I think I've commented on your tendency to state opinion as ironclad fact quite a few times of late but this is really getting absurd. I can say "Logic dictates mankind must colonize other worlds" but if anyone says 'why?' or we're already in a situation where that question being asked is practically a given, I don't just get to say that. I need to present the argument and if I'm using that sort of absolute tone it better be as a thorough list. And for the record, I really doubt we'll do much planet colonizing.

Your logic would dictate a necessity that guns could not be given or even borrowed one person to another and that even theft would have to be dealt with abnormally. Currently if I buy a book for a friend, I have no obligation to inform anyone of that transaction. Even with a car, it is only when I get it registered for usage on public roads that chain of ownership has to be established. Cars are a very unique case from a practical standpoint but from a legal one they aren't at all. I can transfer ownership of a car as casually as a book or computer but we require any vehicle on the public roads to be registered and for that reason, since cars sorts of require roads (and aren't the second thing the founders wrote down as a protected privilege, right after self-expression comes self-defense) you have to register one from a practical perspective and you need proof of ownership to do that. You don't need to register a tractor or golf cart to use them.

So you're talking about a major change in property law here too, don't just casually toss that aside as though it were beneath notice. It sets a precedent that the gov't has a right to track private property, a big huge one too since it's explicitly constitutionally protected property.

Ya know, you've said that repeatedly now too, about the small handful of dealers doing the illegal sales, and it is still bullshit. Bad enough you're convicting people who apparently the courts haven't but you're talking about someone's status as a criminal as an absolute thing without even offering the details of the cases. You just keep saying it, and the one case you did show me a few weeks back was clearly just a very weak case, in that case alleging crimes by a family member not the person you were accusing, sins of the father isn't in modern justice. In addition to the 2nd amendment there are some other amendments you seem to conveniently forget about. Search and seizure, reasonable doubt, trial by jury, innocent till proven guilty, etc. If the law isn't being enforced there are always one of 3 reasons in play. 1) Insufficient proof, 2) It is considered more trouble than it is worth, 3) Corruption. So before just saying this stuff as a given, why don't you prove it by listing those 12 cases you mention individually and explain which of the 3 you think applies along with the basics of evidence. Evidence mind you, not some journalist's personal rant. On top of that I'd really like to see how they stack up on rate of conviction, because for all I know there have been a thousand trials on these and you've got the 12 who skated, well lots of people skate on crimes at trial since we expect ironclad proof, better 10 guilty men go free then one innocent man, etc. 12 out 1000 convictions for instance would be freakishly good prosecution for most crimes.