On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:12:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 1:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Assume 300 million of these files existed in a data base. Not much of a
server required to maintain all those files.

===

A database and accurate registry is total anathema to those who firmly
believe in the 2nd ammendment and its original intent. Why? Think
about France and the Scandinavian countries after they were overrun by
the Germans in WW2. Think about East Germany and Poland after they
were annexed by the USSR. Think about eastern China after they were
overrun by the Jappanese. Think about Venezuela after their former
democracy was co-opted by a left leaning ultra socialist dictator.
Think about the possibility of widesperad rioting and civil
insurrection in this country.

Can't happen here? I wouldn't be so sure about that.



Just for the sake of argument:

The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the
SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be
interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and
legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a
"militia".

As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think
the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what
difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-)

Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess
but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away.



...unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be
the ultimate purpose of the legislation below?


Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer
Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly).

The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer
Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer
product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as
other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles,
car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically
excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.”

http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf



To answer your question, the ultimate purpose of this proposed
legislation is to drive people like yourself nuts. :-)

In some ways, this proposed legislation sounds similar to the way
handguns have been regulated here in Massachusetts since 1998. Every
model that a manufacturer wants to sell here must meet certain criteria
in terms of safety, as determined by a state testing agency and the whim
of the Attorney General.

It's why I can't legally buy a Kimber .45 and many other gun models.
They don't pass the safety criteria established by the state.

This is a component of the argument I've been making John. Eventually
legislation like this will be coming to Virgina and other states with
lax gun control laws, regardless of how legitimate the regulations are.
Look at what just happened in your neighboring state of Maryland.
Their new laws aren't too far away from those here in Massachusetts.

So, rather than trying to fight the tide, why not give a little?
Background checks and a gun registry in exchange for dropping much more
restrictive legislation? Everyone can claim victory and relax.


Go with the liberal flow to please the liberals...in the short term.
If and when the anti-gun liberals in Virginia get powerful enough to
change the law, then I'll live with it. Doesn't mean I'll agree with
it, or think it's the right way to go.

You have a lot more faith in that 'give a little' argument than I do.

I'd really like to see the testing which showed Kimbers 'unsafe' in
your state.