So how can placing an additional cost on the ownership of a weapon be any more of an infringement?
Wow, really? Here, let me make it simple.
You're not American, but here in the US, we have the right to free speech.
If the government required you carry libel and slander insurance to post on a forum, because it COULD happen, would you be ok with that? I wouldn't, and it would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.
How the **** did you come to that conclusion? Especially considering I said, very specifically, NOPE. That means no. Negative. Nay.
Not really a strawman. You have the right to own weapons provided that you can afford to own weapons since those weapons are not provided freely along with those rights.
It is, as nobody claimed that providing a gun to someone should have been required. It's a strawman of your own making. (well, your "side", and you've continued with it. )
Does the government also need to provide printing presses and computers so that someone can express free speech and free press?
No.
And you don't address the point.
There's no reason to address it. It's a dumb point, and not worth my time to address the obvious.
Where does the 2A give you the right to sell or gift a weapon to another person?
In the laws that say that I can, and nothing I did violated any laws.
You said on another thread that you was all for background checks for everyone. And on this thread you describe gifting a weapon and ammunition to someone. Did you do a background check?
Nope, I didn't. Two reasons.
1- Not required by law. If it was, I would have gone with him to pay for that too.
2- It's my very good friend, whom I have known for over 25 years, and as such, know he is legally allowed, and mentally stable.
No I'm countering the argument that the government can't impose an additional cost upon gun ownership by pointing out that gun ownership already costs money.
So does protesting, free speech, etc. However, it is the UNNECESSARY burden that is the problem.
It's still a cost, something which you are at pains to claim is contrary to your right to bear arms.
Just because it is a one off doesn't negate that the cost involved has nothing to do with the physical gun, but everything to do with the gun owner.
No pains needed. See the SCOTUS case called "McDonald". It ruled unnecessary fees unconstitutional. Please feel free to study it.
And if, like your friend, you have no money?
Not my problem. Don't kick in my door, and you'll never have to worry about it.
How do I pay my medical bills? Get compensated for loss of earnings?
Talk to your insurance company. It's not my problem. Again, don't kick in my door, and you won't need to worry.
There's no need to be rude.
That's actually quite polite, considering what I REALLY want to say. Trust me, that's mild.
Also, I am skeptical of your claim.
I do seriously sympathise with those gun owners who are being told that they will have to pay enormous sums of money to obtain the insurance.
I am skeptical of that, but since you've no way to prove that, we'll go with it.
If this is the case then the insurance companies are either fleecing their customers or they perceive the risk of gun ownership to be so great that none of you can actually be trusted to own weapons.
Or maybe the premiums won't be nearly as high as certain news stories would have you believe.
Hence, insurance should not be required, and likely never will.
That's kind of irrelevant as I was originally responding to someone who claimed that this insurance proposal violated the 2nd.