Reply #23: Another prohibitionist...

[SteveM]

You say:

If it's a firearm we're talking about, the answer is yes: if a person is so careless, or forgetful, or just plain stupid as to "lose" a firearm in their possession, I dare say that person is too careless, too forgetful, or maybe just too plain stupid to own one in the first place. Whether criminal liability should attach to such carelessness/forgetfulness/stupidity is another question, and one that perhaps should hinge on the individual circumstances of said "loss." But should you be "stripped of my ability to acquire a replacement of said object?" if you can't manage to keep track of it? You bet you should - along with anyone else who can't live up to the mantra I constantly hear around here, that of the "responsible, law-abiding, gun-owner."

Yet another attempt at prohibition using a "means test." What's next? Voting literacy tests? C'mon, someone could lose a gun in the lake while duck hunting, and someone happens upon it when the water is down, and you would 'strip...my ability to acquire a replacement.' That won't see the light of day in court. But we do see your desire to prohibit by any means necessary, and where folks like you sit behind a dais and render judgment.

Pretty weak and VERY authoritarian.