comment: >
  
  
  I know that the second amendment does grant rights to bear arms.
  
  To a well-regulated militia. The whole 'eh, ignore the entire first part of a sentence' thing is quite new.
  Even if it did say that, which, again, no, having specific restrictions or requirements on something is not just unconstitutional on its face. There are restrictions on speech, most which involve another person and actual harm. 
  There's no such issue around voting.
context: Using that logic - and I'm not saying it's bad mind you - why isn't the fact that guns need to be purchased and maintained in the first place a infringement of your 2nd amendment rights? 
  You could argue it's similar to a poll tax and it's certainly an expense that disproportionately affects the poor. >
  
  Because the government isn't imposing the cost of guns on people.  Guns just cost what they cost and if a new company comes out with a cheaper gun for poor people (high point cough) that is fine.  Or people can make their own guns, which some do for fairly cheap.  There is a huge difference between something having a natural cost just by the nature of being in demand and having an artificial cost imposed by a government. >
  
  But firearms are taxed in the U.S.A. so that seems like a far stretch. Also, it was found in the U.S.A. that the government has to provide a defence attorney for anyone who can't afford one. >
  
  The government has to provide a defense attorney because the burden of criminal charges is imposed by the government itself.  It does not have to provide an attorney for civil cases.  This analogy does not apply to guns because even if you can afford a gun you are never 'allowed' to use it against the government like you are an attorney.  You are only ever 'allowed' to use guns in 'civil cases' like defending from a home invader, hunting, etc.  You can't knowingly shoot police serving a warrant.  If we get to the point where using guns against the government is justified then the constitution is already completely out the window and inconsequential. >
  
  But this filter also applies to the guns themselves.  If you don't have disposable wealth you can't have a gun, so the poorest people won't be able to afford their second amendment.  The way around that is to make guns free?  
  Any gun check will increase the cost of purchase and ownership, one just has to make it pay off as a greater good. >
  
  Poor people don’t have anything to lose financially from lack of insurance. 
  Rich people can afford the insurance, or lose what they got if they don’t secure their firearms. >
  
  From the article:
  
  It's very easy because you probably already have the coverage that you need," Campus Insurance Service President Erik Dandurand said.
  Dandurand said most homeowner and renter insurance policies cover what the city requires.
  
  You want a gun to protect your home (ostensibly). If you want to protect your home, you should have renter's or homeowner's insurance. Renter's or homeowner's insurance covers this requirement. If this ordinance both reduces gun violence incidents and encourages more people to carry renter's insurance, then I'd say it was a net positive.
  Really though, I am against any government insurance requirements as I don't like the state mandating that I enter into a private business agreement I otherwise maybe wouldn't, but that ship has sailed in the US. >
  
  I’m against insurance mandates that protect ‘me from me’. 
  I’m ok with mandates that protect ‘me from you’ (or vise versa). 
  If you engage in a practice that imposes inherent risk on the general public, you should be required to have the means to make people whole when that risk turns into damages. >
  
  The supreme court has long held there are different levels of scrutiny that apply to government discrimination, because, actually, some kinds of discrimination are appropriate. Discrimination against certain historically marginalized groups is held to a higher level of scrutiny, but for most cases, the only level of scrutiny that need be applied is whether or not the government has a rational reason to discriminate. And if the government does, it's fine. So, since there is clearly a rational reason to discriminate here - if you cannot pay for the damage that might be caused by owning a gun, you should not own a gun - and the group being discriminated against (people too poor to afford insurance) isn't a historically marginalized group, this is constitutional. >
  
  Very interesting!  I was hoping to hear from someone who knew more about the constitutional ramifications here.  My first instincts where that it was clearly unconstitutional , but I’m far from an expert on constitutional law that’s for sure 
  Your reasoning seems solid at first glance, and I’m going to try to  re-read this  a few times and let it digest. I may have  pester you with a question or two lol. >
  
  Guns cost money. And they cost more today than they did before. 
  That reality also prevents some low-income people that want a gun from having a gun. 
  The constitution doesn't guarantee free guns for anyone that wants one. Just the right to own one if you have the means to do so. >
  
  If I told you that free speech was a right and yet you were required to have a license to speak freely would that actually be a right? Just because some methods of speech cost money doesn’t give you the right to apply additional financial burdens on top of it as a way to prevent people from exercising their rights >
  
  If I told you you had the right to vote, but needed to purchase ID to prove you are who you say you are at the polls, would that actually be a right? >
  
  No, I’d say being forced to purchase ID to vote is also an infringement on that right >
  
  I may have phrased it poorly and it came across like I was disagreeing.
  Gun insurance is a poll tax. >
  
  Everything that costs money is discriminatory to poor people. That does not mean that it's a bad thing at any time. The sliding scale tax could be a good idea, but that's always a bit more complicated to get into the system and while it's less discriminatory, it's usually still discriminatory because many rich people don't have a large income, but instead rely on having lots of wealth.
  The gun insurance law however tries to combat irresponsible gunownership, which can save lives. I think that's a good argument that wins out against the law being discriminatory towards poor people. >
  
  Hey remember when voter id laws were unconstitutional because you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your constitutional rights?
  And that's a one time, $5 purchase. >
  
  I mean, I'm not from the US and I really have hard time seeing gun ownership as a constitutional right, so I usually don't argue with that in mind.
  Also, voter fraud by impersonation was not a problem without the voter ids, so this discrimination of the poor was not outweighed by the good it would do. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. >
  
  I mean if you don't see gun ownership as a right in the first place, this isn't a valuable conversation.
  It's like me saying "I think we need to have tougher emissions regulations on cargo ships to curb global warming" and you replying "Global warming isn't real". >
  
  Yeah, we have a fundamental difference in views. It won't be of any use arguing whether a law is worth it when it's infringing on the right of gun ownership but saving lives. That's indeed not a discussion worth having, because we'd simply end up discussing gun ownership itself. >
  
  See, we'd just end up arguing gun laws, not the actual law itself. It's not an interesting conversation like you said. >
  
  You're right.  Can't fight global warming with a climate change denier.
  I almost got sucked in lol, good save. >
  
  It’s kinda w/e with the second amendment, it’s pretty obviously that it was initially to allow for militia members to keep their arms at home, as opposed to requiring the states to own and maintain them. 
  Articles of confederation, Article one, section 10 clause 3:
  …but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
  Hence the often ignored first half of the 2nd amendment.
  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  It wasn’t really till the SC ruling in 08’ that it became an individual right to bear arms. Before that it was pretty common to have stricter rules for some areas. 
  I think my favorite example is stuff like old western movies, where everyone always has a gun on their hip. The reality was you typically had to check your gun to stay in most towns for any significant time, in fact the ‘bad guys’ were typically famous for flaunting this.
  Given the changed meaning of the second amendment overtime we are kinda constantly treading new ground, and given the current conservative tilt to the SC I don’t think we can really make accurate assumptions on what will happen with challenges. >
  
  
  It wasn’t really till the SC ruling in 08’ that it became an individual right to bear arms. Before that it was pretty common to have stricter rules for some areas. 
  
  I don't want to start an argument but I do want to point out this claim is false. You can trace back this idea all the way to Dredd Scott SCOTUS case in 1857. 
  I mean Taney specifically was arguing for why blacks weren't citizens because if they were, they could carry arms and he was a racist POS and didn't want that. (among other things like right to travel etc)
  The point being, the idea of the 2nd being an individual right is not a 'recent' invention as many would like to claim. It was recognized again in 2008 but that concept of an individual right existed well before 2008. >
  
  You are correct to an extent, but I don’t know how to adequately convey the point where some thing begins surpassing the local areas ability regulate it. Maybe individual ownership was a law that became a confirmed right in 08’ does that make more sense? Or a precedent maybe? I lack the legal language here lol. >
  
  
  You are correct to an extent, but I don’t know how to adequately convey the point where some thing begins surpassing the local areas ability regulate it. Maybe individual ownership was a law that became a confirmed right in 08’ does that make more sense? Or a precedent maybe? I lack the legal language here lol.
  
  I think the distinction is simpler.
  Even though it was an 'individual right', there has been a history of regulations on how this was exercised in different places. This is also a discussion of two components, the right to possess and the right to carry. These have been treated differently throughout history. 
  2008 was a recognition that some of these limits were not in fact constitutional. DC was notoriously strict and that they went too far - especially with regards to the concept of possession. 
  I responded because there is a common reductionist claim commonly used that the Supreme court invented the idea of a persons individual right in 2008 - as if it was not recognized as an individual right previously. There is plenty of room for the discussion of history and tradition here for regulations - but this specific point of individual vs collective right really is not up for debate. (at least as far as history goes)