The Private sale loophole.

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by cpttango30, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. cpttango30

    cpttango30 Guest

    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.

    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.

    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.
  2. redneckchris

    redneckchris New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    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.
  3. prof_fate

    prof_fate Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Western PA
    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?
  4. Ed~

    Ed~ New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    AridZona
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012
  5. redneckchris

    redneckchris New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    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.
  6. bobski

    bobski Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    947
    Location:
    va., conn., & mo.
    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.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  7. Inthewind1976

    Inthewind1976 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    553
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania
    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.) :)
  8. gvw3

    gvw3 Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    6,183
    Location:
    Chicago IL Area
    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.
  9. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,888
    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
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Private Gun Sales Dec 16, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Private gun sale in Texas? Requirements? Jul 3, 2010
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Senate to Ban Private Gun Sales May 8, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The so-called "gun show loophole": other states/private sellers. Apr 7, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Concealed Carry on private property Nov 3, 2009

Share This Page