On 11/16/2014 3:29 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or
changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.







I guess I am middle of the road on this one and admit I pretty much take
Luddites side on this one. I have no problem with the govt knowing where
these things are, just like cars and explosives... Even don't have a
problem with a system that says I can't have a gun cause I smoked a
joint 35 years ago, well, maybe a little but I don't need guns anyway.
My problem is the system being fixed so heavily in favor of the far left
who believes in using information like that as a weapon against me... My
honest question last week was serious. Do you think a judge should take
the inevitable slippery slope and continued attempts by the left to
erode the constitution thing into consideration when interpreting a law
that in it's worse case "could" be used by the left to build a database
and eventually go for confiscation?