It is starting to bother me when people tell me that comparing someones right to keep and bear arms is analogous to people's "rights" to drive. Some clarification is needed when people say "you don't have the right to drive your car however you like, so why should you have the right to whatever guns you want?" and conversely, "we don't ban cars because of DUI drivers" The truth is, owners of motor vehicles have more rights than gun owners, in the enjoyment of their property. I can buy a car in any state, without registering. I can buy a boat in any state without registering, I can buy a motorcycle without registering, etc. It doesn't need to be "safe to drive" or "pedestrian friendly" or even "not going to kill me immidiately". It can be a deathtrap waiting to rear its ugly head. There is no bleeding heart "save the children, don't let a deathtrap car into public hands!" outcry about the condition of cars available for public sale, is there? You can buy the most polluting, ugly, broke down, dangerous to pedestrian, nonfunctional brakes, motor ready to blow up and kill bystanders with shrapnel, etc... all without registering it. You can even drive the hell out of it, put 100k miles on it too If you own the private property to keep it on, own land to drive it, and posess the money to fuel it. Ownership of a vehicle requires NO such thing as registration. However, operating it on public roadways does require licensing. Ownership of vehicles is not a direct analogy for ownership of firearms, as cars/vehicles are still available for unrestricted use on private property, whereupon a regulated firearm does not allow for use even on your own private land. This is why people who compare your rights to own a firearm to someones privileges to drive a car need to be corrected, and why gun owners who compare mass shootings with DUI drivers are incorrect as well...as the operation of a vehicle on public roads DOES require registration and proof of ability, whereupon owning a firearm does not.