On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?

On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

===

It would be very difficult. What would be easy however is to turn a
lot of people into criminals just like prohibition and the war on
drugs. Prohibition came about because of a concerted effort by a lot
of well intentioned but misguided individuals, same with the war on
drugs. Both had (have) unintended consequences far beyond what was
originally envisioned. I firmy believe that increased gun legislation
would end up the same way. Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.

On 1/8/2016 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

===

It would be very difficult. What would be easy however is to turn a
lot of people into criminals just like prohibition and the war on
drugs. Prohibition came about because of a concerted effort by a lot
of well intentioned but misguided individuals, same with the war on
drugs. Both had (have) unintended consequences far beyond what was
originally envisioned. I firmy believe that increased gun legislation
would end up the same way. Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.



If you recall that was tried with boats years ago as part of a "luxury"
tax. Didn't last long. In fact, Congress passed it in 1991 and Bush
41 signed it into law. It was canned two years later.

Wow. A boating reference.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:33:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.



If you recall that was tried with boats years ago as part of a "luxury"
tax. Didn't last long. In fact, Congress passed it in 1991 and Bush
41 signed it into law. It was canned two years later.

Wow. A boating reference.

Two in one night. I am amazed.

I do think the luxury tax is not comparable tho because it was
defeated because it killed jobs.
A registration tax would be seen like the myriad of other "sin taxes"
and we already got used to paying registration taxes on the other
things we register (houses, cars, boats and now even toys.)

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

I think it will only be taxes

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.

On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.