[Billthedrill]

Not everyone will want to do this, of course. Let's compromise - if someone doesn't want to own a firearm, I think that they should be allowed not to do so once they undergo psychiatric evaluation by the government and after the payment of an annual fee to cover the protection they're receiving from others but not contributing to themselves. Is a license-not-to-have-to-carry such an outrageous imposition on the non-gun-owning public?

[From many - one.]

When I first read the article I was in total agreement.

Your mentioning of some who would want not to own firearms (Quakers maight be such a group) show some tinkering is necessary.

[Melas]

In a word, yes. It's incredibly stupid. I'll be the first to stand up and say that arming my wife would do more arm than good. I love her to death, but she could never shoot anyone. By the time she was convinced that harming another human being was the correct or only recourse, it would be too late. The moment would be long gone.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking her for this. These characteristics are an incredible asset in her field, medicine. Her gentle nature and "do no harm" mentality don't yield positive results from behind the trigger like they do behind a stethoscope.

[ncountylee]

Let's compromise - if someone doesn't want to own a firearm

They must post a no gun sign so that visiters know that they may be at risk.