On Feb 3, 1:42*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:07:48 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:
On 2/1/2013 1:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Delvin Benet" *wrote in message
...

On 2/1/2013 10:56 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:

snip

Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. *Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. *It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more
difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the
crimes.

No, it wouldn't make it more difficult in the least. *A criminal who
steals a gun doesn't know, nor care, if that gun is registered or not.
And registration doesn't prevent, deter or discourage a criminal from
buying a gun. *A background check might help there, but not registration.

================================================== ====================
(EH)

Registration is about restricting the transfer of guns from legal
purchasers to criminals.

No, it is not. *It's about massively intrusive government getting set up
to confiscate guns.

That makes you a paranoid delusional, Delvin. There is no evidence
that the US government intends to confiscate guns. What they're trying
to do is to dry up the supply of guns to criminals. They've said it,
and there is nothing sensible to refute it.

*In other words, you've earned a spot in the Gun Nutz bucket.

--
Ed Huntress

Took you long enough to figure that out.

How much longer will it take for you to figure out all his other sock
puppets?