Before calling someone foolish, perhaps you should read what they wrote.
No Win-Lose, you made the mistake. I said the concept was foolish and asked when you would come to that realization.
From your arguments it sounds as though "something must be done".
I am arguing that nothing must be done and that already too much has been done to no effect.
This is because of this same foolish concept that you can make the world safe with laws. It's just stupid. If this were the case murder would have ceased the moment Moses unveiled God's Ten Commandments, or surely after Charlton Heston took them to the big screen.
It is already against the law to kill people without cause.
It is already against the law for a prohibited possessor to have a gun.
It is already against the law to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited possessor.
But trying to make it impossible for a prohibited possessor to obtain a weapon is foolish because you just can't do it. You can only punish them for it if you catch them at it.
Your arguments will not persuade anyone... if anything, it sounds like you are arguing for anarchy, which is the last thing our side needs to be doing. Like it or not, this is a very real fight. You can pound your chest and call every thing/one foolish or you can contribute substance. Without a sound argument against back-ground checks, we will need a sound argument for limiting its scope to not include registration.
Again, to date, I have not heard one persuasive argument from ANY figurehead against background checks. Most completely evade answering the question posed. This is very dangerous. I see the purpose of this thread to attempt to produce such arguments.