Curiosity Inc. wrote:
The only place where I completely disagree with him is on this:
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."
First of all, as I've already stated multiple times, there was absolutely no reason to deny him weapons legally at the time. He was a post-doctoral student with no history of criminal activity or mental illness. Additional gun control might have stopped him from obtaining so many weapons so quickly, but that's it.
Secondly, the idea that illegal sources could be "traced, watched, [or] overseen" is ludicrous. Unless the authorities had already been watching that particular source for some time, I completely fail to understand how the feds would know what illegal arms deals were taking place. If anything, legal gun sales -- with permits, forms, registrations, etc. -- would lead to much more of a paper trail.
Thirdly, there's the matter of monitoring online transactions. This would mean that credit card companies and banks would have the power to monitor our financial activities and to relay that information to the government without our knowledge or consent. Now we're dealing with privacy rights, which are a whole 'nother can of worms.
What purpose would the ATF serve if there was a stricter gun control?Would it do that kind of stuff?