Similarly, win-lose, you are saying that so you can be comfortable, you not only choose to conduct sales via FFL (with which I have no issue, and which I typically do, myself), but you feel you should support forcing others to do the same? If so, I definitely have issues with that.
Edit: win-lose, if you do not find the incrementalism argument persuasive, please in your own words explain what just happened in New York. You know, that little thing where the earlier, ten-round capacity limit just became a seven-round limit; magazines are only grandfathered for one year; all that.
I'm not saying I support background checks so I can feel better. I'm saying I support background checks because criminals/psychos should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. They should be limited to black markets which could then be targeted by law-enforcement. I only mentioned what I do and why I do it as demonstration that I practice what I preach and why I do it. The "feel" argument is exactly the argument being used against us "We have a right to feel safe", to which I say no, you do not have the right to restrict my rights so you can possibly feel a certain way. By this type of logic, the 1st A would be gone to spare feelings.
I understand how incrementalism works and what was done in NY and am sickened by it. However, if today was 12/1/2012, I would still have the same position on background checks. I think that much of the analysis on background checks is not seeing the tree through the forest.
BTW, Morgan, thank you for your service!