"Randy333" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:22:14 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

Pardon me if this is obvious and I somehow missed it, but: In all the
recent talk about guns in the past few weeks (and especially in the past
few days), two themes have come up repeatedly and have met with rather
fierce opposition from the NRA. They are 1) universal background checks
and 2) gun registration.

The only objections I have heard to either of those proposals is that the
"bad guys" won't follow the rules and will have their guns anyway, and
that neither of those proposals would have prevented the Newtown
shootings.

Perhaps that is all true, but I heard this morning that, in cases where
background checks were performed, some not-insignificant number of
applicants were denied a permit because of prior criminal activity. OK,
that doesn't get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals, but
it's at least preventing some more guns from getting in the hands of some
more criminals.

I also don't see a problem with registration. Being able to trace the
ownership of a weapon from the time of its manufacture doesn't seem to me
to be a bad thing. At worst, it's a bit of paperwork. At best, it can help
track how a gun got into the hands of a criminal.

So, other than "it wouldn't stop bad guys from breaking the rules" and "it
wouldn't have prevented Newtown" (and, I might as well throw in the
inevitable jabs at me for being a gun-grabbing liberal), what are the
objections to these two measures? How do you, as presumably law-abiding
gun owners, see these actions affecting you personally?

And please, let's try to keep this civil.

Just askin'

1. I will agree with universal background checks. As long as if the
person passes the record is then destroyed.

2. I will not agree with registration. This is the first step to
confiscation since before you can grab them you need to know who was
them.

How in the **** are you going to keep guns away from looney tunes if they
already have one ?