On 6/30/2015 10:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that
confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain
firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's
the whole point.

===

Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened
elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately.

What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will
register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is
nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute,
try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and
the good guys will be the only ones impacted.




I don't think universal background checks and gun registration will cure
all ills overnight. It's a start though. As years go by guns will
become more difficult to obtain by people who shouldn't or are not
permitted to legally own one.

All the gun owners that I know agree that controlling access
to firearms in their homes is part of being a responsible gun owner.
Comments have been made that a person who leaves a gun out and available
to someone who commits a crime or homicide with it shares in the blame
for the commitment of the crime. Responsible gun owners keep them
locked up in a gun safe when not in use. It seems to me that the
responsibility extends and continues to where that gun ends up when
sold or transferred. It doesn't make sense that a gun owner is
responsible while it is in his or her possession but all bets are off
when they transfer or sell it with no qualification or records kept of
the subsequent owners.

If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it
was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law).