[Razor]

Originally Posted by Razor

So are you saying I'm not responsible for any damage or harm I inflict with my firearms? Woohoo! Reckless neighborhood shooting spree here I come!

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I am not saying that at all. And that though of you going so pink is difficult to imagine. What I meant is there is no mandatory insurance requirement for something as inherently dangerous as a gun. Unlike a car -- which is recognized as dangerous although not deliberately designed to be so. However, when liability insurance for guns is suggested there is the inevitable outcry that it is an infringement.

Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.

I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?

I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose.