re: #73 DeepBlue

Why isn’t gun insurance mandatory? Let the markets decide what the cost of this should be.

Because cars are not mentioned by the Constitution*, while ‘arms’ (which has always been read to mostly be referring to firearms) are so mentioned. A Constitutional right is not a thing that can be tied to insurance, while driving, not being mentioned in the Constitution, can be. The critical doctrine here is that of Negative Liberty or the idea that that which the Constitution does not forbid is left up to the federal state governments to decide. An example: In 1997 the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution was silent on whether states could prohibit cross-party ‘fusion’ endorsements, thus leaving the issue of whether to permit or prohibit such endorsements up to the individual states to decide. Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota quickly banned such endorsements, and the ACORN-aligned# left-wing party in those states (the New Party) quickly withered). New York, by contrast, still permits such endorsements and its ACORN-aligned party (the Working Families Party) remains a going concern.

*: This is logical, since the automobile had not been invented when the Constitution was written.
#: I am using the two ACORN aligned parties to make a point about a concept of English Law, not to make a point about ACORN itself. That those parties were allied with the late ACORN is simply what they had in common, and their political views are not the subject of this post.