Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChasHam
You've locked onto my intro comment and I understand what you're saying.
But you seem to have missed the key point of the post-- that background investigations for second and subsequent firearm purchases make no sense.
|
I didn't miss it.
With all due respect, what you refer to as the "key point" rests on the opening statement. If the opening statement is fallacious, then anything that grows out of it or derives from it is fallacious.
We know how easy it is to buy guns on the street. Without a background check, how is an FFL supposed to know if the "well-maintained trusty old whatever" you show him was bought legally or if you bought it from sumdood behind the barber shop at 02:00 in the morning?