Reader 2Asux writes:
Readers make much ado about how the Second Amendment cannot be treated like the “privilege” of driving an automobile. One of the interesting things about being a licensed driver is the universal requirement for proof of some mandated minimum amount of liability insurance for the driver. Is it logical to require liability insurance for a “privilege” that can result in serious injury or death of others . . .
but relieve gun owners of the responsibility for having such insurance? One can argue that no one needs a license to write or say something in public, but free speech does not pose the same potential for direct injury or death of an innocent by-standing reader. Does it make sense that people exercising rights that can harm another are free from maintaining an asset to compensate a victim, but a person exercising a mere “privilege” must provide insurance against damage?
Just curious.
