[Alabama Shooter]

I also do not assume all those in favor of background checks are antis. I do assume they have not considered the serious potential for myriad abuses.

It is what you assumed about me. You can spin it however you want now but it does not change anything.

I ask, but note that in some things, I do not care what the "vast majority of Americans support." That's the beauty of Rights. They're not subject to mob rule.

Then why ask if you don't care? But since I asserted and you did ask how many sources did you want me to cite? I imagine I could throw out there about a dozen if I had the energy. Here is a current one:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales

Favor 91%

91% seems overwhelming to me.

It is akin (meaning related, but not identical) to a prior restraint in that it requires me and other law abiding citizens to gain governmental permission before we're allowed to exercise a fundamental, individual right. I will never regain the time I lose going through the hassle, and I will never be refunded whatever fee I must pay for the privilege.

If that is your argument than you have completely misunderstood prior restraint. It is not about going through a hassle to get the same result. It is about getting a different result because of the hassle. You are still going to end up with your gun. If the check is free it does not even cost you a dime.

Here I will help: A better analogy would be if background checks cost $200 and instead of buying a Glock you bought a HiPoint due to the onerous cost. That would be a much less effective means of defense. However I am not arguing for a $200 fee so there is no basis for the comparison; but it would make a better analogy.

No, it's a right because the 2A says so. See "shall not be infringed. If a right is to mean anything, we must have the tools necessary to exercise the right: ink, paper, firearms, etc.

And you still get your firearm and you can still sell it if you want to. The SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable restrictions are acceptable. If you think waiting a couple of minutes or driving to a gun shop to buy a gun is overly onerous you must be one impatient person.

Yes, and we pay for it in taxes. So?

You were indulging your straw man fantasy about runaway background check fees leading to Armageddon of gun rights. It isn't there.

Great! Go use an FFL, then. That doesn't explain your suggestion that everyone be required to use them, though. Will you really feel better about your sales if I have to do a background check?

I would also feel even much better if you did not sell a gun to my meth head neighbor whom you don't know is a meth head. That is very helpful to me.

I have made no such assumption.

Haven't you?

Originally Posted by Spats McGee
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move?

You just said background checks are giving the antis the first move. You are lumping everyone together.