Quoted: Quoted: With proper training and so forth to make sure that they could handle them successfully, that's exactly what was meant." Wait just a fucking minute! When I proposed this, I was shit at and hit repeatedly. Board members were lined up around the block to tell me what a fucking dunce I was for proposing that people prove competency with a firearm to own or operate it. Rights were being abrogated. Big brother was going to abuse us. Gun right were pronounced involatile and would not be tainted with such poppy cock as that. Now Mr. Keyes says the EXACT same thing and he's a great hero for defending the 2nd amendment. To all the hypocrites out there: You guys must be related to John Kerry. You seem to have inherited his flip-flop gene.

 "With proper training and so forth..."  A minor quible I had with his statement.  Where is the qualifier in the original text (consitution, amendments, Federalist papers, etc, whatever)?  to "Prove Competency"?

 Seems to me a great sentiment that resets the clock to the Zero hour + One rule (condition of ownership).  

 (My theory:)  The contrast is that at the time guns were just another tool, commonly owned by the majority if not most all households.  Do you have a knife in your kitchen?  Same thing.  It was assumed, presumed and expected that any male, and most females, past the age of six had 'the proper training'.  But not tested, sealed, stamped and approved by a government authority.   Another example of how far we've come from the original intent.  

 Of course ICBW, and YMMV.