What's new
By:

Gun Control

The factual existence of actual UN published objectives to establish world peace by totally disarming all private citizens worldwide, making it illegal for any private person to own a gun, and to have some very special elite folks determine the allowable national armed forces for every nation, and similar fine upstanding unelected elites directing the pre-eminent worldwide military force is undeniable.

the statements by many advocates of such undemocratic top-down fascsit worldwide government calling for gradualism and staged progression through gun registration towards their goal is a further undeniable fact.

Well, until we have some kind of UN with elected representative structures comprising the UN "government" that respects national sovereignty and inalienable human rights like the right to keep and bear arms, I'm not buying any kind of argument for government regulation of guns.

The right to life, and to protect life in the instant of need, is the most fundamental of human rights.l
 
Bronco70 said:
Originally Posted by moevillini
In addition, I personally think that there needs to be more restrictions on private gun sales and sales at gun shows, or maybe these are sort of the same.
Click to expand...

As Gameface explained (you may or may not have seen that particular post), they are not the same. Gun show booths (in my experience) are almost always run by FFL retailers. Private gun sellers add an awful lot of overhead by selling at a show rather than just making separate private transactions. Buying at a show is pretty much like buying at a gun shop.
Click to expand...

so that seems to mean that restricting private gun sales might limit a sellers ability to sell his guns, but it does not limit an owner's ability to own the gun. in other words, not a violation of the 2nd amendment.

unless you're saying that it adds extra cost, which the buyer shouldn't have to pay?

but that argument doesn't really hold water, because unless all guns are just given away for free, even the lowest cost is going to be a limiting factor for somebody.
 
moevillini said:
so that seems to mean that restricting private gun sales might limit a sellers ability to sell his guns, but it does not limit an owner's ability to own the gun. in other words, not a violation of the 2nd amendment.

unless you're saying that it adds extra cost, which the buyer shouldn't have to pay?

but that argument doesn't really hold water, because unless all guns are just given away for free, even the lowest cost is going to be a limiting factor for somebody.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you leave me wondering who's carrying the water for you.

OK, this is not really about economics or convenience, got that???

you want restrictions on gun sellers and buyers and anyone already with a gun, because you believe somehow this will improve things in your neighborhood. Lots of people around who think that. So get yourselves a neighborhood of like-minded folks and put up a fence and some signs: "Gun Free Zone". Leave your doors unlocked and your windows open, and sleep the sleep of the Just.

Just don't think you're going to tell me I can't have a gun or protect my property and family.
 
babe said:
Sometimes you leave me wondering who's carrying the water for you.

OK, this is not really about economics or convenience, got that???

you want restrictions on gun sellers and buyers and anyone already with a gun, because you believe somehow this will improve things in your neighborhood. Lots of people around who think that. So get yourselves a neighborhood of like-minded folks and put up a fence and some signs: "Gun Free Zone". Leave your doors unlocked and your windows open, and sleep the sleep of the Just.

Just don't think you're going to tell me I can't have a gun or protect my property and family.
Click to expand...

I do not see how Moe was really saying that so unless there is a big discussion between you to I am missing I think this was a little pre emptive.
 
moevillini said:
so that seems to mean that restricting private gun sales might limit a sellers ability to sell his guns, but it does not limit an owner's ability to own the gun. in other words, not a violation of the 2nd amendment.

unless you're saying that it adds extra cost, which the buyer shouldn't have to pay?

but that argument doesn't really hold water, because unless all guns are just given away for free, even the lowest cost is going to be a limiting factor for somebody.
Click to expand...

Wait, what...? I assume this is directed at me (you quoted my post) but I haven't been involved in this particular line of conversation (aside from merely pointing out that private sales and gun show sales are not the same). So you'll forgive me if I'm not interested in pursuing an argument.
 
moevillini said:
so that seems to mean that restricting private gun sales might limit a sellers ability to sell his guns, but it does not limit an owner's ability to own the gun. in other words, not a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I think a poll would show the pro-guns crowd would be in high agreement.


moevillini said:
unless you're saying that it adds extra cost, which the buyer shouldn't have to pay?
Click to expand...

Not only is it not seen as punitive, but it's something that I've already welcomed as a convenience to gun owners. I know plenty near anarchists who would strongly disagree with limiting private transactions in any way that leaves a paper trail, but the polls show they're in the minority. They certainly haven't reared a single head in this thread.
 
Bronco70 said:
Wait, what...? I assume this is directed at me (you quoted my post) but I haven't been involved in this particular line of conversation (aside from merely pointing out that private sales and gun show sales are not the same). So you'll forgive me if I'm not interested in pursuing an argument.
Click to expand...

No, my comment wasn't directed AT you at all, but it may have seemed that way since I quoted you, but that was because I was responding to your response to my initial post. It probably was more directed at Gameface, who as you mentioned, had explained the mechanics of purchasing guns at a gun show or via private sale. In an earlier post (#1369 or thereabouts) he said

Gameface said:
...The "loophole" that is actually being closed is private person to person firearms transfers. So not only will I have to perform a background check if I want to sell a gun on craigslist, but if my uncle wanted to return some guns that used to belong to my father we'd have to run a background check.

So, how would this work? I can't run a background check from my computer or smartphone. So all private sales would have to include an established FFL holder as middleman so that they could conduct the background check. There is currently a standard practice where a gun store will receive privately ordered firearms from out of state because guns cannot be shipped except from FFL holder to FFL holder. Then you go to the gun store pay a fee, usually around $25 but I've seen as low as $15 and as high as $40, plus the cost of the background check that they're required to run before releasing the gun to you. So in the case of my uncle wanting to give me guns that used to belong to my father to do it legally we'd have to meetup at the gun store, pay the fees and then he could give me the guns...
Click to expand...

to me, it seemed as though he was stating that it would put an undue hardship on private gun sellers...
hence my question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top