Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Basically nothing much more stringent than we have now in many places. Ideally, laws would be consistent from state to state...

Waiting periods.

Comprehensive background checks.

And I would support the national registration of some firearms. Of course, at least I can understand the adversity to that concept. The other two that only contribute to someone's inconvenience in the process of acquiring a gun I don't accept. Tough shit.

I read a lot arguments, more like whining, that criminals can get guns faster than upright citizens and I say...so what? Corporate crooks can amass millions of dollars in a bank in the Caribbean a lot faster than I can, it doesn't mean I should be able to, as well. Crooks do everything faster. That's why they're crooks!

I realize that a lot of gun owners are okay with waiting periods and background checks. It's not those gun owners I am referring to. It's those who oppose any manner of oversight in the acquiring of firearms that I simply do not understand. And who furthermore, regard any attempt to control their acquisition of firearms as a forecast of the removal of all of their rights to gun ownership. And no amount of claims of self-defense, my rights, government tyranny, etc. can explain it away. Not for me.

It is reactionary and dogmatic. Two characterizations I generally view as too far off the beaten path of practicality to be making claims on social codification. No matter which side of the path they've wandered off on.

*edit*
Granted, flstf gave me a sober and more reasonable approach to the idea of "defending ourselves from our government" than I had yet to hear. And he tapped me on the nose a bit without sounding shrill about it. That helped.