On 11/6/2014 1:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:54:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/6/2014 12:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:30:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe they
should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent private sales.

Many have expressed their disagreement. That's fine. Concerns about
creating a bureaucratic monstrosity are valid but in this day and age
of computers, data base capacities and virtually instant communications,
it doesn't seem unreasonable or unobtainable to me.

To those who recite 2A infringement issues and argue "slippery slope"
concerns I remain unconvinced for the following reasons:

Federal laws have been on the books (basically since 1934), the intent
of which is to restrict certain types of firearms from being generally
available to the public. The restrictions may be in the form of
taxation to get around the authority of Congress but the result is still
restrictions. Common sense laws exist that prohibit or restrict
military type firearms and weapons as well.

A Federal law requiring that dealers be licensed exists as does the
requirement for a background check and registration for guns purchased
from a dealer. In addition, individual states have their own laws.
Some are much more restrictive than others.

So, for those arguing the 2nd Amendment and their rights to bear arms
not to be "infringed upon", I'd suggest they already are. They are
infringed upon at varying degrees, depending on what state you live in.

If those reasons are as valid as some claim, why isn't there an uproar
about eliminating *all* restrictions, background checks and registrations?

My argument is to establish reasonable laws that really don't "infringe"
on anyone's rights anymore than they already are and to make those laws
uniform throughout the country.

===

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO the federal government already
has too much power, much of which was usurped over time from the
states. One size does not fit all. Creeping bureauracracy by
efficient computer just makes the bureauracracy worse.



Ok, but it still doesn't make sense to me. As a believer in 2A rights
and being concerned about the "slippery slope" are you therefore an
advocate of eliminating *all* laws and restrictions? If not, it seems a
little hypocritical.


===

Good question, requires more thought than I'm willing to devote right
now.


On the subject of slippery slope, I know it's out there but my question
is can a judge or lawmaker legally take that into consideration when
deciding constitutional issues? Or do you have to write/pass laws
assuming they will be followed? Just wondering out loud...