Fellas;
There are some of us who believe the wording of the second amendment means exactly what it says. Particularly note the word infringed and then spend some time thinking about the ramifications of that word. Because of that word, there is a school of thought that disallows the constitutionality of any gun law. The Sullivan Act, NFA, and GCA68 specifically included.
It is supposed that the meaning of the 2nd is to allow any U.S. Citizen to legally obtain and hold any firearm available to this country's military forces. Especially considering that when the bill of rights was first proposed the general citizenry was, for all practical purposes, the military.
I'd strongly suggest that the authors of the constitution and the bill of rights would regard any Federal firearms database to be unconstitutional. Although it's a pleasant fiction for some to believe that that isn't the case, a careful perusal of documents such as The Federalist Papers, indicates that it is.
Ergo, firearms transactions that remove current production firearms from the now existing Federal database should be regarded as being beneficial to the spirit of the second. True there are abuses, such as theft, that are not specifically beneficial to either the person or organization that they're stolen from, or to general law and order. But contemplate the idea that; better a hundred thieves go free than an innocent man be in prison, and the rationale becomes clearer. The founders very firmly believed in personal responsibility, including the concomitant responsibilities to both protect yourself and protect your firearms from being stolen.
Concerning oneself about a lack of traceability would seem to me to be buying into big brother's idea that it's perfectly OK for him to control the populace as he sees fit. The idea that this country was founded on was supposed to be that the populace controlled the government.
Houston, we have a dichotomy.
900F
