On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 12:20:36 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 5:02:40 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/16 3:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:45:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:35:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



So what? It still demonstrated how easy one with a hair across his
ass
can buy a gun. Or two. Or three.


The point is, if someone was willing to break an existing federal law,
why wouldn't they break a new federal law?


Because a chain of custody that automatically exists because of the
background check allows a trace as to where that gun came from, who
owned it, who sold it, when and to whom.


That assumes we know where all of the guns are now.


Where and when do you start to address a problem? You seem to want an
overnight solution otherwise "nothing can be done".

Part of that process is already in place. If you purchase a firearm from
a federally licensed dealer a quick background check is done and
a record of the transaction is kept. Nobody seems to be complaining
much about that. If that process prevents even a few people from
getting a firearm (which it *has*) who should not be sold one (felon,
etc.) why not extend the same requirement to private sales or to the
"grey" area of quasi-dealer (gun show) deals? I've seen statistics that
suggest that about 40 percent of gun acquisitions are done without a FFL
being involved therefore no background check is conducted and no records
of the transaction are kept.

Will it stop all illegal gun transfers? Of course not.
Will it stop all gun related crime? Absolutely not.
But, it's an honest attempt at addressing a problem without
sighing and simply accepting that "nothing can be done".
Furthermore, it does not "impinge" on anyone's right to bear arms.

I'd like to point something else out from a personal point of view.
Although politically I have always been an Independent, my fundamental
leanings have almost always been towards conservatism as represented
by the GOP of years ago. I don't subscribe to everything the GOP has
stood for or promoted in the past but fundamentally I am conservative by
nature. The discussions and some of the comments made by some
participants of this newsgroup has enlightened me to something however.