[Dumpster Baby]

Then there is no barrier to regulating gun ownership into obscurity.

That's what they're trying to do, all right. To fight back you have to be standing on firm ground and not be vulnerable. This dealer's going into battle after shooting off his own leg clear up to the hip.

[tacticalogic]

That's what they're trying to do, all right. To fight back you have to be standing on firm ground and not be vulnerable. This dealer's going into battle after shooting off his own leg clear up to the hip.

"Not being vulnerable" amounts to complying with their regulations, no matter how onerous they become. Before you have standing to challenge the rules in court, you have to be charged with being out of compliance. Sounds like a fool's game to me.

[rockrr]

I seem to recall a fellow named John Lee Malvo who not too long ago went on a shooting spree. Caused a lot of damage, both in the original crime (killing and terrorizing folks), and in the more intangible, but equally important public perception of gun owners.

I doubt any of us would care to be lumped in with the likes of Malvo but, in some eyes, lumped in we are. During the subsequent investigation it was revealed that the weapon used by Malvo came from a Washington state gun store (Bullseye Shooters Supply). It turns out that the AR-15 that was used by Malvo and Muhammad "fell through the cracks" at Bullseye (records show it shipped to the store, but no paper trail of it leaving the store). Damn!

The criminal incompetence of folks who have no business dealing in guns left all of us open to the gun-grabbers who weren't hesitant to seize upon the opportunity to characterize us all as J.L. Malvo's. I can see your point DB - We have to work from within the structure as it exists, not how we would like it to exist. As much as I see the desirability of this legislation, if you're going to be dealing in guns show some freaking common sense!