it is a nice thought save for the fact that the government doesn't properly use the existing database to trace those confiscated weapons. What's the purpose of adding a registry if all sales can be tracked via SN anyway?
The comment to which you are referring was a sidebar response to Philly's assertion that things that are inherently deemed bad by those in power require the auto-stamp of governmental regulation. With respect to the topic, the only reason I wouldn't be concerned about a registry is because of the incompetence of those continually demonstrated to maintain it. In reality, I view it more as how driver's licenses are issued. One must demonstrate whatever competency required by that state a legal citizen resides. Having a registry could aid in tracking down in-state and inter-state criminals. These types of things could easily be negotiated for cross-state standardizations without having to impose their will on their neighbors. A worry that continues to increase for myself is putting a registry in the hands of political opportunists. From my understanding, the mission statement for this would be to reduce firearms homicides. To this end, I don't see how a registry really does that. As stated before, this can serve as a tool (especially in the cases of crimes of passion) to expedite justice in such cases. However, the simple fact remains that the people likely to register their firearms are not criminals. The soft-stated (if ever said at all) mission statement is actually banning firearms altogether with the assumption that homicides will plummet to nearly zero. The problem with this is largely two-fold: 1) using a registry ultimately for the purpose of firearms confiscation will ultimately disarm legal citizens to leave them defenseless against a still-armed criminal populace (unless we assume the police will demonstrate integrity and efficiency in defending the innocent). 2) This runs absolutely counter to the original mission statement of the 2nd amendment to keep a tyrannical government in check. A tertiary point is something that has long been exploited by political opportunists in that determining standards for one's rights can then be used to oppress a selected group. It wasn't that long ago that the DSM-III maintained that homosexuality was a mental disorder. I could easily see this being used as some bullshit excuse to keep homosexuals from recognizing their rights. Back to the 2nd point of keeping tyrannical governments in check, I know... cue the "what's a rifle gonna do against an Apache, dipshit!" rhetoric. For one, the Apaches and tanks are not manned by mindless drones as some people on this board would have everyone believe. They are our kindred citizens, children, parents, etc. Turning our weapons to gun down our neighbors may get a pass for a branch Davidian compound, but I don't see how a widespread campaign would be abided outside of a zombie apocalypse. But doesn't speak to how it applies to the original purpose for this amendment. The fact is that a core mindset for governments to answer to the governed is given teeth by this amendment. Otherwise, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. If we continue to whittle away at this sentiment, then we've lost a singularly crucial part of what being an American is. We have the right to forge our own destinies in whatever manner we see fit, so long as we don't infringe upon the liberty of others. We have the right to defend ourselves regardless of how nervous that makes politicians. The more we pass the responsibility of the protection of our rights to those that could exploit it, the more we lose a core principle of what made this country special.
Can I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? Can I be arrested for smoking marijuana? Can I be arrested for soliciting prostitutes? Can I be prosecuted for selling alcohol on Sunday? Does one pay sin taxes for alcohol and cigarrettes? Is euthenasia not illegal in several well-documented cases? Can I be arrested for making moonshine? Can I be fined for growing my own garden? There's a reason why America is long past being the freest nation on the planet. It is little wonder given the utter lack of comprehension of what liberty actually is by those generally touted as intellectual giants on this board.
It certainly sounds like one of use has abandoned reason here. Exactly how did this presumption worm its way so far into your psyche that it can't even be questioned? Clearly, you believe in the nanny state to the nth degree. God help you when that comes crashing down on you with something you finally don't approve of