Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. Scott M. | January 19, 2013 at 10:08 am

   I read something in today’s newspaper that just tickles me. It concerns a story where in Massachusetts they’re thinking of requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance!

   First, that is a common sense idea. Everyone that owns a gun should have to have liability insurance much, as they point out in the article, as a car owner has to have liability insurance.

   Second, I’ve suggested before one way of reducing gun ownership while keeping the right to bear arms is simply make the regulations so burdensome that having that right is essentially meaningless. This would be a strategy adopted from the anti-abortion crowd. Sure, technically you can get an abortion if you want/need, but the states have made it so difficult, you may as well not bother. I figure what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

   Third, in regards to abortion, the states have been trying to restrict private insurance companies from even offering abortion coverage. I figure if one side of the debate can justify interfering with the private insurance company offerings, the other side is justified as well. In this case, requiring insurance companies to offer liability insurance for gun owners.

   Fourth, it’s often the same people that complain about their distrust of the government and how the private sector is the most efficient and the private ownership of everything is the holy grail of American political/economic life that are now complaining private insurance companies will now be telling them what to do. The Schadenfreude is delicious!

   I so hope this bill passes and if we’re smart here in Virginia, we’ll do the same thing.
2. Scott M. | January 19, 2013 at 6:33 pm

   Now that the 100W incandescent light bulb has been “outlawed”, I’m curious to know how people’s lives have been changed.

   For those that predicted the end of the world and government take-overs of your personal shopping decisions, how are things going for you now? Has any of that come to pass? Can you still afford light bulbs and electricity or do you have to go to bed when the sun goes down?

   Please let me know.
3. Michael | January 19, 2013 at 8:36 pm

   #2 – The ban hasn’t affected me a bit, Scott. I was smart enough to stock up on 100W bulbs while they were still available.

   I gotta run…I need to go burn a tire
4. The Other Rick | January 20, 2013 at 6:55 am

   Doesn’t bother me…I simply burn two 75-watt fixtures, in situations where one 100-watt would have been adequate before.

   Gotta’ love those unintended consequences of liberal “feel good” policies that solve nothing and often do more harm than good.
5. Scott M. | January 20, 2013 at 9:13 am

   So if neither of you guys have been effected, what was the big deal about back then?

   Michael, that’s funny, the burning tire thing.

   By the way, and maybe I just got lucky, but I bought a 150 watt 3-way bulb the other day. If the 100 watt bulbs are a no-no, what about these? Instead of stocking up on 100 watts or using two 75 watts, why not get a 3-way?
6. Chuck | January 20, 2013 at 10:24 am

   Scott M., I know you were trying to prove a point about needless braying over the 100 watt bulb issue, but in doing so I think you unintentionally made your opponent’s point for them. Doesn’t the fact that 150 watt bulbs are still available just demonstrate how inept the government is at doing things like this?
7. Scott M. | January 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm

   @6 Chuck asks, ” Doesn’t the fact that 150 watt bulbs are still available just demonstrate how inept the government is at doing things like this?”

   I don’t think so Chuck.

   Those items could have “outlawed” too but they weren’t. You have to ask yourself why. It wasn’t the intention of the govt. to make us live in darkness. But because many of us get the 100W bulb when a 60 would do fine they’ve simply given us a nudge in the right direction (reduced energy and pollution costs).

   But my larger point was there are some here who acted as if living in darkness was the ultimate goal of the govt. I think it would be helpful if those same people took a step back for a more balanced view.

   In fairness, I can overreact too and sometimes need to be pulled back from the brink. But recognizing we have a problem is the first step to solving it.
8. 89Hoo | January 21, 2013 at 5:12 am

   “…many of us get the 100W bulb when a 60 would do fine…”

   There is absolutely no way anyone – the government or anyone else – can know why anyone chooses to use a bulb size over another, there is no way anyone can know why anyone values anything. To come in and say,in essence, they know better than the value of the things I use is the height of arrogance and contempt. Keynesian socialism at work. And yes, the light bulb thing was under a republican for those who think that matters.