

So, like, what do you do during those six months to be "active?"
My town has a similar requirement, and it's rather stupid.  Before
you can buy a handgun, you have to be an active member of a gun club.
Well, how active can you be without a gun, chief?

Most gun owners feel a check of criminal records for crimes and mental
disorders would be a very good thing -- IF it couldn't be abused by the
government.  But every time this is proposed, there is always some
trapdoor by which the government can deny your purchase EVEN IF you
are perfectly qualified to own a gun.  And we oppose this.


Since the fatal accident rate for licensed automobile drivers in the US 
is around 50 times the fatal accident rate of largely unlicensed gun
owners, I'd think twice before using this analogy.

Besides, the problem is criminal use of guns, not accidents.  (There
are about 500,000 criminal uses of guns in the US every year -- but
only 1,400 accidents.)  I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot
of energy making sure a criminal CAN shoot a gun before he gets one.

Just like the check, most gun owners feel positively about requiring
safety courses -- IF they couldn't be abused by the government.  But 
they already have!  One state doesn't hold the courses, another doesn't 
fund them, a third holds them only once a year with limited attendence 
to those with political connections.  Is this fair?


And how many of them acquire these guns from legal retail outlets?
How many are borrowed, stolen, smuggled, bought on the black market?


Some states allow ONLY open carry.  Some allow ONLY concealed carry.
Some allow both.  Some allow both, but require licenses for concealed 
carry.  All you can say is if one of these modes has a clear advantage
over another in terms of reducing crime or any other public good,
then state legislators SOMEPLACE are doing exactly the wrong thing.
Which means that they really don't have any objective reasons for 
these laws other than their preferences -- a bad way to govern.


("Hot-livered."  I LOVE that expression.  Here, we say "hot-headed.")


Typically, the only criminals who can affect the rights of ALL the other
people are criminals in government offices.  The rest of our criminals
affect the rights of only one or a few people at a time, and they do this
during the commission of a crime.  POSSESSION of a gun by someone hurts
NO ONE else.  It is when they do something violent with that gun that
the crime occurs.  Of course, it is a crime for a felon or ex-felon to
possess a gun, but we don't feel it is right to treat common citizens
who have lived good lives as if they were just "pre-felons" waiting to
commit crimes.


I don't understand this sentence.


Life isn't fair.  I shouldn't need a fire extinguisher either, or
flood and theft insurance, or to lock the doors of my house and car.
But pining for a better world won't do anything to address what I have
to do to live in this one.


None of ours, I'm sure.


Frankly, I'm not sure I know what good a driver's license does anyone,
either.  The people who drive safely never use it, and the people who 
drive drunk, drive without it!

However, a car is a good tool, but not one that protects my right to life.
I rank the right to life somewhere north of the right to travel freely.


The question is not whether or not you want to own guns personally.  It's
whether or not you think that ALL people should be forced to do as you do.
I don't have any problem with someone who says they would never own a gun.
I do have a problem with someone who says I should be prevented from owning
one, too.
-- 