Fine. Whatever. Call it "certification" or "registry". It is not an abridgment of your rights to demand that you know how to use the damn thing. And that includes criminals. Hmm. Complication. However, if we read the Second Amendment according to what it says, we can justify regulation as part of the security of a free state. You know, the Second Amendment? Then again, I must bear in mind that gun-advocacy rhetoric doesn't generally care about the security of a free state. You know, in my public school, they did teach firearm safety equivalent to not going near powerlines: Stay away from guns. Beyond that, your proposition of teaching the basics to every American only indoctrinates people into the culture of gun violence. Which seems to be your goal: the more guns, the merrier. And it's fairly easy: Stay away from guns. By your agenda, "Teaching everyone how not to misuse a gun" is a disingenuous characterization. You're advocating teachng children how to shoot. With public money. The government should keep its hands off your weapon, right? Unless, of course, it's handing one to you? Selfish and hypocritical. You're welcome to your paranoid fantasies and lethal force, but I find it offensive that you would use state money to indoctrinate my child into that world. Neither would I let a paranoid person teach safety. If you think this is harsh, consider your own inconsistency: This is what is, or at least was twenty-five years ago, taught in schools. At least it was at mine. It sounds to me like you're complaining for no reason. Of course, with the damage conservatives have done to the curriculum during that period, things could have changed. But it is inconsistent with what you wrote earlier in your own post. And as I've noted, it's a ridiculous and offensive proposal to use public money to indoctrinate children in the methods and philosophies of gun violence. Good. That was the point. It's almost as ridiculous as taking children away from parents who don't want their kids forcibly trained in the operation and use of firearms. It hardly constitutes teaching her how to operate and use the effing gun. Truly, Mr. Scott, that was the point I was wondering about, and when you wrote that every American "should be taught the basics of firearm safety and use", you demonstrated how ridiculous your proposition is. You keep shying away from what constitutes proper use. Answer me a question, please: Is every person who calls themselves a "responsible gun owner" responsible? I would think we could actually agree on the answer, but I'll wait for your two cents. Because I don't see why you're so afraid of a standard to describe responsible use. Er ... okay. Whatever you say. (That sentence doesn't make enough sense for me to attempt to interpret.) No, I'm simply not frightened of every possibility. So ... you're condescending for no reason at all? You're a sad joke. Neither that nor your examples are much of an answer. Besides, you left out a possibility. You could be disarmed and shot with your own weapon. And I've seen what some people consider a threat. It ain't necessarily pretty, and it ain't necessarily smart. Your oversensitivity, for instance, I would hope is limited to your online experiences. Just about everyone is capable of using a gun, Mr. Scott, and that can be scary. Even the stupid can protect themselves against imagined threats. Carrying a gun at all times because you're frightened of your neighbor is not the right outlined in the Second Amendment. If regulating a well-regulated militia is too much to ask, perhaps you should consider the wisdom of exercising this particular right of yours. My driver's license isn't what I would call "expensive". Insurance is more about the poor, and I'll skip the question about how thick you are. Answer the question: Is replacing training with number of rounds conducive to security? There is a difference between teaching reading, writing, math, honesty, &c., and teaching children how to shoot. Try an honest comparison sometime, Mr. Scott. Well, "unarmed" is certainly a fair word for it, at least. Yes, because it is domestic violence. So much for the minimal-violence response, eh? Consistency, Mr. Scott, would help reduce your appearance of dishonesty. I came across a bit yesterday where someone was bitching about the infamous 43:1 ratio, pointing out that the statistic only counted when the intruder was killed or wounded, and did not account for the number of times simply flashing a weapon sufficed. Interestingly, the gun advocates tend to shoot down any "last resort" rhetoric by flashing their guns dozens of times because they've scared themselves so badly.