Saturday, April 20, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
In his letter, “My guns are my business,” Robert Gardner is right. As a gun owner who has never killed a person, he is not responsible for the Adam Lanzas and Jared Loughners of this world. That’s just as I, as a car owner who has never killed a person, am not responsible for the drunken drivers of the world.
Yet I, like millions of other car owners, have to obtain a license to prove that I know how to safely operate a car and must register that car every year.
On top of that, there are all sorts of laws and regulations that car owners must follow, such as speed limits and not driving while under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
Yet even though there is no constitutional amendment protecting our right to own cars, I have never heard a peep about the government trying to take away my car or restrict my right to own a car. Why is that?
It can be argued that owning a car is far more important to the American way of life than owning a gun. So why would the government want to take away your gun but not your car?
Why would people be willing to pass driving tests, register cars and follow laws and regulations in order to own a car, but resist any and all restrictions on owning guns?
If it is too much to ask gun owners to register their guns, pass safety and background tests, and abide by a few common-sense restrictions on using a gun, then it also should be too much for car owners to do the same.
Mr. Gardner points out that none of the “common sense” gun laws now being discussed would have stopped either Lanza or Loughner.
That is probably true. But the “common sense” laws against DUI have not stopped sick individuals from driving under the influence of alcohol, either.
But because of these laws, there are a lot less of these sick individuals out there driving on our roads. That’s better than nothing.