On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:





Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've
advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that
performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers.

It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a
dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states.

I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people
would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is:

"It won't keep criminals from getting guns".
"It's another tax"
"Slippery slope"
"Data base for future confiscation of all firearms"
"Why should I pay a fee to a FFL"

(that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you
are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably
shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range)

Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras
and driver's licenses"

I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to
oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in
ownership of a firearm.

The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing
on my 2A rights".

*That* is ridiculous.

You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you.

And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest
they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will
make society 'safer'.

So, we disagree.



Correct me if I am wrong but I think you acknowledged that the document
you linked to was *not* a federal form. If I understand correctly it's
simply an optional and personal, official looking bill of sale.

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.