BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

BAR[_2_]

In article , says...

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:46:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.

Bull****
I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of
guns
to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law
abiding citizens.

-----------------------------
Questions for you:

1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected?
2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you
like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were?
3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer
isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a
responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner?

The end of this logical progression is a gun transfer tax and maybe
even an owner tax.

And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I
doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to
terrorists, criminals and psychopaths. So why not have universal
background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you
acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun
seller or transferer?

OK then why not allow me to dial up the NCIS and run a check on the
purchaser myself?
I can sell a car without going through a dealer, why not a gun?

----------------------------------------------

If that's what it takes to institute universal background checks, I am
all for it. There has to be a legal responsibility to abide by any
disapproval, just like a FFL however. If you go ahead and sell
anyway, you violated the law.

Are you going to require that prosecutors stop using the felon in possion of a firearm as a
bargining chip when getting the "alleged" criminal to admit to the primary crime? What good
is the law if it isn't goint to be enforced?