Skip to main content

View Diary: They are coming for your pets! (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But that's not the point. Whether they are (0+ / 0-)

    needed or not is moot because at the time of purchase, they were wanted and legal. It would be hard to justify depriving people of legally purchased property, especially if those people didn't commit any actual crimes. It would go against the notion that no one be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

    And as for "compensation", for the most part the compensation offered to gun owner is a joke. A rifle that cost anywhere from $700.00 to $1600.00 probably won't be turned in for a $200.00 cash card to Wal-Mart. And if the money was that important in the first place, the person simply would never have bought the weapon to begin with.

    No, the truth is a lot of people have these firearms, haven't done anything wrong with them, and won't see why they need to turn them in because "someone else" done ran off and committed crimes with them. They won't give them up for a pocket full of pennies and see no reason why they should.

    Registration lists in the past were used to browbeat people who followed the law, obeyed instructions, and trusted the powers-that-be, only to get burned for it. The trust is gone. Something in the registry will have to include a means to defend legal owners from arbitrary confiscation.

    •  Not hard at all to justify (0+ / 0-)

      "We determined that your weapon - i.e., a thing - is too much of a social liability, for various, debatable reasons.

      We'll offer a program to buy it back or similar or you can keep it and live with various restrictions on its use, storage, etc.  Maybe gain credit on a different weapon of your choice that is available.

      Thanks for your cooperation."

      Doesn't matter if someone has done nothing wrong with the weapon, as it's about the weapon itself - not the people.  It's a thing and can be regulated for the public good.  Again, for debatable reasons.

      Registration is used in various markets and channels and I offer partial empathy about the "arbitrary confiscation" issue at this time - emotional baggage about a weapon is certainly someone's wont to harbor, but to the point of clutching the thing and worrying about no longer owning it again?  An updated perspective on one's life might help ease the pain, if it came to that.

      Yes, I realize that far too many people clutch these weapons so close to their hearts, it would take decades of conditioning to expect attitudes in newer generations to effect a wider change in society - so, grandfathering seems most reasonable, if possible.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Looking beyond the scope of weapons and (0+ / 0-)

        whether people "clutch" them specifically, I think anyone would be annoyed and incensed if any random object was declared "illegal" because someone else committed a crime with it.

        If it was decided that, because of drunk drivers, cars had to be rounded up, you'd see a lot of angry people who never drove drunk in their life digging in their heels and getting really defensive. Or computers: "because of online scams and child porn, we've decided to confiscate computers/shut down the internet" then you'd have people getting their hackles up over that. Or proposed bans on dog ownership because someone had a vicious pit bull that got out and mauled a kid.

        It isn't about what weapons are "designed for", it would be that any personal article is being seized when the owner hasn't committed a crime. Even kids know collective punishment isn't fair.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site