I understand that.

Red cars, fast cars, sport cars ... all cost more to insure because they are statistically more likely to result in a claim.

Hunting rifles would cost less to insure than assault weapons, thus shifting some of the cost burden to those most likely to cause harm.

Not a winning idea in my home state of Montana, either. ... at least not if you ask the pundits and pollsters and the chattering class. Why not ask regular folks?

Good point, but ... the perfect can be an enemy of the good.

Guns should be insured just like cars are. Stop with the virtue bickering about 2A vs. public safety, and let the market prove exactly how much gun ownership costs our society.

I've always assumed that T just throws out the garbage thoughts that blossom unbidden in his cesspool brain. His genius is that he can frame that crap in a way that sounds vaguely reasonable to a certain type of hearer.

All the yes-men simply rinse and repeat.

Hair on fire emoji here.

"Yep, Trump actually posited that idiocy."

... surely you jest? If not, where can I see that?

Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

That is true, but look on the bright side: whatever you accomplish will be obliterated by a gust of wind or more snow!

Chickens are really just an entry level drug. You might be admitted into the cult once you have at least three barnyard species. If one of those is a miniature horse, you've already got platinum status.

Geese count, but rabbits only count if you have at least a dozen.