[Moneyguy1]

Competentone....

Not everyone is emotionally prepared to be trusted with a firearm. I have met more than a few of these individuals in my lifetime. I would not want to live close or next to such an individual.

As far as regulation; it is far too late since there are hundreds of millions of firearms already out there, but, in my view, what is wrong with registering weapons the same way that vehicles are registered? The idea that registration somehow limits the individual's rights seems to be based more on emotion than fact. What registration does is provide some form of identification if the article in question is involved in an illegal action. Are some gun owners afraid of being held responsible for ownership and actions involving their firearms? If so, Why?

I am gun neutral. I can see their usefulness in many situations. But, I am not worried about being overly macho either, and am fairly confident so I don't need some piece of chromed steel to bolster my personal self image. Furthermore, owning an entire arsenal makes little sense unless you are, in some way, shape, or form, planning an insurrection.

Hunters, take note: Living in a rural area with free range makes for good hunting and, in some instances, property protection from individuals intent on criminal mischief and from predators. Both situations speak in the affirmative for gun ownership. City dwellers in heavily populated areas for extreme self protection appears to also fill the criteria for gun ownership. Assault weapons, originally designed for the battlefield do not fill these criteria and are not designed for individual self defense. They do not simply wound, nor are they, in the hands of an unskilled individual, very accurate.

So, I agree with individual ownership. I agree that there should, however, be some limitations on the types of weapons permitted and that it would be a positive if all weapons (which I stated above is not possible) were registered.