No, actually it means that gun ownership would be decided on the whims of the government - just like car ownership. Owning and driving a car is not a right - it's a privilege. So, it makes sense that the government can make all these requirements for training, testing, insurance, etc... before they ALLOW you to own and drive a car.
I'm not speaking for Keyes, but I can go out and buy a car without government permission, even if I am not a licensed driver or even adult. There is no government record of the transaction, and I don't even need to identify myself to the dealer. I can have a felony record, and can be a non-citizen.
That dispenses with the notion of the right to buy or own cars/guns.
As long as I don't expect to operate (shoot) the vehicle (gun) on publicly-funded roads (ranges) I do not need to go through any qualification process, and no insurance requitrement.
The mantra that driving is a "privilege" is nonsese perpetrated by those who don't understand the fundamental Constitutional rights of people to move about in their world freely. However, even if we accept that driver's ed statist chestnut, the "privilege" applies only to the operation of motor vehicles on public roads, not to their ownership, or the right to transport them as non-operating cargo on public roads.
Also, if guns were treated like cars, then I could buy them from sellers in other states without involving a gun dealer. While guns would have to meet safety standards to be fired at public ranges, I could buy ones that had any level of firepower, any size large or small, etc.
I would be grateful if guns were treated like cars, never mind that our gun rights are expressed in the constitution, and car rights aren't.
Fine, but apparntly Alan's new position in this is open to such interpetations that it is not really all that clear and concise - So, if he clarifies it, then great.