comment: >
  
  I may have phrased it poorly and it came across like I was disagreeing.
  Gun insurance is a poll tax.
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