>>Again, if you don't mind registering your car or your kids, why the big deal about registering guns?
>
>Because gun registration makes no sense. Registration equals government control. For vehicles, that means taxation. Do you pay a yearly registration fee on your automobiles up there? My guess is yes. Registration is a means for the state to collect the fees required for road maintenance (and the registration system itself).

Registration also means that if your car is involved in a hit and run, they can trace you. I know John will disagree, but I've heard police up here say that when they are called to a domestic dispute, it's nice to have some idea if there is a gun on the premises.

>I'm not sure how kid registration came into this discussion. We don't really do that here. There are voluntary programs for child ID in case of kidnapping, but that is usually done at the local level. Besides, mine aren't destructive devices...uh, well maybe they are.

Sure. You think the government doesn't have any idea how many kids you have and who they are? They are registered at birth. My point was only that we register things that are not intended solely to put holes in people (or animals), but not those things that are. Makes no sense to me. You even register yourself - you have a Social security number; passport; driver's license etc?

>Registration also equals government control. Gun registration has been used repeatedly by governments as a prelude to gun confiscation. That has happened in Canada, Britain, and Australia, in recent memory. THAT's the big difference. Registration gives the law-abiding gun owner NOTHING in return for the government's knowledge of what that person owns. I have a real problem with that.

Well, I don't recall any confiscation in Canada - we've only had a registry for a couple of years or so, but you could be right. However, there isn't the same constitutional 'right' to have a gun here as there is in the U.S. I expect confiscation there would be a much more difficult thing to arrange. I also have a bit of a problem with the term 'law abiding' that keeps cropping up in these discussions. Even criminals were very probably once 'law abiding' citizens. Being 'law abiding' today is no guarantee for tomorrow.