Originally Posted by ID2006
I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.
I admire your ability to think the Federal Government has the duty to keep the States in check but the reality is that the States have a duty to keep the Federal Government in check.
For registration to "work", it has to be done on a Federal level, across the country. New York State has acknowledged that and said that 80% of the guns used in crimes in New York did not come from New York, that registration has no effect on gun crime in New York. New York's registration policies require the rest of the US to fall into compliance as stated by countless Democrats when they explained their votes. This is the slippery slope that is made fun of, because the perception is that it isn't real. It's very real, one State starts something and uses momentum to push the next ones into action. Massachusets and Maryland are next. They're proposing registration and confiscation.
Registration is the flawed theory that by keeping track of all the guns you can keep them out of bad hands. If you institute kiosks for NICS checks and require them for private sales you'll do a lot better of a job. NICS accessibility has to be expanded because registration does not work in it's proposed form, it does not work on the State level. It cannot work if all States do not agree to it and they don't, at all. NICS checks work, they're not less "universal" than the proposed universal background checks, they use the exact same system.
What makes universal background checks universal? The requirement of gun registration. But that has nothing to do with a background check now does it? Except when you perform them on law abiding citizens, it tells you how many guns they have in their possession. Does not affect crime when applied to a law abiding citizen, because criminals are forced out of the system and will not register or submit to background checks. What you'll catch is the stupid ones who do it.
California instituted a process requiring a thumb print for ammunition purchases. They've managed to remove illegal guns from the street without requiring background checks based on the purchases of ammunition by people who should not be making them. While I don't agree a thumb print is ideal, it's less invasive and allows the criminals to incriminate themselves more easily and readily than the prospect of a background check and/or registration. Its something that actually works but nobody from California is pushing the thumb print system, they're pushing registration and outright banning of classes of guns.