Reply #51: You do generally have to have a license to carry a gun...

[benEzra]

in all but 2 states, just as you need to have a license to operate a car in public, but do not need a license to own one, to operate it on private property (whether your driveway or a racetrack), or to transport it on a trailer from one place to another. Only Vermont and Alaska do not require a license in order to carry a concealed weapon on your person in public.

FWIW, I am licensed by the state to carry a firearm for lawful purposes; to obtain that license, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, had my prints run by the FBI (clean), passed a mental health records check, took a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, passed a written test on self-defense law administered by my local sheriff's department, and demonstrated proficiency with a handgun on a shooting range, live fire. There was also considerable time spent at the sheriff's office, and a significant financial outlay in fees.

In a lot of ways, guns are regulated more tightly than cars; putting a wing on your imported Civic isn't a Federal felony, but putting a protruding handgrip on an imported rifle may be. You don't have to pass a background check to buy a car from a car dealer, but you do to buy a gun from a gun dealer. And so on.

BTW, why do you think that banning guns in cities would work any better than banning drugs in cities? (Heroin has been banned for how long in this country?)

Kucinich has seen the foolishness of that approach as it applies to drugs, but it is IMHO no more rational when applied to guns. And the law-abiding aren't the problem; Bloomberg says that 90% of shooters in NYC homicides had prior criminal records. Urban violence doesn't stem from law-abiding rural and suburban gun owners visiting the city; it stems from the social breakdown that has been engendered in the inner city itself, by years of bad policy choices and the fallout from the War on Non-Approved Herbs.