Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole - Page 11

Glenn E. Meyer · January 28, 2009, 01:51 PM

Well, I thought the issue was the gun show loophole but I've said all my brain can hold and commented on some of the stuff said.

Till the Talmud decides our political issues - I'll leave the battlefield on this one.

Wildalaska · January 28, 2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Simply because a current background check during a federally licensed transfer, i.e. between an FFL and a non-licensee, is constitutional, it does not also follow that requirement of such approval for transactions between non-licensees would also pass.

It would if the Federal law was narrowly drawn...conversely a Federal law requiring California style private transfers probably wouldnt

WildcommerceAlaska ™

Hkmp5sd · January 28, 2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory. Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path.

We recently had a local guy get mad at some people, dump gasoline on them and burn two of them to death. Don't even have to be 18 to buy a gallon.

You can't regulate everything.

I'm a number person. How many gun transfers are there in the US each year? How many of them are FTF without a FFL? How many of those are bad guys buying guns?

Are we willing to pass a law that will cost thousands of people millions of dollars in FFL fees each year and another stack of papers to maintain forever just to stop a few hundred people from buying guns that they will simply get somewhere else?

DonR101395 · January 28, 2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Which I think makes a pretty strong argument to strengthen the system. Thanks.

Or a pretty strong statement that the system is a waste of time and money in addition to being an infringement.
It just depends on if you are pro freedom or pro nanny state.

Tennessee Gentleman · January 29, 2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Well, I thought the issue was the gun show loophole but I've said all my brain can hold and commented on some of the stuff said.

Yeah we have drifted quite a bit into crime, and neurotoxins and aztec temples. The good news is that gun owners can disagree and don't have to hold to a party line. For that I thank the mods and the forum. Some of us believe that there can be reasonable controls on firearms and won't descend down the slippery slope to banned firearm ownership. Some think virtually any control of firearms is an infringement of their constituitional rights and that's OK too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

I'll leave the battlefield on this one.

As will I as I think I too have said my piece on this subject. I look forward to the next discussion

Al Norris · January 30, 2009, 12:35 AM

It's been a good discussion, even if it has drifted a few times.

All in all, I think just about everything has been said and we are all running in circles. So let's gracefully end this.

Thanks everyone for a great discussion.

January 28, 2009, 01:51 PM	#251
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Well, I thought the issue was the gun show loophole but I've said all my brain can hold and commented on some of the stuff said. Till the Talmud decides our political issues - I'll leave the battlefield on this one. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 30, 2009, 12:35 AM	#256
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	It's been a good discussion, even if it has drifted a few times. All in all, I think just about everything has been said and we are all running in circles. So let's gracefully end this. Thanks everyone for a great discussion.