The Private sale loophole.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by gvw3

In 1964 I went to a Western Auto store and bought my 1st gun. A 22 single shot rifle. There were no forms or waiting period. We were a lot free-er back then.

In 1964, nobody thought to use a passenger jet as a missile nor did the idea of students walking into their school with guns intending to commit suicide after killing as many of their classmates possible come into the collective consciousness.

The world changes. People and societies change too. It is not simply a matter of lost freedoms. It is recognizing the change, first and foremost.

In the process of rolling with the changes to keep the fabric of society together, we have to keep an eye on protecting our civil liberties. Its a balancing act in the second part.

But never should one mistakenly equate the reality of working with change, with automatic loss of liberties. That is a mistake easily fallen into if one is not careful to make the distinction.

What I see a lot of here is an inability, or simple unwillingness, to reach back into your own memories and stretch one's ability to see things more widely. I can imagine each of us having several different priorities at different times in our lives, almost as if we were different people at one age versus another.

A young'un at 18 is not going to see the world nor act with much more than selfish exploration and desire to spread their wings. We all know that. We've all been there.

Changes start when we find our calling in the work or business we create and suddenly those becomes more important than most others in our life.

Then there are kids, the house, keeping up payments or simple rent. There are more in our lives to treasure and more to lose. We become more protective of what is ours.

Then eventually we move into another stage where we are mostly free from the obligations of work or children. We are again free to explore, but with a different take on life having lived some. Sometime, we wish for something more recognizable, a bygone era. Other times, we look at the strangeness of this world through old viewpoints that haven't changed in decades.

We have all been different people in one life. Be honest in that recognition and see yourself in each other. Only then will you be free of bickering long enough to clearly see and understand the real challenges of our society and to our survival as a species on this planet.

OK, off the soapbox... Next!

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by Inthewind1976

I think the Prof is secretly a member of the Democratic National Committee.

Gosh, I hate it when people do that !?!

Just because Prof_Fate can clearly state his views then eloquently backs them with rational arguments injected with stirring personal anecdotes, does that automatically elevate him to the level of DNC cardholder? -I think not!

Wait...

[prof_fate]

I was orignially a republican, voted for Reagen. Then during /after college was a libertarian. However, PA has closed primaries - you can only vote within your party and few libtertarians ran so I had very little say in who got elected, so I went back to republican. Bush II ended that - the man was an idiot on several layers so I swithed to democrat. But regardless of what I'm registered as I do think for myself. I just wish more polititians would do so.

As Ed points out we change over time. I used to have a sports car, motorcycles, drive fast, party all night...now I'm 50 and while I still go out at times with friends, drinking all night at a bar with a band playing isnt' the fun it once was. Playing chess or risk with my 11 year old son is a better way for me to spend an evening these days.

Back in my 20s I'd camp and sleep on the ground, cook over a fire, use a cooler with ice...now? 30' hard camper with fridge, running hot and cold water, shower, big comfy bed and OMG - air conditioning! As a 25 year old friend that walked the appalachian trail constantly tells 'thats not camping'. All depends on your goal - to get away from the routine of life is my goal, not to work my ass off to eat and bathe on my day off. But at his age I'd have thought the same thing.

A lot depends on your other life experiences. Where I lived at age 20-30 I should probably have gotten a CCP. Today? I live in an area where there might be a robbery a year, if that. Everything is closed by 9:30 (including the pizza shops). Its also a dry town - no bars, beer dist, etc. Very different lifestyle than living in the city.

Spend some time talking to my wife (here career is counseling, first with troubled kids then drug and alcohol) or LEO friend (that works where I used to live) and you get a window into a very very very different world. The depths that humanity is capable is beyond comprehension - one guy would 'rent' out his 2 year old son for whatever you wanted to do , for a six pack of beer. And the mom was worse. 13 year old heroin addicts are not that common- but they didn't exist 5 years ago at all.

Are people sicker than in the past? Is it we're just more aware of it? Is the awareness of it goad the sickies into one-upping the last wacko? Columbine made the news big time - was it the first? I don't know, but rarely a year goes by now that something similar doesn't happen, or happen a couple of times.

I have kids in school - I want them to be kept safe. So yeah, I favor a few things that might do that. And if you have kids I'm sure you'd feel the same way. If you lost a child at Chardon HS last week who would you blame more - the kid that shot, the relative that didn't lock up the gun well enough, the school/authority for not seeing the issue, stopping the kid from getting in, etc? I will not be an innocent victim - but what can I do about something I can't control?

[Ed~]

It is my earnest belief that Prof represents a great swath of Americans, motivated by simple Enlightened Self Interest, relying on the reason that's grounded in his life's experience. His words are reflective and not reactive. He is rational.

As I said before... we all change as we live and grow, and society as a body seems to change in the same way. Though some would call the bad changes sad, I call it the challenges of world. Some call a Combat Veteran returning alive but wracked with PTSD sad. Some would call Columbine or Chardon sad. I agree on both counts, along with all the other human manifested tragedies that we foist upon ourselves in the way of wars, usury, pollution... this is all sad. Mental illness is sad.

For all that we cannot control, we do have control over one thing: our own thoughts and behavior. Grounding that mind in rational sanity radiates sanity to those we spend the most time with: our family. When our family unit radiates sanity, our neighbors and wider community feels that and mirrors that same feeling.

Why? Because it feels better than the living hell that is the alternative to security and happiness.

We all want that same feeling of security. That's a huge reason for this discussion of private Gun Sales and Background Checks. Some people see the greater threat here as coming from an imbalanced person getting his finger on a trigger. Others here obviously are concerned about that Gov't registered owner list when the national guard comes 'a knocking or the SHTF.

What are you focused on? Because I admit to having concerns in both areas. Most arguments about safety versus liberty that I am reading on this thread are valid.

In the end, creating safety for me and mine doesn't end at the doorstep; nor does it only mean a revolver in the nightstand and a loaded "compact home-defense" model in the closet corner. I recognize my particular skills and where I can best train my efforts to work for a community and world that I feel good about, feel safe in.

And I trust others on this list have my back on other aspects of this issue rather than think there is only one RIGHT answer (or political disposition).

[ryan42]

Originally Posted by Double D

I would like to say that this type of nonsense is exactly why we pro gunners must stick together more now than ever. Notice they said that the NRA is blocking their legislation. We need the NRA and others, so like my signature line says, its time to put our differences aside and band together. The anti crowd is certainly coming together, we had better do the same.

couldnt have said it better myself DOUBLE D,this is another reason why I joined and when I read what he said about the NRA it made me proud to be a member.

[prof_fate]

I always say to follow the money.

OK, if the feds want to come and take our guns, who's benefitting? Gun and ammo companies, small FFL dealers, etc are not.

The gov't doesn't fear the armed populace. The chances of us all overthrowing the govt is nil - sorry, when less than 50% turn out to vote and look at ANY local organization from PTA to your local gun club - hundreds of members but how many show for meetings? How many come on work days? Reality is we're not overthrowing the govt whether we own guns or not. Too few people would bother to show up for the fight.

Registering guns...perhaps. Why would they do that? To keep wackos from getting guns of course. And while I'm not in favor of registering and more in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of wackos.

Extreme positions do nobody any good. This is my issue with the NRA at the moment - I've been a member in the past, but will not join at this time. Maybe i'd join if I got enough into competition I had to join - but then I'd probably be a thorn in their side. Every issue of American Rifleman has a couple of editorials that are as much propaganda as anything anyone put out in WW2 - fear mongering, hate mongering - they make FOX look left wing. They're not so much pro-gun as anti-obama and anti-democrats - yet gun laws have been scaled back since obama took office...so think for yourself.

So why is the NRA so anti-Obama? Perhaps the Heller decision and a few others that say we can indeed have guns has reduced their main reason for existing- so they're taken up fear mongering and extremism in an attempt to scare folks into joining and supporting them? Follow the money....

[Inthewind1976]

Ed, sorry that you ".....hate when people do this" but frankly I'm not too far off the mark

QUOTE - Bush II ended that - the man was an idiot on several layers so I swithed to democrat.

So, Prof ISNT a Democrat, he just VOTED that way. OOps.

I personally dont see how anyone can classify the desire to thwart any further movement towards the eventual "criminalization" of the private ownership of firearms, as "extremist." Expanding the requirements for BG checks is EXACTLY that.

QUOTE: OK, if the feds want to come and take our guns, who's benefitting ........ The gov't doesn't fear the armed populace.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=86545

QUOTE: I'm 50 so I'm not young by most measures. I do have kids in school.....I want them to be kept safe. So yeah, I favor a few things that might do that. And if you have kids I'm sure you'd feel the same way.

And Im 47 and have kids in school as well. I want my children to grow old in an America with the freedoms and liberties envisioned in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than the socialist gulag version of America that makes so many of our "elected superiors" inside the beltway simply "wet with anticipation."

QUOTE: Extreme positions do nobody any good. This is my issue with the NRA at the moment - I've been a member in the past, but will not join at this time. Maybe i'd join if I got enough into competition I had to join - but then I'd probably be a thorn in their side. Every issue of American Rifleman has a couple of editorials that are as much propaganda as anything anyone put out in WW2 - fear mongering, hate mongering - they make FOX look left wing. They're not so much pro-gun as anti-obama and anti-democrats - yet gun laws have been scaled back since obama took office...so think for yourself. ...... So why is the NRA so anti-Obama? Perhaps the Heller decision and a few others that say we can indeed have guns has reduced their main reason for existing- so they're taken up fear mongering and extremism in an attempt to scare folks into joining and supporting them? Follow the money..

If the NRA is "anti-Obama" as you say, I for one am particularly GRATEFUL. Obama represents the most significant intended shift towards more intrusive government (ever read the "Health Care Reform Act?") and towards the elitist/socialist state that is the complete opposite of the cornerstones of the foundation of this nation. The Heller and McDonald cases were a definite clarification of significant but EXTREMELY narrow interpretations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and immediately following these decisions, the jurisdictions that were directly and significantly affected by these decisions took action to sidestep the intent and meaning of these decisions and enact new intrusive legislation in order to maintain the intent of the original legislation that these cases served to eliminate. If the NRA is being dilligent in FURTHERING the DEFENSE of the Second Amendment, they are doing exactly what I for one wish them to do. And from the incessant, albeit low key, lip service that has come from the Obama administration indicating their intent to further disarm Americans through any means possible, including Executive Orders and ammunition taxes, and through such entirely inappropriate measures as Gun Walker, the NRA's position on our current POTUS and his administration is right on the mark.

It pains me to constantly be bombarded with the mantra about "Fox News" and how they are broadcasting "exaggerations and half truths" when in fact, the "news" that so many people actually BELIEVE is the liberally diluted and exasperatingly redacted garbage that comes from network news, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and CNN.

Not one SINGLE gun law has been "scaled back" in the last 80 years. Courts have (rightfully) struck down provisions of some legislation that was and always has been unconstitutional, and some "feel good crap legislation" like the semi auto bans and magazine capacity restrictions that were meaningless and purposeless from the get go, have sunsetted, because they were exactly that; feel good crap that had absolutely NO affect on the criminal use of firearms what so ever, and only served to hamstring law abiding firearms owners.

I can only hope that, as you "become more active in competitive shooting" that you DO realign yourself with the NRA and in doing so, actually RESEARCH the FACTS associated with the editorials and informational writings of the Association BEFORE you assume that they are simply "fear and hate mongering" pieces of fiction. I suppose you think that conservatives ARE in favor of dirty air, contaminated water, and kicking grandma off of Social Security and Medicare with a wave of their hands because the DNC likes to use THIS BLATANT fear and hate mongering mantra to try to scare people into voting for more socialist elitists in each election.

[cpttango30]

The chances of us all overthrowing the govt is nil - sorry, when less than 50% turn out to vote and look at ANY local organization from PTA to your local gun club - hundreds of members but how many show for meetings? How many come on work days? Reality is we're not overthrowing the govt whether we own guns or not. Too few people would bother to show up for the fight.

That used to piss me off. I was a part of a 900 member Shooting club. There were about 40 of us that showed up to all the meetings and 20 of us did all the work. Then the club wonders why we are upset when they keep restricting what we could do yet we worked so hard. Myself and 2 other guys rebuilt an entire barn, 2 shooting ranges, and did tons of upkeep on the club. Replacing toilets mowing grass cleaning gutters, painting, putting up new fencing. On top of all that we gave up EVERY Saturday to the club for 5 months out of the year for 3 years running a turkey shoot. All they ever did was demand more and thank us less.

So when 4.5% of the people show up and take an active part in the club people start doing what ever they want and when I challenged the status quo I got treated like a second class person.

I digress I tend to agree with this statement. Too many people think "Well someone else will take care of it for me, I got so much to do, work, kids, soccer, work, partying, ect..."

[prof_fate]

My mother in law is a fox fan....and yes, they are more propaganda than truth in what they spew forth.
She's nearly 65 and disabled for 12 years after having had a stroke (because she failed to treat her diabetes like a serious disease). So she's for the most part living off of us taxpayers (social security, medicare, etc).

When obamacare was the hot new she's got all frothy at the mouth saying 'he wants death panels!' and then said " I don't want the gov't deciding what I get for health care!' - LADY LISTEN UP - THEY ALREADY DO BECAUSE YOU HAVE MEDICARE! "Oh, but that's different!"

My father in law was nearly as as bad....his medical care is 100% VA. But OMG, don't let the gov't get into healthcare because everyone will die! He sees a doctor more than I do and spends a lot less on it.

If you are afraid of uprisings then by all means let the Republicans run rampant - look what their lack of regs and oversight did to the economy - more people out of work than anytime since the 1930s (percentage wise - i bet in actual people count it's more humans). Give them NO social support so they are forced to go into stealing to eat. Give them no healthcare and no contraception so the can breed uncontrolled. Give them no education so they can't be productive citizens and make this country stronger.

I'm all for you get what you work for, but the deck is more and more stacked in favor of those at the top - that 1% you hear about. Be as republican as you want- you are not going to be part of that 1% and if you can't educate your kids they've no chance at it either.

[cpttango30]

I have said it a million times. I had government health care for 8 years.

I had a broken tooth (Broke it on a Army Hamburger) they refused to fix it while I was training told me to wait till I got back to my unit. They didn't inform me that as NG I don't get health care except on drill and AT. I spent 6 months in the NG then went active duty. I went to the dentist for inprocessing they said can't fix it here. Then I got to Fort Hood (8 different dental clinics) and they said I needed a cleaning before they could fix it. I did the cleaning came back in 2 weeks You have to have a cleaning before we can fix it. I just had a cleaning 2 weeks ago. Here have another. Came back 2 weeks later for them to fix the broken tooth. They gave me another cleaning with the same excuse. I did that for 6 WHOLE months. I thought they were going to clean my teeth so much I wouldn't have any left. I had 14 cleanings in 1 year. Never did fix the broken tooth. I kept going even to sick call for the broken tooth. It took me 6 YEARS to get it pulled. Then the yahoo dentist pulled it and left the root tips in my mouth that became infected and dang near cause half my face to be paralyzed.

Went to ER for 104.3 temp at fort hood. The pervert doc shoved his finger in my bum then gave me two bags of IV and forced me to get a tube in my stomach and poured 3 gallons of water in to my stomach so he could check for blood. I WASN'T VOMITING nor was I having the green apple quickies. I was having a reaction to the flu vax that I was FORCED to get. After all that they send me to work with a 103.5 temp. I almost passed out on the way to work so I drove to the BN aid station they gave me two more bags of IV and sent me back to the ER who gave me 2 more bags of IV and sent me back to work.

After all this my Platoon SGT made my buddy drive me home for the day.

I told them that I was reacting to the flu vax because I did every time they FORCED me to get it. It wasn't till I got to Fort Dix and had to go to the AF docs that someone asked me if I wanted a flu shot and I told them about the last three times I had gotten it. They then refused to give it to me.

I have tons more horror stories about the wonderful government health care system but don't have time right not to talk about them.

[prof_fate]

Originally Posted by cpttango30

I have said it a million times. I had government health care for 8 years.

I"m not a fan of govt healthcare either - I think our whole system is corrupt and perverted.

The current system allocates healthcare - the rich and the poor get it and those in the middle get nothing. My wife work at a medical facility and the poor (criminals, addicts, etc - those that are less than welfare capable shall we say) get better care at no cost to them than she gets.

So under the republican scheme every only gets what they can pay for...if the system weren't corrupt I'd say that's a good plan, but the insurance companies have so perverted it i'm surprised anyone gets health care.

I can shop for car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, biz insurance. Health? Nope. Get what the wife's job offers or buy 'non group' insurance that is twice the cost for 1/2 the benefits. Why isn't it like other insurance?

Have an insurance claim - you go get estimates for the fix and the insurance pays, less your deductible. You have choices and know what it's going to cost you. Health insurance? You have no idea. Will you get a bill for a some deductible/copay? Ever look at those bills? The dr bills for $150 and the insurance says they'll pay $75 and you'll pay 32.50 of that. ???? Random flipping nonsense. Go see that doctor and say you have no insurance and they'll charge you $40 and that's that. ????? It makes no sense at all.

I've gotten the same prescription filled at 3 different pharmacies using the same insurance. One hits me for my $20 payment, nother $15 and the last, $7.50. WTF? The first is obvoiusly ripping me off.

I've had the same blood work done at different labs..same thing. They bill different figure, insurance pays different percentages, I pay different amounts. If the insurance paid the cheapest place teh same dollar amount as the expensive one I'd have to pay nothing. There's no rhyme or reason to any of it.

Went to teh dr this week (chest cold). Saw phys assistant. I got no discount on my $25 copay. Made appt to see dr (for annual) - next appt? July 17. 4 1/2 months out. OK..i'm sick so I see a lesser trained person than when I come in for a wellness checkup....IMO that's screwy too.

[Jerryboy]

Anyone who isn't locked up in jail or a mental institution should be able to buy a gun anyway. If someone is too dangerous or unstable to own a gun, then why are they allowed to mingle with society to begin with?

[prof_fate]

Originally Posted by Jerryboy

Anyone who isn't locked up in jail or a mental institution should be able to buy a gun anyway. If someone is too dangerous or unstable to own a gun, then why are they allowed to mingle with society to begin with?

We can blame liberal lawyers for letting them out...or is it conservatives being too cheap to spend money on rehab/mental health/jails that means they have no place to stay?

The first thing that gets cut in health insurance is mental health followed by drug rehab. My wife has been in the field for 20 years. Back then 28 day inpatient for druggies was the norm. Today? Lucky if you get 7 days, and 4 is more common. One of their largest programs is their DOC program - instead of being in a prison they go to a low-security rehab focused program because it's cheaper. A guy that used to get 5 years in prison now gets 1yr 1 day there and then is free to go home.

If we are the 'freest' coutry on earth how come we have the most people in prison?

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo...pagewanted=all

[redneckchris]

Would any of you guys feel responsible if the guy you sold your truck to got drunk, blew a stop sign and killed a family of four on their way to McDonalds?

Would you blame yourself if the guy who bought your house set up a meth lab in your old rec-room which blew up and killed his two teenage daughters?

Then why would you feel responsible for the actions of some guy who bought your gun?

No offense, but that's exactly what the anti's want. They want responsible, lawful gun owners to be held responsible for the actions of criminals. How can you not see that?

[prof_fate]

You bring up a good point but...

Originally Posted by redneckchris

Would any of you guys feel responsible if the guy you sold your truck to got drunk, blew a stop sign and killed a family of four on their way to McDonalds?

Would you sell your truck to someone that was obviously drunk? Probably not. It would be apparent that this guy/gal shouldn't be driving.
The state will verify he has insurance or he can't get a plate. He has to show his driver license for the transfer.

So you can't sell your truck to just anyone.

[cpttango30]

Would any of you guys feel responsible if the guy you sold your truck to got drunk, blew a stop sign and killed a family of four on their way to McDonalds?

This is not even close to the same as selling a gun. Sorry a car is made as a mode of transportation. The sole purpose of a gun is to destroy/ kill what ever you point it at. A car is not. To me that position of force is much higher on the scale of responsibility.

Would you blame yourself if the guy who bought your house set up a meth lab in your old rec-room which blew up and killed his two teenage daughters?

Again a home is not built with the intent of destroying and killing. These are irrational points you are trying to make to make us feel bad for having a conscience.

Then why would you feel responsible for the actions of some guy who bought your gun?

Why would I feel bad? Because I put in to the hands of a bad person the means to take someones life. I didn't do my due diligence to make sure to the best of my ability that the person I am selling this powerful destructive device too is not going to use it for the wrong purpose. Again the sole design of a firearm is to destroy or kill what ever is on the other end of it. Whether that is a paper target, bowling pin, animals, or human. How can you not do everything in your power to keep it out of the hands of the wrong people.

[redneckchris]

Originally Posted by prof_fate

You bring up a good point but...



Would you sell your truck to someone that was obviously drunk? Probably not. It would be apparent that this guy/gal shouldn't be driving.
The state will verify he has insurance or he can't get a plate. He has to show his driver license for the transfer.

So you can't sell your truck to just anyone.

What about someone who was sober as a priest and gave you no reason whatsoever to suspect that the following weekend he would get drunk and blow a stop sign--that's what I meant...and uh, kinda said.

Not being able to pass a background check in no way indicates a likelihood to commit crime and/or mayhem. And the constitution mentions nothing about infringing the right to bear arms based on a persons POTENTIAL to commit violent crimes. You're thinking of that movie The Minority Report. In reality, we're forced to deal with ACTUAL events, not possible future events.

There are numerous reasons a person may fail a background check, few of them have anything to do with violent crime or dangerous behavior.

A misdemeanor drug possession charge from your youth can fail you. A DUI involving two beers after work 15 years ago can do it. Posting the wrong thing on the wrong internet forum can even do it. Having been charged with ANY kind of felony and certain misdemeanors at any point in your past will do it.

So telling me you wouldn't pass a background check tells me nothing in particular, other than the fact that you're an honest guy maybe. Or some uneducated, busybody, liberal gun grabber trying to make law abiding gun enthusiasts look bad.

Now if you showed up to buy a gun and told me you planned to shoot your wife and kids because nobody respects you, I'd have to turn you down. And I'd do everything I could to make sure you never got a chance to go out in a blaze of suicidal glory. Otherwise, I'd kinda feel responsible for whatever mayhem you went on to commit.

[prof_fate]

The problem is - bad guys want guns as much, or more, than good guys. Good guys have no bad intent and aren't gong to lie to get a gun. Bad guys will lie and aren't going to tell you their real intent.

So how do you tell a good guy from a bad guy? BG checks is how it's done. If you have a better system let discuss it.

I'm all for changing the system - but to bitch about it without a better idea does nothing. Complaining about who's in office if you don't vote is the same thing- you had your chance to do something and chose not to. You can do more than vote you know - from something as easy as emailing your reps to tell them how you feel (as easy as posting here...) to actually campaigning for the ones you want in office.

The name calling negativity bashing does nobody any good. If I want my car fixed I don't want to hear Sears tell me NTB is a sack of sh!t and Firestone are liars, then go to Firestone to hear Sears is bunch of liars. NO! Tell me WHY I SHOULD GO TO YOU (or vote for you, etc).

Romney can say Obama is anti-gun all day long - but that won't tell us Romney has a history of being anti gun - a bigger one than Obama. Shut off the noise please.

So to say the current system sucks or is unfair or too difficult - fine. What is your solution?

[Ed~]

Chris,

You brought up good arguments. I stopped and thought about them for a while before continuing on to read what the others responded.

I tend to agree with the others response after all. Cars were designed as transportation, houses were designed as shelter, and guns...

Well guns were designed to kill.

Guns were made to dispatch life as quickly and efficiently as possible. That is why as responsible gun owners, we are concerned about our guns getting into the wrong hands. As it should be. Guns are just too good at doing what they are designed to do.

The whole thing about government being the bad guys... I just don't buy into that.

You see, at least by design the government is We the People. The bad guys that I see are the Bankers who have always tried to turn the people into cows for their purposes; to be raised and slaughtered, but not to share power.

In this case, if you don't trust government to handle the big decisions, consider the alternative. The alternative, if you are faithful to doing due diligence before selling, means a whole lot of calling and time to find out about each person before you take their money and hand over your iron.

Me? I would hope that some system I trust is in place so I don't have to go and personally do checks on everyone I wish to sell to. Just so I can sleep at night.

[redneckchris]

You brought up good arguments. I stopped and thought about them for a while before continuing on to read what the others responded.

I tend to agree with the others response after all. Cars were designed as transportation, houses were designed as shelter, and guns...

Well guns were designed to kill........

Me? I would hope that some system I trust is in place so I don't have to go and personally do checks on everyone I wish to sell to. Just so I can sleep at night.

I own many guns. I've owned at least one gun since the age of eight. I'm 41 now and have bought, inherited, traded for, found and been given dozens upon dozens of guns. Not once did I acquire a gun with even the slightest intention of using it to take a persons life. So knock off the whole "guns are for killing people and killing people is the only thing they do" nonsense. Maybe you use your guns strictly for killing people, but I don't.

If you were to kill someone with a gun that I sold you, you would be responsible for that, not me. And if I sold you that gun even tho I suspected you intended to kill with it, then yeah, I would feel bad--even if you passed some useless-assed BG check with flying colors!

You act as though a silly, government run, instant background check has any influence at all on what a person will do in the future. Very few people fail a BG check because of a history of violent crime or mental instability. Being unable to pass 'cause of a long ago mistake tells me nothing about your potential for future violence. The background check as it currently exists is almost useless when it comes to deciding who should and who should not have access to a deadly weapon.
Seung-Hui Cho, an obviously unstable and violent guy, probably shouldn't have been able to obtain any kind of weapon, but he got two guns--after passing a federally mandated background check each time. I wonder if the guys that sold him those guns felt responsible for the 30 people he killed at VT. Or did they sleep well knowing the government told them it was okay? I possibly would've smelled the crazy on him and said no sale, despite the glowing government endorsement.

I take into account many things when deciding whether or not to sell to someone, and telling me you would fail the BG check will in most cases end the transaction--partly because volunteering that info. would make me think you're too stupid to own a firearm(or think you're a condescending, ignorant, undercover anti-gun nut trying to make me look like a careless, irresponsible redneck). But I'm not ashamed at all to say I would, in certain cases, sell a gun to a person who may not be able to pass a check. And if you were honest with yourself, you'd probably admit the same thing.

You basically said that when deciding whether to sell to an individual, you prefer letting the government make the call. That's what you call being responsible!? That's the exact opposite. You want the government to take the responsibility "so I don't have to go and personally do checks on everyone I wish to sell to. Just so I can sleep at night."

If you'd like to gain a little perspective on the whole "government as the bad guy" idea; have your spouse call the cops and claim you threatened her with violence. Then spend the rest of your life unarmed and vulnerable--unless of course you can find someone willing to overlook your background-check issues.

P.S. Have you ever allowed a person to handle one of your guns without first determining there ability to pass a background check? Most of us have. But most of us have also refused to allow some people to handle them, based on many things having nothing to do with the government's opinion. I'm sorry guys, but I trust my instincts and my judgement far more than any government run system.

[bobski]

problem is, ffls have turned a basic store service into a requirement.
what use to be a means to get people to come into a store, became a product to increase cash flow for store fronts.

i/e:
when you bouhgt a can of paint, you got a stir stick.
when you filled up, they washed your window.
when you bought ammo and accessories at joes place, he transfered and mailed guns for you.
when joe did this, you paid him back by bringing someone to his store. he recognized it, and continued his service for you.

now, you can bring all the customers to joe you want, youre still gonna pay 40.00 to have him do 5 minutes of paper shuffling, and pay sky high prices on his guns.

i would pay high prices on joes guns if i got free transfers, because i would know thats what markup is paying for. but not both. high prices and 40.00?

and some of you want it mandantory? please.

ftf....check i.d. sell the thing.

ffls' are starting to look and act like DMV. they want to be the main pass in either direction. buy and sell, so they can tax you.

not this cowboy.

[Inthewind1976]

I dont blame FFL's in this whole situation, tho. I blame the goobers who think that its fine and dandy to LET the regulations concerning firearms continue to grow and grow and grow. Just follow the earlier posts on this thread. What we continue to see is banter from a handfull of SUPPOSED 'gun guys' who think that there isnt now nor ever was a movement by liberal politicians and law enforcement higher ups across this nation to hyper regulate gun sales and ultimately to keep finding ways to collect as much data as possible on American citizens firearms ownership for "the future." Sure, many FFLs may be capitalizing on the fees collected for doing BG checks on private sales where people voluntarily choose to do so, but thats really NOT the crux of the matter; its the mindset that it should be REQUIRED of private sales thats the problem, and the dim witted among the general public that refuse to see WHY this isnt remotely appropriate in the first place. (Im not throwing stones at ya, Bobski, believe me, Im just saying that the meat and potatoes of the issue goes WAY deeper than the part that some FFLs play in the desire to require BG checks on private sales.)

[gvw3]

I think a lot depends where you live. On occasion I have to go to the city (Chicago) to do my job. There are areas down there that you would be safer in Baghdad. It's a war zone down there. The Governor a few years back ask the mayor if he needed the National Guard to restore order. The Mayor declined.

I understand why they want to control guns there. On any given weekend 40 people can get shot. One of the people I work with lives not far from the war zone. She told me she can hear gunfire all night long.

I live about 50 mi. outside of the city. No problems here like this. It's a shame we have to be so restricted because of these people. I realize people in rural areas my not be aware how bad these places are.

I think the Mayor should have taken the governor up on the National Guard.

[millwright]

FWIW, I know there's a thriving black market for guns in hoplophobic NJ ! Come with the cash and leave with a gun ! Of course you don't how many bodies are on that piece ! But if you're a prohibited criminal, do you care ? >MW