Mandate to buy gun liability insurance?

[max]

Ted King wrote:
Do you feel the same way about making it next to impossible to get a Constitutionally guaranteed abortion in some states? If not, then your outrage isn't based on the principle of respecting Constitutional rights.

While I am pro choice, I am still curious, which specific article or an amendment guarantees the right to an abortion?...

[RgrF]

Driving a car may be a privilege, owning a car is a property right.

[rjmacs]

max wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
[quote=cbelt3]
It's part of the 'make it too expensive to own a gun legally' concept. Ditto the tax on ammunition and such. Back-alley methods to result in confiscation of our firearms.

I despise back-alley methods. You want to ban all guns ? Then admit it, and try and do it. Legally.

So mandating auto insurance is OK but firearm insurance should be verboten? You should know better, Roger, that is one reason the state clearly states AND repeats over and over, "driving is a privilege, not a right", weapon ownership happens to be specifically mentioned in Constitution...
This is a specious argument. If any state attempted to outlaw driving automobiles wholesale, the statute would be struck down immediately as an unreasonable infringement on the right to assemble and likely the right to petition.

[davester]

There's nothing in the constitution that says that there is a right to own a weapon for personal purposes (sport, self-defense, etc.). I agree that there should be no burdens (monetary or otherwise) on the right of the people (not necessarily individuals) to bear arms in support of a well-regulated militia. However, the almost completely unregulated ownership of guns for all sorts of uses having nothing to do with this purpose is not a constitutional right. Why is this difficult to understand?

[Acer]

I'm told guns accidents and homicides are very rare in the U.S., so this insurance should not be very expensive.,

[rjmacs]

davester wrote:
There's nothing in the constitution that says that there is a right to own a weapon for personal purposes (sport, self-defense, etc.). I agree that there should be no burdens (monetary or otherwise) on the right of the people (not necessarily individuals) to bear arms in support of a well-regulated militia. However, the almost completely unregulated ownership of guns for all sorts of uses having nothing to do with this purpose is not a constitutional right. Why is this difficult to understand?

As much as i tend to agree with this historical interpretation, the SCotUS has ruled otherwise. As of now, there is a constitutional individual right to own and keep a gun in one's home for self-defense.

That doesn't mean they have to be unregulated or that the right is absolute (no such rights exist under our system).

[August West]

I think gun liability insurance is a good idea.

[swampy]

The people are the militia. And I guess you think using guns to hunt for food should have been unconstitutional? Our forefathers would have starved. Again davestar, you look like a fool.

[max]

RgrF wrote:
Driving a car may be a privilege, owning a car is a property right.

You still know better, Roger.
You do not need insurance to OWN a car, you need one to DRIVE it....

[(vikm)]

August West wrote:
I think gun liability insurance is a good idea.

As do I.