Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.
While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well.
Not really. The libel laws, truth in advertising laws, heck, the securities laws, all limit, sometimes substantially, what someone can say, but they aren’t for that reason unconstitutional as being laws respecting freedom of speech.
Except for a very small number of licensed individuals, most of us cannot own a fully automatic machine gun (even though we could have back in the early 1980s), and yet that is very unlikely to be held to be an unconstitutional infringement.
As a result, an insurance requirement would almost certainly pass muster, even if it resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of privately owned guns.