Reply #60: and a few rebuttals [View All]

With regard to reporting of stolen guns; this seems to me to be nothing more than a feel good law with no real purpose other than to vilify a victim of a theft for not being aware of said theft.

Actually, it is a deterrent to straw purchases and illegal transfers.

Not an especially effective one, but it is too plainly the purpose.

If we are trying to address non-law abiding owners, isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that they would comply with any law that would incriminate them to possession of a firearm?

It's no stretch at all to think that a non-career criminal pressed into making a straw purchase, or an average not especially thoughtful individual considering making a private transfer of their firearm to a questionable individual, would think twice if they planned to come up with the "dog ate my homework" excuse when the gun was used in a crime and traced back to them. If they hadn't reported the theft, the excuse would not be very credible. So requiring reporting impresses on them that they should not try evading the law in other ways.


Using myself as an example, I own in excess of 200 firearms. Granted, with exception of my duty gun, they are kept in a locked vault, or otherwise secured against unauthorized access, but I could see such a law requiring me to take inventory every time that I return home from any absence, just to keep from being prosecuted for the crime of not knowing about a theft.

So?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119761

What happens when someone does not keep tabs.

Your choice to own all that crap; your responsibility to keep track of it.


Laws with regard to access are, in my opinion, government overstepping their authority into the private lives of citizens. I prefer my government outside of the home, not inside of it.

You're all right, Jack ...

What you do in your bedroom affects no one else. (You know, it was a Canadian who spoke the famous words: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.)

The firearms you keep in your home have the potential to affect many other people, with devastating consequences.

Grow up and stop using big words to say "you aren't the boss of me". It sounds the same no matter how many syllables you use.


I am fully in support of opening access of NICS to individual transfers, but not of making background checks mandatory. To make it mandatory would be unenforceable, unless we create a registry of firearms, which I am opposed to.

And there is no way to interpret that other than: I do not have an iota of concern about the harm caused to other people as a result of firearms obtained by straw purchase and other illegal transfers. If you did, you would advocate ways of reducing that risk, but you actively oppose them, so your feelings are clear.


Chiefly, if the average person is not allowed to possess a firearm for protection in a given location, then neither should public officials.

The green envy on display hereabouts is always quite amusing.

Yes, there is just no difference at all between the average person and public figures, who are all vulnerable to the hatred of opponents and the obsession of the unbalanced. I'm not in favour of them carrying weapons either, of course, although I can see possible temporary exceptions. I'm just amused at how the politics of resentment rears its head in so many ways.



typos fixed