TexasCHLforum.com

For a while, this idiocy was actually in effect when I lived in Pasadena, California.

New Jersey had this requirement in effect for many years. They were really slow learners, but they eventually gave up on it when they finally figured out it had no effect on crime and didn't help in any investigations.

Only thing I do agree on is that it is very easy for criminals to purchase ammunition.

They can purchase cars without a license too. If we changed that, and instituted background checks and a special license required before you could buy one, their predatory range would be limited by walking or bicycle distance, or they'd have to steal their transportation. We'd be willing to put up with that minor inconvenience to gain the extra measure of safety, wouldn't we? Especially since owning a car isn't even a right directly protected by the Bill of Rights.

Then there's those pesky cellphones bad guys use to communicate with.......a simple background check and cellphone license could help out there too. And just think of the lives to be saved on the streets if those criminals didn't have them to talk on while driving. It would all be worth it if we could save just one life, would it not?

Don't forget all those unmonitored internet communications criminals use to defraud people, plan crimes, and move money. An email and browser license should be just the ticket to end this nightmare, with a "consent to be monitored" signature required. Our members wouldn't have any trouble qualifying for those so they could participate in this forum.

Do we see where this is going? There are folks who have developed this way of thinking into an art form, and they are not our friends. They would dearly like to convince us to buy their arguments so we would support legislation to restrict our own freedoms and participate in our own demise. Shame on us if we go for it.

Ben Franklin was right: He who would trade (or compromise - my add) a basic right to secure (what he thinks is) a bit of safety deserves neither.