What's new
By:

Gun Control

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
 
Stoked said:
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.
Click to expand...

yah, you're probably right. I couldn't see where moe's comments related to anything, either.
 
Stoked said:
Since you don't, as Colton showed, it is a valid observation.
Click to expand...

I acknowledged what I was saying was painful. I did not diminish or deny the pain felt. I never attached personal responsibility solely to colton for what he felt, but acknowledged that I was responsible for the pain I caused. I tried to open a dialogue on less painful ways of communicating.

I have not asked for anything different than that from you or any other person in these discussions.

I am many things, but in this case, hypocrite is not among them.
 
babe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I live in the state with the nation's strictest gun laws. I regularly sleep with windows open and doors unlocked. I sleep pretty darn well.
 
Hartsock said:
In St Louis? You must be crazy.
Click to expand...

Actually, I live in O'Fallon, IL, right now. Nothing much happens in the boondocks, except police hassling black drivers.

However, it was just as true when I lived at 3003 LaClede, some 35-40 years ago. We did have air conditioning, so the windows were open.
 
One Brow said:
Actually, I live in O'Fallon, IL, right now. Nothing much happens in the boondocks, except police hassling black drivers.

However, it was just as true when I lived at 3003 LaClede, some 35-40 years ago. We did have air conditioning, so the windows were open.
Click to expand...

Safety first





























Kidding, calm down!!
 
franklin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm no anarchist, but do want to point something out that I believe is valid.

Paper transactions just make it easier for some sort of conquering power or 2nd-amendment-infringing government entity to find and retrieve the guns owned by the general population, or at the very least arrest/eliminate those that own guns. That is worrisome.
 
leftyjace said:
I'm no anarchist, but do want to point something out that I believe is valid.

Paper transactions just make it easier for some sort of conquering power or 2nd-amendment-infringing government entity to find and retrieve the guns owned by the general population, or at the very least arrest/eliminate those that own guns. That is worrisome.
Click to expand...

You mean all these protect the nation gun owners are going to wait until after getting conquered to use their guns to protect the nation? Pretty ****ty strategy IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top