A Post editorial today supported a proposed gun registry in Prince George’s County that would allow police to keep a list of recently prosecuted firearm-law offenders considered most likely to commit another gun-related crime. Police would keep better watch on the people on the list, who would be required to check in from time to time and notify police if they change residence.

“Any reasonable approach to stigmatize the possession and use of illegal firearms is worth trying,” The Post opined, “and this strikes us as very reasonable.”

Reasonable gun control! As the editorial argued, this would affect the lives only of people who have already broken the law, and it would possibly help keep illegal guns out of their hands. Mindful of the minefield that undercarpets all Second Amendment debates, The Post noted that it’s small and reasonable — not a baby step so much as a half baby step. Who could hate such a thing?

Everyone! All of our commenters! Pro- and anti-gun-control advocates alike! And they sound pretty darned reasonable in their hatred.

Bosworth2 wants a law with more teeth and a focus on poverty as the source of crime:

Recidivists will only find a way to circumvent the new restrictions/requirements and commit whatever crimes they feel that they need to commit. Simply making it harder for repeat offenders to hide their gun won’t make them stop using it. As for deterrence, if a pull in a state or federal pen doesn’t “deter” a criminal from using a gun to commit a new crime, a new “database” hardly will. It is no accident that the worst gun-related crime areas are characterized largely by poverty. They also have some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. True, [NYC’s] gun-related crime rates have dropped, but it is likely because of increased policing vigilance, and the tougher sentences associated with carrying weapons.

Nunyo555 says that all the laws already in place that are tiptoeing toward gun control could lead to an unreasonably broad category of “gun offenders,” placing undue burdens on good people snared by confusing laws:

PG’s draft law makes *any* violation of Maryland’s poorly written and confusing gun laws a “gun offense” and treats the person as a “gun offender.” The person who takes his gun to his parent’s house for safekeeping because he is going on a business trip (Maryland does not allow you to transport a gun between two private residences.) If the purpose is to target violent offenders, this law doesn’t do that. It targets everyone and as such is overbroad.

Madhtr has an idea:  

How about leaving people that are too dangerous to own guns in JAIL?

Whoops, today’s PostScript is focusing on being reasonable.  Sorry, folks! The next one’s reasonable! 
Concerned5 cites a part of the editorial that argued the NRA is blocking federal research into gun violence.  

In my opinion we need to look at the current laws on the books, enforce these laws and change the ones that don't work to find ways that will cut down the use of guns by the unlawful elements. Since the NRA stands in the way of that happening, this is one of the main reasons I will not ever be a member. 

Sheepherder wants to outlaw outlaws having guns, but even more than this small step. Why hassle the people police expect to commit crimes when you could mega-jail them instead?   
Instead of a gun registry, let’s try a mandatory five-year sentence for possession of a firearm while committing a crime. Let’s stop making the lives of law abiding gun owners difficult and go after the criminals and the folks selling firearms illegally. 
Huh. PostScript likes this reasonable development! PostScript has been crouched in its bunker for weeks, but . . . PostScript might venture outside, if it’s safe! Let’s see if it’s okay out there yet:  
Oops, Sheepherder isn’t finished:   

And yeah punk I am an NRA member for life just because it annoys liberal scum like you.

I guess we’ll stay put in here for now.