March 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,