So much wrong here

It seems whenever there's a news article regarding firearms you find stupid people. I just read:

Owners must give fingerprints to get guns back from IMPD

in the Colts' Bitches newspaper. Basically if the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department seizes your guns, be it because they were stolen and later found in the possession of a criminal, or because your guns were in the home where a criminal was arrested (Note: Does this mean if your no-account brother-in-law is arrested in your house, your guns go with him?), or if the cops raid the wrong house and confiscate your guns, you're gonna have to give them your fingerprints to get them back. And this when you didn't have to be fingerprinted when you bought them!But as Stephen Dunlop, president of Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence, says, "You have to think: 'Why would someone refuse to give their fingerprint?'" Yeah, Mr. Dunlop, let me try this on you: Why would you refuse to let the cops come in and search your house whenever they wanted? You don't have something to hide, do you?

Reading further on I saw a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. Indianapolis attorney David Hennessy is quoted as saying, "It perplexes me that it's easier to acquire new property that it is to get back property you already own. . ." but then immediately goes on to say, "I would personally like to see more stringent requirements for people to get guns, new or used. There are far too many guns out there." David, you just don't really get it, do you? Drop me a note sometime and I'll try to explain something about Civil Rights to you.