I keep seeing the taunt, "Obama hasn't taken away your guns" being offered by people

[branford]

39. Did you even read my whole post?

We've actually had this conversation about insurance before.

First, just because something can be subject to certain regulation, including guns, speech, abortion, etc., does not mean any regulation is constitutional. Further, complaints about "reflexive rejection of any attempt to regulate behavior related to firearms" is little more than a laughable straw man argument. We already have numerous laws concerning firearms, including many criminal penalties, as the president implicitly admitted, many of these laws are not adequately enforced, and mandatory liability insurance does little, if anything, to actually regulate behavior.

Liability insurance for firearms has numerous problems involving legality, practicality, effectiveness, and of course, limited political feasibility. These issues are primarily the reason why mandatory insurance is not the law anywhere in the USA.

As I've already explained, virtually all "insurance" proposals concerning firearms really have nothing to do with actual insurance or follow well-established legal and policy mandates regarding insurance, will have absolutely no effect on the alleged problems they purport to solve, ignore that most firearm owners already have real insurance, and that it is so cheap because the actuarial chances of using it are negligible, despite the irrational fears of gun controllers, to say nothing of the ironic and amusing fact that mandatory insurance would provide a welcome and steady cash infusion for the NRA.

If the explicit or implied reason why you or others want mandatory "insurance" is simply make the ownership of firearms more expensive and burdensome so people will not exercise their rights, do not expect such a proposal to pass legal scrutiny or receive any political support among most of your fellow Americans.

If you as a responsible homeowner already carry insurance relating to firearms you would have no problem with this requirement. Or did the possible registration of the firearms with the insurer set off an alarm bell?

That sounds a lot like claiming we don't need the Fourth Amendment because if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to complain about if searched. No on takes such arguments seriously, and it's a little insulting that you even tried.

I also do indeed reject anything that could be used as a de facto registration list. Apart from the fact that they're useless, as Canada recently learned after spending billions of dollars and not solving any crimes, when the president and Clinton cite Australia and Britain as models of American gun control (i.e., confiscation), I take them at their word. I see no reason to make such policies easier, whether now or later.