On 1/31/2013 6:07 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 1/31/2013 2:48 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:16:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Chris, that this is a mess. I'm rusty and I messed it up.

Hey, Ed -

Welcome back. I *thought* this might draw you out from under your
rock. Thanks for responding to Chris - even at your rustiest, your
writing is very well thought out and to the point.

What you said about registration is exactly what I meant. If you can't
keep track of the guns, how can you know how they are getting into the
hands of the criminals? I fail to see how this places any restrictions
on any law-abiding person to bear arms.

You *don't* know how the guns got into the hands of the bad guys, even
*with* registration. You don't know if it was stolen, borrowed, sold
outside dealer channels, or anything else. Besides, a gun first has to
be recovered from a criminal, but frequently they aren't - if the gun is
stolen, it will often be simply discarded or passed on to some other
criminal.

The only rationale you've given for registration is unsound.

================================================== ============

Let's see what a sound program would be. By the way, this system is
something like the one we will almost inevitably have, sooner or later,
so we'd might as well get it all out now.

First, universal background checks. To have background checks for
purchases from FFL holders, but not from the "collectors" gag who sell
at gun shows, is insane. Even Wayne LaPierre stumbled and bumbled trying
to explain it, knowing that it's sheer lunacy. The background check
system has stopped well over a million illegal purchases. How many just
turned around and bought from a "private" seller? We don't know. We
don't have the stats. There is a claim that only a couple of percent of
guns recovered in crimes came from gun shows, but that refers to guns
bought from FFL holders who sell at shows. We don't know how many came
from "private" sellers. We can't tell.

Second, make the background check rational. In other words, provide
enough money to police and mental health institutions to get the
databases up to date and fairly complete. Since conservatives believe in
direct fees for users in opposition to funding things from general tax
funds, finance it with a tax on guns and ammo. I'd go along with that.

Third, 100% registration at the time of sale, [...]

No. There is no sound rationale for that whatsoever. It's nothing but
a step toward ultimate confiscation, not to mention muckraking
journalists posting names and addresses of gun owners. Absolutely not -
non-negotiable.



All of that will put a damper on strawman sales.

No proof of any such sales.


Regarding the provision of money to make the databases up to date:


California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people

Despite being able to take weapons owned by felons and the mentally ill,
state officials say staff shortages and funding cuts have slowed seizures.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2013, 6:18 p.m.
SACRAMENTO — California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned
by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages
and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to
disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Those gun owners have roughly 39,000 firearms, said Stephen Lindley,
chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice,
testifying at a joint legislative hearing. His office lacks enough staff
to confiscate all the weapons, which are recorded in the state's Armed
Prohibited Persons database, he said.

The gun owners typically acquired the firearms legally, before being
convicted of a felony or diagnosed with mental illness. Each year, the
state investigates and seizes the guns of about 2,000 people on the
Armed Prohibited Persons list, Lindley said, but each year about 3,000
names are added to the list.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...0,418551.story


It is simply a lie that the government doesn't have the money to do
this. What they don't have is the organization and the will. More
money isn't necessary.