Is Owning a Gun More or Less Embarrassing Than Hiring an Illegal Alien?

Is it significant that the 63 questions would-be Obama appointees have to answer include a query about gun ownership? Question 59, which comes right after one about "any websites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity" and right before one about the applicant's medical condition, reads:

Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also described how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

Some Second Amendment advocates have taken offense at this question, which appears to be unprecedented and which they think reflects Obama's lack of enthusiasm for gun rights. But an Obama aide told Politico "the intent of the gun question is to determine legal permitting." In other words, just as the questions about "domestic help" do not imply that anyone who has ever paid someone to clean his house can forget about working in the Obama administration, the question about firearms does not mean gun owners are automatically disqualified. Obama's transition team just wants to make sure all legal niceties have been observed, so there aren't any embarrassing surprises.

Although that sounds plausible, there are many other things an applicant might possess that raise issues of legal compliance and of damages to others but are not specifically mentioned in the questionnaire, including cars, boats, pets, swimming pools, and trampolines. The selection of guns out of all the dangerous and/or regulated things people own is telling, I think, and suggests that gun ownership itself might be deemed an embarrassment, at least past a certain threshold. Note that the question assumes no one applying for a job in the Obama administration would own more than one gun. It also assumes gun-owning job candidates would be subject to registration requirements, which apply in only a small fraction of the country.

Here (PDF) is the complete list of questions.

Comments

[Naga Sadow]

Sullum,

I live in Mississippi. I don't understand the question.

[Episiarch]

It also assumes gun-owning job candidates would be subject to registration requirements, which apply in only a small fraction of the country

I noticed that. And they want "complete ownership information?" WTF? Maybe they should ask for a list of songs on the applicant's iPod, too.

[R C Dean]

Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?

Yes.

If so, provide complete ownership and registration information.

None of my guns are registered because there is no way to do so in Texas.

All guns owned by me and my wife are owned by me and my wife. I suspect they are probably community property, and thus, jointly owned.

Has the registration ever lapsed?

N/A.

Please also described how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

Our guns are used by us for hunting, recreation, and are available for use in self-defense (although this last has not (yet) been necessary).

There have been no personal injuries to humans (unless you count a certain ringing in my ears) or property damage (unless you count numerous paper targets, cans and bottles that have suffered terminal damage).

[John]

It just shows they are ignorant buffoons who have never owned a gun. Most guns are not registered and most states do no require them to be registered. I own several guns and none of them are registered. In fact if your guns are family heirlooms, which some of mine are, they come from a more civilized time when gun registration was just not done. These people are ignorant clowns whose views on weapons are nothing short of superstitious. You have a gun? Is it registered? It hasn't killed any of your children has it?

[Paul]

Honestly, I just think they're making a preemptive strike against potential administration embarassments. You don't want a known anti-gun party and administration (to be) found that cabinet member 'x' fired his gun in anger, drunk, in his undies whilst standing on his front lawn yelling about those damned 'mexicans takin' over all the good jobs.

[Nigel Watt]

I'm not aware of any guns that have been "the cause of any personal injuries or property damage", just like I'm not aware of any violins that have been "the cause of any concerto".

[keith]

I see this as a good thing: Team D has come far along on gun ownership that they want to proactively prevent a Zoe-Baird-of-Guns in this administration. Don't you think they'd get skewered by both sides (the left: you own teh illegal gunz!?! the right: another case of "do what I say, not what I do" elitist regulators) if it turns out they have a Zoe-Baird-of-Guns on staff? Clearly they expect someone (Richardson?) to fill in the question. That's progress!

[shecky]

Owning an "unregistered gun" where registration may be required could prove embarrassing to the Obama administration. Same with the other issues raised in the questionnaire. It would be surprising if a politician did not vet his/her staff in such a way.

This is exactly the sort of thing that McCain should have done with his VP pick, if only to be one step ahead of the spin. Not to worry. Over the next four years, well hear plenty about the skeletons in the closets of Obama's administration, despite all efforts to exorcise them ahead of time.

[thoreau]

This is a tempest in a teapot. Those who own guns in states without registration requirements simply say "NA, [insert state name here] has no registration requirements."

They want to avoid embarrassing scandals, and a revelation of somebody who thinks gun laws are for little people but not for him/her would be an embarrassment.

[tired dog]

The BHO regime will move to mandate registration for all guns once the new and expansive federal EBR ban is enacted.

The states will be incentivized to enact parallel laws in the same way each embraced the 21 drinking age; the threat of held back free fed money.

De-facto state and national registration will exist once BHO CLOSES THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, which will simply PROHIBIT ALL PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL GUN SALES AND TRANSFERS. Even inherited weapons will have to be transferred from your estate to the heir via police dept/FBI/NICS paperwork.

Every state will fall in line, not one will risk loss of the free fed money.

Cheers

[Bob]

Seems that the elitist in this country feel it's wrong to own a gun, they just hire a professional to carry one for them.

Governments prefer unarmed peasants.

[joe]

thoreau | November 24, 2008, 4:08pm | #

This is a tempest in a teapot.

I predict zero comments casting aspersions on this question from anyone except those who spent the past year denouncing Barack Obama's candidacy.

[BJC]

It is super-easy to own an "illegal assault weapon" in California - the list is huge. There are probably a couple other states where this is the case.

Since everyone loves to cry "hypocrisy," I think this question is just so any people who might be related to gun control policy aren't embarrassing.

[Abdul]

The vetters may have assumed that a liberal who violated gun registration laws in their jurisdiction (and most jurisdictions requiring registration are liberal) would look like more of a hypocrite than a conservative who never beleived in such laws in the first place. They're largely right.

[Alan Vanneman]

You forget that the Democrats won the election, and lots of Democrats just don't like guns, no matter what Justice Scalia says. Abortion is a "right," just like owning a gun, but I doubt if George Bush would have appointed a physician who had performed one, or a woman who said she had had one.

[robc]

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Mostly so, The most troubling part isnt the idiotic registration question (because N/A works just fine) but the "provide complete ownership" part. Fuck no. Its none of your damn business what guns I (as a potential appointee, heh) own.

If my state doesnt need to know, you dont need to know either.

I predict zero comments casting aspersions on this question from anyone except those who spent the past year denouncing Barack Obama's candidacy.

Wrong already. Although I guess I did denounce it in the "Barr is better" sense.

[robc]

Before anyone picks on my use of "it" above, that was in reference to candidacy, not BHO.

[John]

What state actually does require registration? Maryland doesn't it is about as illiberal and corrupt as they come.

[John]

Alan is right. Most Dems more ignorant and most superstious about guns than the biggest fundie is about stem cell research. They have an irrational hatred of guns and the people who own them. So it makes sense they would want to make sure none of that group snuck into the Administration.

[thoreau]

robc-

1) They're applying to be political appointees. Surrendering privacy comes with the territory.

2) If they're going to check on whether a potential political appointee is complying with gun laws, they need enough info to verify compliance with the law.

3) I don't think it's such a bad thing to make sure that political appointees are complying with firearms laws.

[shecky]

Mostly so, The most troubling part isnt the idiotic registration question (because N/A works just fine) but the "provide complete ownership" part. Fuck no. Its none of your damn business what guns I (as a potential appointee, heh) own.

Nobody is force to become a political appointee. If one feels it's nobody's business, I suppose the sentiment could be expressed. Assuming one actually wants the job, it may put the position in jeopardy, though.

I would ask about guns beyond those that are "registered". That .38 your ex brother in law gave you twenty years ago my have an embarrassing past of it's own. Or a firearm sold without consent of an official FFL transfer or whatever it takes these days, may also turn out to be a political risk.

[Bob]

I don't have a problem with law abiding citizens owning any gun they want. I think that there are too many people out there that have them and are not being held responsible for them. Make it a law if you own a gun you have to have a gun safe to keep it secure. If your kid gets it and takes it to school and uses it then I think you as the gun owner should face charges. Like the drinking law you should not be able to own a gun till your 21.
Don't screw with the "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"

[robc]

thoreau,

I have no problem with "list all registered and/or illegal firearms"

I also have no problem with "do you have any unregistered firearms?"

The "list all unregistered firearms" is the problematic one for me.

Question #10 is funny. I dont think I can comply within my lifetime with it or #13.

[robc]

Bob,

Fuck gun safes, when you (and Im watching you closely) break into my house in the middle of the night, Im not going to the safe to get it.

[robc]

Did everyone notice "Clinton" written next to #31. 🙂

[Paul]

except those who spent the past year denouncing Barack Obama's candidacy.

So Hillary Clinton will come out swinging on this?

[Bob]

You're an idiot. Who said anything about "night" Just secure your guns when it's not on your person or in your control that all.

[bc]

JS writes: "there are many other things an applicant might possess that raise issues of legal compliance and of damages to others but are not specifically mentioned in the questionnaire, including cars, boats, pets, swimming pools, and trampolines."

Right. Why try to keep the list of questions short by limiting it to addressing known contrversial items? I'm sure he could easily run the list to a few hundred questions no problem. You know, to get out in front of the anti-trampoline lobby that is just waiting to jump on the first nominee whose back yard trampoline once caused a broken arm. That's just smart politics, right?

[Bill]

"Do you or anyone in your family own any of the following:

- steak knife
- baseball bat
- hockey stick
- rolling pin
- frying pan
- fireplace poker
- piece of metal pipe
- pointy stick
- brick
- rock

..."

[Mad Max]

Check out item #10 (copies of blog posts *and comments,* "if available," plus all Internet handles) and item #13 (potentially embarassing emails *and IMs*).

[robc]

Bob,

My gun is perfectly secure where it is, no gun safe necessary. The idiot is the person who thinks gun safes make things safer.

[Paul]

raise issues of legal compliance and of damages to others but are not specifically mentioned in the questionnaire, including cars, boats, pets, swimming pools, and trampolines."

You forgot lawn darts.

Check out item #10 (copies of blog posts *and comments,* "if available," plus all Internet handles) and item #13 (potentially embarassing emails *and IMs*).

Good lord, typical central planning Democrats. What, there's not law or regulation for it? Well we'll just list everything in the world that could be embarassing!!!

They could condense that whole damned thing into one question:

#1 Is there anything documented anywhere that you said or did that could look ugly for the administration?

[MikeP]

I'd like to apologize one last time for my unfortunate remarks at the United Nations.

[D.A. Ridgely]

I'm not smart enough to figure out what Joe was predicting, but I'm with Thoreau here. This almost certainly isn't some below the radar signal of Obama's impending opposition to firearms, but simply an attempt at vetting political appointees against "gotcha" stories. Yeah, that guns and not a zillion other things made the 63 questions is suggestive of their concerns, I don't see much more to it than that. Next!

[Bob]

robc

Your gun is secure, that is perfect. So you should not have a problem with a law that holds a person liable for the crimes committed with there firearm then. I know that a gun safe would be more secure then a night stand. You have to have standards and 2.5 inches of steel and 1000 lbs would surly stop a kid or most non-professional thieves.

[juris imprudent]

...that cabinet member 'x' fired his gun in anger, drunk, in his undies whilst standing on his front lawn yelling about those damned 'mexicans takin' over all the good jobs.

Wow, until you hit the part about "mexicans" I was thinking Carl Rowan was being resurrected for a cabinet post.

Even dead he'd probably make a good press secretary.

[bigbigslacker]

This might only be Obama protecting himself from any illegal immigrant cleaning woman type incidents. But, the issue of owning an undocumented firearm might come up if Barak's party was thinking of incorporating that issue into "sensible gun control legislation". He may be fending off future charges of hypocricy while at the same time establishing it's OK to ask this sort of question of federal employees, proven by his asking this of his own staff. I think future attempts at gun control are going to be in baby steps that even gun owners are supposed to find reasonable (as with the expired federal assault weapon ban) like documentation of private sales, documentation of possession of existing firearms, limits on purchases, waiting periods, magazine limits, energy/caliber limits. So, while he may be wanting to avoid a gotcha, he may be doing so because he expects the issue to come up during the hoopla to come.

Did I just state the totally obvious?

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Is this the part where somebody says Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun?

[juris imprudent]

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun?

I believe you just did. Trite but true.

[Ted Kennedy\'s Booze]

I have to admit, I played just as significiant a role as the car.

[James Ard]

Considering Obama will be hiring some buddies from home, the Southside of Chicago, the question is a must. The administration can tolerate only a certain percentage of those friends with gun trouble, maybe 60 or 70%.

[joe]

robc,

They background check on political appointees typically includes list of old girlfriends and the like.

It's pretty tough to see snooping into whether you ever did anything stupid with a gun as any more out of bounds than whether you ever dated a really hot member of the Workers World Party.

[Russ 2000]

The fewer government officials with guns, the better.

[Qwiktree]

Gun registration?
Have you ever had to submit to a background check to purchase a firearm?
Do you really believe that information is only kept for a limited time period?
That record does not disappear no matter what they tell you or what you think.

[Guy Montag]

NS and RCD pretty much got my answer already 🙂

Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?

Yes.

If so, provide complete ownership and registration information.

Well, I can see if I still have the bill of sale on mine, but you will have to ask my immediate relative adult son for his yourself.

However, as you may already know from the wording in this trick question, the dealer who sold the guns to me has to maintain records for several years. You have the authority to get copies from them, I do not have such authority.

Has the registration ever lapsed?

No. ROFLMAO! It is impossible for that to happen.

Please also described how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

Well, let me see here . . . For my firearms, I load them with the appropriate ammunition and fire them in the appropriate places. No complaints yet, except for folks who were shooting badly when I was doing pretty good.

[Larry]

Owning guns is not embarassing to me. I own more than 1 but will not say how many. When asked this question - usually by females - I asked them how many diamonds or shoes they own. My guns are not registered. Ohio has no requirement to do so and I avoid buying new guns. How they are used depends on the gun in question - and the fact that to date no bad guy has entered my home uninvited.

[Captain Holly]

While I yield to no one when it comes to mistrusting our Dear Leader on the subject of firearms, these questions make sense when one considers many of the persons who wish to work in the Obama Administration already live in Washington, DC.

This is to prevent an embarrassing situation like the one that West Virgina Senator Jay Rockfeller found himself in. During the debate over the original "Assault Weapons" ban, he freely admitted in a TV interview that he owned an AR-15 and stored it under his bed at home.

After his aides undoubtedly informed him that he had just admitted to a felony, he later "clarified" that he was talking about his home in West Virgina, not Washington, DC.

[mediageek]

Sorry, but I have a hard time getting all outraged about this.

*shrugs*

[Other Matt]

Sorry, but I have a hard time getting all outraged about this.

*shrugs*

I'm not outraged, either, but then again I don't believe either of us believed his "I'm not going to try to take your guns" line. It's kind of expected to me, as I'm sure it's just the very tip of an extremely anti gun iceberg about to rammed soundly up our collective asses.

[Ashram]

If bans on guns would be successful, I wonder if it will get to the point where you may be asked if you know martial arts?

Because if you do, you'll be imprisoned/executed/lobotomized since such knowledge can't be merely forgotten like dragging a file to the trash bin on my Mac and emptying it. Any threat to the authority of the state by the people would have to be dealt with.

That's the problem with a disarmament agenda; it doesn't stop until any possibility and capability of offensive action is completely stripped from the people. It's definitely more than just guns.

Defend your right to keep and bear arms, including fighting every gun control law and owning as many guns and ammo as you can, to keep such an agenda from escalating. If you think it can't happen, look towards England: knives are being banned and it likely will not stop from there unless her people are willing to vote against anti-individualist leaders, break bad laws and fight back against politicians and bureaucrats who only care about them when it comes to collecting taxes, getting votes in elections, and controlling them with Orwellian tyranny.

I view the ethical ownership of a gun (as in, your gun serves to enable you to defend you and others, not to hurt others in commission of a crime) with unyielding pride and respect. This pride and respect goes up further when your skill at shooting becomes excellent and are also a stickler for safety.

It's like being an expert at a martial art: it is absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about.

That is, unless you are Sarah Brady when a particular gift she got for her son became public knowledge.

[t in mi]

Wheres the question on drug use?

[Other Matt]

That is, unless you are Sarah Brady when a particular gift she got for her son became public knowledge.

Especially if she didn't follow her own rules.

If bans on guns would be successful, I wonder if it will get to the point where you may be asked if you know martial arts?

You'd be surprised at the number of teachers who don't publicly teach simply because it's currently in the "licensing" phase. Like firearm ownership, "licensing" is the first step towards elimination.

The funny part is all these people who have the bizarre view that "the police" are on such a pedestal when it comes to such knowledge. They don't realize that the majority of firearm instructors are simple "civilians" and don't wear any particular uniform. Last class I taught had three Sheriff deputies, a couple of State Patrol types, and two Marines.

[Ray]

"Complete ownership and registration history" could indeed be embarrassing. Love the old EBRs myself, but this is reason.com; think about it:

Deputy Chief of Staff Owns Gun of Son of Sam

Or whatever. You can get painted as a kook with a bad gun. Or, what if it had been a gun that was used in a crime? Ouchies...

[Redneck John]

I own guns. LOTS of guns. Some are illegal: VERY ILLEGAL. But I dont employ Illegals: (WET BACKS), or lease any of my residential rentals to them. Now if that makes me a gun toting red neck racist; good. Ive worked hard to get that way and am very PROUD of it.

[Steve]

Being a gun owner is the new "minority" The same irrational, hateful, uninformed, fearful prejudices against gun owners now surfaces and is akin to the prejudices against people of color, gay or lesbian, jews, etc etc. It seems that legislation is in order to include gun owners in the "protected" class for employment purposes. Something like "...regardless of race, creed, color, national origin or gun ownership" You would think that this would be redundant to the second amendment. However the phrase "all men are created equal" didn't stop 100 years of racism, sexism, homophobia and all the other small minded extremes. So, fellow gun owners welcome to second class citizenry. Time to lobby for equal rights. The irony, of course, is that the new hate group is the old "civil rights" group. The democratic elitists now out of the closet as gun owner haters and bigots. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Peter Caroline]

I can't imagine any intelligent, well-informed gun owner who would even accept a job with the Obama administration.

[Deb]

The basic, plain answers to the vetting question about guns would/should be enough. Just remember, more Democrats are buying guns than ever. Like other Civil Rights, gun ownership and the 2nd ammendment is a non-partisan issue. Yes, the democrats won this election. But not all of the elected are on board with the 'assault weapons ban', and certainly not all their constituents are. Gun toting Democrats, like me, should be planning to be loud and vocal in support of Gun Rights when/if the issue comes before congress/ and congressional committees. Silence implies agreement. It is not the time to be silent on this issue. Dems want choice, too, including the choice to carry for self defence.

[Deb]

... Sorry... "...including the choice to carry for self DEFENSE." Correct spelling helps the argument...

[varmintcaller]

robc
When someone steals your car and runs over some one, I think you should be liable

[Jon]

Deb - whether it is defence or defense really depends on where you are from. I tend to use them interchangeably, but then, I lived in England for a few years, so sometimes honor becomes honour. And I keep a loaded pistol under my bed, a shotgun under my wife's side, and my son knows they are there. Of course, he isn't likely to take a gun to school, unless he brings one out into the living room, because he is homeschooled.

[Bob]

varmintcaller

"When someone steals your car and runs over some one, I think you should be liable"

If you left the keys in it.

[Bob]

This is why people are pushing for gun control.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) Police in this small eastern Arizona community are looking into the possibility that an 8-year-old boy who is charged with killing his father and another man with a rifle had been abused, the police chief said Saturday.

The boy, who faces two counts of premeditated murder, did not act on the spur of the moment, Police Chief Roy Melnick said.

"I'm not accusing anybody of anything at this point," he said Saturday. "But we're certainly going to look at the abuse part of this. He's 8 years old. He just doesn't decide one day that he's going to shoot his father and shoot his father's friend for no reason. Something led up to this."

A judge determined Friday that there was probable cause to show the boy fatally shot his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos, with a .22-caliber rifle.

Under Arizona law, charges can be filed against anyone 8 or older. The judge ordered a psychological evaluation.

The boy had no record of complaints with Arizona Child Protective Services, said Apache County Attorney Brad Carlyon.

"He had no record of any kind, not even a disciplinary record at school," he said. "He has never been in trouble before."

[Woodpiggie]

Anyone who watches tv dramas or Hollywood movies knows that guns and gun owners are pure evil, and coke snorting punks like a certain pres. elect had to admit to being, are moral exemplars, and the future of America.

[David TN]

Any questions about Drug use/convictions? Shows what they think about our Freedom to own firearms.

[Tom]

Well we all know that god....I mean Obama is a major anti-gun person. Then add Bidon who came up with the Cliton gun ban, our gun rights are going to be under attack like never before. Just remember there have been other Anti-gun leaders. See if you all can place this, "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more effective and the world will follow our lead into the future." That was part of a speech given my Adolf Hitler 1935. Fear a government that fears its people being armed. And for the people who do not care about gun rights, its only a matter of time before they go after a right you do care about. Once one right falls the others will follow.

[DAVID A FREITAS]

BILL RICHARD GOV MEXICO HAS A CCL WILL HE STILL GET THE JOB

[bill d]

I listen to johnny rebel & follow david dukes teachings.... would i be hired?

[Emdfl]

Bob-
The people pushing gun control could care less about some 8 year old who just killed somebody - except in the context of how they can use the incident to push that same agenda. But you already know that.

[Bob]

"The people pushing gun control could care less about some 8 year old who just killed somebody - except in the context of how they can use the incident to push that same agenda. But you already know that."

Agreed, turn on your local news crimes involving guns is out of control. I just think if you own a gun you should be responsible. It seems to me that a lot of the crimes are being committed by people who should not be in procession of a gun in the first place. I would hate to think that everyone should pay for the many that wont secure there guns. Lets not give them the fuel to feed there anti-gun agenda. Support a law to hold people responsible for there deadly weapons. It won't take many doing hard time before people change

[Jim In Houston]

Bob: "It seems to me that a lot of the crimes are being committed by people who should not be in procession of a gun in the first place. I would hate to think that everyone should pay for the many that wont secure there guns. Lets not give them the fuel to feed there anti-gun agenda. Support a law to hold people responsible for there deadly weapons. It won't take many doing hard time before people change"

But Bob, these crimes are almost ALL committed by CRIMINALS. And you're right, they shouldn't have guns and there are already many laws that prohibit them from owning guns (how's that working for us?) Laws about securing guns don't affect them. Keeping a gun "insecure" and ready to shoot is part of what they do for a living! And there IS a law (in fact many laws) making them responsible for use of guns. All we need to do is enforce these laws ruthlessly. Adding more laws that only affect the good guys is both stupid and counterproductive.

[GUN OWNER IN THE SOCIALIST STA]

Does the questionaire asks whether you or any member used drugs or does any one in your family have homosexual tendencies.......What do these have have to do with whether or not you can do the job....

[arthur]

Do they also ask how much Cocaine you have on hand?

[jay]

This is a way to weed out people that might hinder their gun control agenda. Stay engaged and ring the phones off the fkn wall of your elected crooks when they begin the quest to disarm!

[Matt]

I agree with all of you, they are abunch of idiots.

Guns don't kill people , people kill people !.

All my guns come from the family and are not registered.

[Kim]

My two cents: This rediculous question has more to do with the D.C. vs. Heller decision. President-elect Hussien is on-record against overturning the handgun ban there. now think what it would look like if one of his new employees brought a gun to the beltway and got into a little 'road-rage'. It's 'cover your ass' kind of stuff.

[tim]

say what now?

[tim]

hiring an alien?

[tim burke]

stuied criminals killing people

[Zac]

I dont get the question. Just leave the issue alone and let us keep our guns

[Jim G.]

I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus. What about the question (# 17) regarding membership in Frayternal Organisations ?? How about our friends in groups like B'nai Brith, who belong to ethnic- or religous-based organisations ??

[Legion7]

Back to Kennedy's car. A firearm is a very portable item, but not really that great for creating true chaos. Just ask the little old man who recently plowed his car through a crowd in Kalifornia. We need to ban cars, not firearms, as car are weapons (ask the Cops) that can't really be used to defend yourself with. If someone breaks into me home, I'm not reaching for my CAR. However, drunks kill how many innocent people behind the wheel? If you're disgruntled and psychotic, grab your keys, not a gun!!! Also, guns aren't the possible cause of global warming either. Lets ban things that are REALLY dangerous, cars, swimming pools, bathtubs, etc. Those questions would be on my vetting roster.