lcpiper, those other people who will do this should have learned lessons vicariously from the folks who have already been robbed by strangers who responded to jewelry ads, and were given the sellers' addresses. People who will rob somebody of valuables don't need the excuse of a failed NICS check.
So, I am opposed to mandatory checks, but I think your specific example is silly, and I think silly examples detract from our other points.
I think your other arguments are fine. And yes, I recognize hyperbole, supposition, etc. However, I think you are approaching reductio ad absurdum with your recurring supposition.
win-lose, I think BigDinFL realizes the persons in your examples would not be eligible for a lawful transfer, and doubt he meant he would sell to such people. I suspect he meant that, assuming in his judgement the person would not be a prohibited person, then he would be ok with the law in his state, and that is good enough for him.
|