Guns

I totally agree with you schraf. And I'm a gun-owner (have been all my adult life). I sold off most of my handguns when the kids were born (it was too much of a safety trade-off), but maintain several long-guns (my sister is keeping them while I'm overseas). Last year I bought my youngest her first .22 rifle - and taught her how to safely use it. She was thrilled - almost a kind of "rite of passage" .I have NO issue whatsoever with autoweapons bans, waiting periods, background checks, and mandatory weapons-safety classes. To be honest, I never understood the reluctance. I've heard the reasoning (i.e., gun-ownership is a way to insure that in the event of tyranny individuals have the means to defend themselves from the government, and if we register guns the government will be able to take them away because it'll know who has them), but I find the argument spurious for a number of reasons.ABE: I am opposed to fingerprinting, however - but for other reasons than gun-nuttery. You can conduct an effective background check without that. Edited by Quetzal, : addition

Although somewhat off-topic for this particular thread, I personally believe that fingerprinting for other than criminals (or certain types of high-security employment) is overly intrusive. If you are fine with fingerprinting for such routine things as driver's licenses, then I guess I can understand why you feel that it is warranted for firearms purchases. The measures nator outlined, plus the national ballistics database crash mentioned (fingerprinting the weapon rather than the individual as it were) would seem to be otherwise more than adequate.ABE: Perhaps this is just poorly worded, or maybe intended as a rhetorical device, but you seem to be implying that anyone who purchases a weapon is automatically going to go out and commit mass murder. Is this what you meant? Given that I've owned firearms for over 30 years, and have thus far refrained from murdering anyone, I find the rhetorical flourish to be a bit much, donchaknow.Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

Although a bit trite, nothing to argue with. Thanks for the clarification.

There are currently two ways in which a legitimate "collector" can legally possess military-grade weapons. Federal Curio and Relic License, and a Class III Federal Firearms License.The C&R License requires the weapon in question to be at least 50 years old, to be in unmodified form, etc. It requires a full background check, certification of safe storage, and costs about $300. It does NOT allow possession of fully automatic weapons.The Class III FFL (which is actually designed for dealers, manufacturers, etc, but is available for individual collectors), requires a very lengthy background check, federal inspection and certification of high-security storage, etc, and costs $3000. This DOES permit ownership of fully-automatic weapons.In other words, there is no actual reason why an individual can't own a machine gun under current laws - as long as they comply with the requirements of a Class III license. If for some reason you want to play collector of an arsenal of fully-automatic rifles, all you need is a license and a lot of cash.