[Ben Mugged]

Careful... You are starting to use the same line of reasoning the gun-grabbers use when they want to take my AR-15 away. Why allow ownership of a semi-automatic baby-killing assualt rifle with 30-round magazines when nobody really needs one. Of course, I do understand that one is protected by The Constitution while the other is not. But in the end it comes down to freedom. Prior restraint is generally a no-no in a free country. Punish speeding but don't outlaw cars capable of speeding. There are lots of dual-use items that could be outlawed if we start down that slippery slope.

A car is a very public item while a gun is not. You wouldn't permit an 18 year old to set up a gun range on a busy street but we do allow him to get behind the wheel of a 500 HP 3000 pound car on that same street.

[NonLinear]

You wouldn't permit an 18 year old to set up a gun range on a busy street but we do allow him to get behind the wheel of a 500 HP 3000 pound car on that same street.

False argument. I allow neither of my 18 year old.

It strikes me as odd that you would spend the effort arguing that a car you own should not be allowed to be sold.

Reminds me of the difference between a developer and an environmentalist. The developer wants to build a house in the woods. The environmentalist already has one.

[JamesP81]

A car is a very public item while a gun is not. You wouldn't permit an 18 year old to set up a gun range on a busy street but we do allow him to get behind the wheel of a 500 HP 3000 pound car on that same street.

Everybody likes to talk about driving not being a right, well let me hit you with one similar: when you pull out on the road, you are assuming a certain degree of risk. In short, it is legal in this country for an 18 year old to drive a 300, 400, or even 500 hp sports car. Take this fact into consideration before you get into a car, period.