...and maybe this is a difference between me and many other Democrats...
...but I'm with him on the gun thing. I've lived in dangerous places in the past; if I hadn't been single when I lived there, if I'd had a wife and children, you're damn right I'd want to have something to defend them with. An individual right to protect him/herself with a firearm, within reasonable regulations, is a good interpretation of the Second Amendment, in my opinion.
I've always been of the camp to say, if I have to legally license my dog (who is a sweetie and not dangerous in the least), you should legally have o register your gun (or guns)... simple as that.
Of course the NRA will posit the argument that a registry would provide a list wherein the government could come and take your gun, but with the 2nd Amendment protection in place, that really is a fallacious argument.
I heard someone on NPR here in DC actually make the argument that the Heller decision, having established that there is an individual right, will actually make it more difficult for groups like the NRA to argue against registration.... because now the government can't legally take away your gun.
I'm all for 100% registration. To be honest, I'm all for laws requiring trigger locks. But I think the individual right in and of itself is good, and SCOTUS was right to uphold it.
If gun ownership is an individual right then government must be very circumspect in regulating it. That is Scalia's argument in his first paragraph. Scalia's opinion gives the NRA very powerful ammunition against gun registration, arguing otherwise is absurd.
I spent a while living in Kodiak, Alaska. In fact we had those huge bears very close to where we lived. If you were going fishing or berry picking, my advice is to take a cannon, especially when the mother bears have cubs.
Federal laws need to reflect the realities of all the states, not just the cities, and that includes Alaska.
I'm OK with guns.
