Revisiting racism and guns – liability insurance

Here’s a question: what ideas have the anti-gun left devised that will not adversely affect the poor and minorities?

One idea that’s floated around a bit is liability insurance. The idea is that since you’re required to carry liability insurance to drive, a gun owner should also be required to carry liability insurance. And if Representative Maloney of New York has her way, that’ll become law — fat chance in the Republican-controlled House, though.

Setting aside the fact that driving is a privilege while gun ownership is a right protected by the Second Amendment, it is an idea that will adversely affect the lesser fortunate. This becomes especially true for those who live in higher-crime areas, as insurance premiums could be higher simply due to location. This, again, will adversely affect the poor and minorities, concentrating the exercise of gun rights in the better-off and white populations.

So, again, I ask: who is racist, gun control proponents or gun rights advocates?

Gun owners are not just white people living in well-off areas. Yet many of the policy ideas seem to think this is their assumption. When you make it more expensive to exercise a right, those who are lesser-off will be less likely to exercise their right. That’s exactly how poll taxes used to work, yet because we’re talking about guns, no one is seeing it the same way.

In short I think that much of the ideas that require financial output on the part of a person to exercise their Second Amendment rights are about disarming blacks and other minorities, since they are the ones most likely to be lesser-off financially and less likely to exercise their Second Amendment rights before considering some of the ideas by Democrats that would only make it more expensive, thus making it more likely that even fewer blacks and minorities will do so.

Share