[RKV]

Yes guns can be dangerous, so can many other items; more people die in auto accidents in the US than from guns. Are you legally required to wait 10 days for a car purchase? No. Are you legally required to lock your car? No. Are you legally required to demonstrate competance to drive a car on your own property? No. Neither is a car a magic talisman to make you better looking or whatever.

I guess its clear that while this guy is semi-OK (he does own guns) he is still a liberal. Too bad. The idea that the state has to certify you are OK to own a gun is just wrong. As is the idea that the state should limit you to certain types of guns. Yes you should learn how to use them properly and to store them safely. That said, you should be the judge of that until a court of law proves otherwise.

[tcostell]

Well whatever he is, I think this article speaks sensibly about an important topic. Rights and responsibilities DO go together, and all of us know at least one person who shouldn't own a gun even if they are allowed to.

Personally I think he's talking sense... maybe it's the broken clock thing.

Also... for those of you who are firearms owners, if I could shove a little gunporn into this thread, my wife's gun (a similar one pictured below) has proven a ton of fun and outrageously inexpensive both to buy and to shoot. There are versions legal in 50 states and I couldn't recommend them any more highly.


For your viewing pleasure, the Romanian WASR10.

[robertpaulsen]

"The idea that the state has to certify you are OK to own a gun is just wrong."

Using your car analogy, the state does certify you to drive, requires cars to have serial numbers, requires cars to be registered, etc.

"As is the idea that the state should limit you to certain types of guns."

The citizens of the state, acting through their elected representatives, may place reasonable restrictions on any of our rights -- we do it for speech in the first amendment, for example.