Comments on: House Panel Backs Ban On Insurers Discriminating Against Gun Owners

By: Bill Edmunds

Bill Edmunds — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 22:51:02 +0000

Sorry Rep. Kevin Rader, D-Delray Beach, an insurance agent, but dog ownership is not a protected constitutional right. Legal gun ownership is. You are obviously a puppet for the insurance industry. It is also obvious that you care nothing about your voting, law abiding constituents rights.

By: Travis

Travis — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:00:52 +0000

“Sandra Starnes, OIR director of property and casualty product review, said United is allowed to exclude homeowners if they are “in possession of dangerous firearms.”

Assault and rapid fire weapons could be classified as “dangerous,” but game hunting rifles and shot guns would be excluded from the prohibition, she said.”

GUNS ARE ONLY AS DANGEROUS AS THE USER!!!!!!!

More people are assaulted by Baseball bats each year than “assault weapons”. Fact check it in the FBI crime statistics.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:10:23 +0000

I am curious as to how an “assault” weapon is defined in the United P&C policy, as it is simply a term conjured up by media and anti-gun politicians.

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:01:54 +0000

Taking away rights by taking away your insurance? If you have guns you don’t get insured? Something is wrong there.

By: Just Listening

Just Listening — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:06:01 +0000

Just get it done Mr. Gaetz. Insurance companies hold our feet to the fire too much now days anyway. They have three goals in mind. {1} Charge you sky high prices to have the insurance. (2) Dictate to you how you can use it. (3) Then if you have claims they up your premium or cancel your coverage. Just saying