Rant

[anterus]

'Inherently dangerous' is a phrase that gets overused in the gun debate. To my mind, the only types of weapons which are inherently dangerous are Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Just about every other 'weapon,' if you leave it alone, it doesn't hurt you, or anyone else. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons can do harm by their

Comments

[anterus]

My primary complaint against the 'license to own and use a firearm' is that it's a great way to keep track of whom to suppress if the gov't ever wants to do such a thing. Firearms registration was abused in New York, when they required it (for ease of crime solving!), and then, down the road, used that information to track down and confiscate guns, once a law was passed banning them. I think the ban is in NYC, but not certain.

Now, if everyone was required, basically, to get the license, much like a driver's license is near-universal, wouldn't be a big deal, 'cause you'd be in about the same boat, since, while many people might not own firearms, they'd be basically indistinct from those who do, from a registration standpoint.

As you can tell, I'm big on lack of governmental tracking. Whole defense-against-tyranny bit.

Quick note on Concealed Carry: Vermont and Alaska don't require any license or training, only a lack of criminal intent. I've not heard about Alaska and Vermont being modern, cold, recreations of the Wild West, so I'm thinking it's not really REQUIRED to have CHPs.