It's not a matter of what you have to do to own a firearm (personal choice,
most would say) being compared with entering a country (a substantial amount
is done by business travellers with no choice...).

It's a matter of how much this will slow down the process, how the govt
intends to guarantee the security of the personal information, etc. etc.

Osama is getting exactly what he wanted, the US is seemingly clutching at
straws. How would fingerprints have stopped atta and his friends I wonder.



"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

I don't approve of it.

Note that over the last couple of years, firearms laws have been
*relaxing* across most of the US, with one of the sillier ones going
away this September (the Assault Weapons Ban).

I live in Massachusetts, a state with some of the most
strict gun laws in the country.

I've had a pistol permit for years, and to get one, I've
undergone background checks from local, state police and
FBI. My picture and fingerprints are on file at all those
locations. I have to repeat the procedure every 5 years
to renew it (now at a cost of $100).

I am automatically considered such a potential danger to
society because of my interest in "plinking" with a hand
gun, that even civil libertarians seem to have no problem
with the procedure.

Yet to filter potential terrorists from entry to the country
via a 15 second on average, scan of finger prints is thought
to represent a serious breach of civil liberty.

I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
state America" best just stay home. I don't have much
sympathy for them.


SMH