Persuasive only by your standards Win_lose.
The Feds don't need to be pushing this because it's a State issue. When my State brings it up our people will deal with it our own way.
But assume it is proposed at the State level;
No one can show that a background check on personal sales of firearms would prevent a single crime and in fact the very concept is completely illogical.
I have explained this to you several times and you keep blowing it off never addressing it.
Laws have a purpose, they guide the law abiding, they form a justification to punish the law breaker. But laws can not prevent illegal actions.
My proof is simple, if laws themselves could prevent illegal actions then there would be no crime.
I say this is a perfectly valid argument though you refuse to acknowledge it.
Lastly I bridle at your dogged pursuit on this topic. I could have used the same 8 hours I spent screwing around about background checks actually researching something that actually has a chance to be an effective measure. **** I could have at least gone to bed early enough to have gotten some from my wife
Being a city-boy, I had to look up what you meant by "bridle". I'm sorry you feel this way. It is not my intent to make you upset. It is clear by your years of service and your love of individual liberty that you are a Patriot, and for these I sincerely thank you.
I completely agree that the negative, unintended consequences of some truly silly laws tend to far out way the benefits of the intended consequences (your paintball example is good).
I also agree that law does not block free will. However, as you said, it does guide it by defining expectations of behavior and consequences. The argument that "laws don't control behavior and therefore this should not be done" is just not a strong argument that people are going to listen to... I'm sorry.. again I agree, laws do not control free will, but they do influence it.
If I could buy you a beer, I would....