I never said that. Do pro 2nd amendment types see invisible words? I offered concrete examples, one of which was insurance liability. Let's start taking action there. There is no invisible "and stop when we overturn the 2nd" Put your gun down-I'm not grabbing it.
If you can't discuss specific examples and get on board with specific legislation, there's no hope. I mean, legislation according to any of these ideas will have words that bind and limit it. That's how laws work.
The insurance thing is interesting. Most insurance the actual rate isn't set, the requirement to have it is, and then the liability is determined by the carriers. In some specific instances the government steps in to essentially subsidize the rate, or maybe be the issuer (like flood insurance), but I'm curious what you think would be a sufficient number to achieve your outcome.
For instance, in this recent Florida shooting, the $1000 number you cited, I see two problems with that. The first is that for a 19 year old, $1,000 isn't an insurmountable amount of cash, it's less than the total all-in cost of a vehicle at this point, which would still make the gun preferable to the van as an instrument of mass destruction. Likewise, based on a rough calculation, I don't think the liability for gun violence would end up causing the premium for gun insurance to be $1,000/yr. It's going to be closer to $50.00.
You could set the insured amount higher, require 1mil in insurance per round capacity, but that's really easy to get around and would only boost sales of one round clips and kill sales of revolvers.
There's also the problem of when it gets paid. There's a ton of things that require insurance now where you essentially get billed for it, so the problem of someone going to the store, signing up for the insurance, walking out with the guns and ammo, committing the crime, and suicide before paying the insurance bill, that's still there.
If you mean more like a bonding type thing, where you have to be bonded to own a gun, and it's a very expensive bond, on the order of fifty thousand or so, that would probably work. You'd certainly stop most kids from being able to pull it off, and most adults too would end up trading the gun in for the return of the bond, using the cash to get their life back in order before they needed to go postal. I like the bond idea, maybe grandfather it so we deal with this for another couple decades before the problem goes away.
But that's what he meant Wexler. He meant that your solutions have problems that won't prevent alot of this in the near term, and so he doesn't believe you when you say you won't come take his guns. Because while I'm on board with trying something, this isn't an irrational fear:
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!
This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S. It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop. So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this. You can point out, and it is totally fair to do it:
To the second amendment advocates: Get your shit together, work this out, keep this stuff from happening, or we will call a constitutional convention and you will lose this right.