I suppose, using Ray Simpson's logic, one could make the argument that laws against murder and rape have a disproportionate impact on law-abiding citizens because they will obey the law while the murderers and rapists will ignore the law and continue to rape and murder. Can anyone seriously consider such a specious and absurd argument as a reason not to enact laws against murder and rape? I think not. It's also not a good reason to not enact universal background checks that prohibit the purchase of weapons by criminals, the mentally ill and minors.Everyone who rapes or murders is intent on hurting someone. Not everyone who purchases a firearm (in fact rarely by percentage) is intent on hurting someone. So Mr. Heise has put firearm owners into the same category as rapists and murderers because he cannot fathom anything else to do w/ them. No one would 'seriously consider such a specious and absurd argument' because it is stupid. Noone is talking about 'murder' or 'rape'. We're talking about the ownership/sale of a product he doesn't like. If he tries to use that argument for his proposals, he's nothing but an idiot.
The two things the anti-gun (let's just be realistic, eh?) side wants is 'Universal background checks' (which we already have) and "a prohibition against the future manufacture, sale and ownership of ammunition clips capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition." (which is unenforcable). So the ONLY people that their proposals are going to effect are those who are not breaking the laws which are on the books already.
These are the kinds of ditsh!ts we're dealing w/. They've got no clue what they're talking about nor anything about guns but they have a moral conviction to 'do something'.