Mark at one point in another argument, err, discussion, mentioned having everyone entering a gun show fill out NICS paperwork before entering the show and if you pass you get a card or something that says you're good to purchase. Yes, it would slow down the show but it would assure legal transactions. As nice as it is to buy a gun with no hassle I also don't feel comfortable knowing that people who shouldn't own guns have it way too easy.

ErikO wrote:I maintain there is a difference between someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally. The actual 'gun show loophole' asserts that anyone can walk into any gun show and buy any gun with no background check. This is patently false. There would be no way to get enough support to stop private sales.

The 'gun show loophole' asserts that there is no federal requirement mandating an NICS check of all transfers, only those conducted by FFL holders...each state is free to define requirements as each sees fit.

Oregon has elected to require NICS & state police verification of all transfers conducted at gun shows without exception. Portland goes one step further by assigning a couple of cops to enforce the statute in the parking lot.

I maintain there is a difference between someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally.

Well...yeah...but what is it about guns that causes their 'status' or 'nature' to change once they have been acquired by a private party? What makes them a 'regulated item' in the store and 'private goods' out in the parking lot?

We willingly accept the transfer requirements when purchasing through an FFL and categorically reject any effort to extend those requirements into the private sector. In the same breath we steadfastly maintain that enforcement of existing requirements is all that should be permissible to regulate the acquisition of guns.

I am arguing that extending transfer requirements into the private sector is a logical extension of existing regulation which in no way infringes upon the buyer or seller's second amendment rights.

Further, I submit that as gun owners advancing additional regulatory requirements upon ourselves, we mitigate one of the fundamental arguments of the opposition without giving up anything. In doing so we also demonstrate that there is a distinct and definable difference between the all or nothing approach of the 'cold dead hands' rhetoric of the NRA and the 'all guns are evil' mantra of the rabid antigun movement.

ErikO wrote:I maintain there is a difference between someone selling their private goods privately and someone selling guns illegally. The actual 'gun show loophole' asserts that anyone can walk into any gun show and buy any gun with no background check. This is patently false. There would be no way to get enough support to stop private sales.

It certainly happens that way here in WA. Other states laws are no doubt tighter.

Fukshot wrote: Obviously, the difference between a proposal like this and an AWB is of no significance to those who hold that there should be no difference between a gun and a blender regarding sale and ownership.

I would be one of those. It's an inanimate object just like anything else. That's the way it used to be before the 1968 bullshit and there wasn't mass havoc and it needs to be that way again.

rolandson wrote:We willingly accept the transfer requirements when purchasing through an FFL and categorically reject any effort to extend those requirements into the private sector.

Actually we don't willing do shit we're forced. Just like we've been forced to accept all other sort of garbage legislation. We need to get rid of that shit instead add more on top of what's already here.

okay...we 'grudgingly' accept...i stand corrected.

ideally i would much prefer that people wouldn't do stupid things or bad things and then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

rather than write a slurry of new, more restrictive legislation, we argue for greater, more effective enforcement of those regulations that exist already. but any attempt to actually accomplish that is met with vehement opposition...from us. we come across as single minded and immovable; unwilling to face reality.

In 1994 reality was forced upon gun enthusists by a bunch of ill informed frightened antigun lobbyists...who are still there, still ill informed and still frightened. remaining immovable and unwilling to discuss merely strengthens their resolve and increases their numbers. make no mistake, these are the ones for whom there is no legitimate purpose for private gun ownership of any kind. they view a willingness to accept possession of bolt action rifles to be the epitome of compromise. "from my cold dead hands" is happily answered with "if you insist" ... they've done it before and would love to do it again.

I'm against this. Private sales should is perfectly legal. The government shouldn't be telling me what I can do with my own property.

Is this America or a police state?

The fact is, you don't know who is going to lose it and go on a rampage. Many guns have been purchased legally through an FFL and then been used in a shooting. Stopping private sales will only hurt regular folks.

The assault weapons ban was conceived and pushed by the arms industry in this country initially with the blessing of george bush the elder with billruger at the front, it was to protect them from glock and steyr and sigarms. The gop wouldn't do it because it was protectionist and the dems thought they could earn kudos from the gun control lobby. I personally would like to see the end of the war on drugs and laws passed that punished companies that relocate over seas, that would cut more crime than anything else.

rolandson wrote:okay...we 'grudgingly' accept...i stand corrected.

ideally i would much prefer that people wouldn't do stupid things or bad things and then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't believe anybody sane would prefer that people would do stupid things.

rolandson wrote: rather than write a slurry of new, more restrictive legislation, we argue for greater, more effective enforcement of those regulations that exist already. but any attempt to actually accomplish that is met with vehement opposition...from us. we come across as single minded and immovable; unwilling to face reality.

That's where your argument falls flat on its face, and unless you're talking about a wingnut anarchist, frankly, I don't know where the hell you got that idea from. We're not opposed to enforcement of existing laws. What we're opposed to is the creation of additionally restrictive laws on us law-abiders. We also believe in going through the legal process for gradually getting rid of overly-restrictive laws that we don't need...like the racist California Penal Code Section 12031, better known as the Mulford Act, signed into law specifically to keep black people from exercising their RKBA. Gee, thanks, Republicans...and Democrats....

rolandson wrote: In 1994 reality was forced upon gun enthusists by a bunch of ill informed frightened antigun lobbyists...who are still there, still ill informed and still frightened. remaining immovable and unwilling to discuss merely strengthens their resolve and increases their numbers. make no mistake, these are the ones for whom there is no legitimate purpose for private gun ownership of any kind. they view a willingness to accept possession of bolt action rifles to be the epitome of compromise. "from my cold dead hands" is happily answered with "if you insist" ... they've done it before and would love to do it again.

And in 1994, reality got visited upon the very political Party who pushed this anti-freedom boondoggle. They lost not one, but both chambers of Congress (this was the "New Republican Congress" that the mainstream media kept going on about). I helped vote them in at the time, and even though I wasn't yet pro-gun by a longshot, the AWB was definitely part of the reason why. While I didn't personally care for guns, even back then I understood the need to preserve the right for even these hick-redneck "gun nuts" to keep and bear them. A right isn't a privilege; it's a right. The AWB was also part of why Al Gore lost his own home state in 2000, as well as several others that he might have otherwise won.

As a Liberal, Charlton Heston's famous words are now also mine. And if the enemies of freedom "insist" again...well, they already know what happened to them last time they tried that. Liberty is not a negotiable thing. If it had been, we'd still have either slavery or Jim Crow or something similar, and Barack Obama would've had ZERO chance of becoming President...or we might not even exist as a nation in the first place. That's where my way of thinking appears to differ from those saying, "extend restrictions on the 2A further, it's OK!"

.

With the millions of unregistered firearms here, I don't see this as effective unless it's on a federal level AND there's a registration requirement. This is DOA. I would not support it. Fix the causes of violent crime; don't pass bullshit feel good laws meant to address one symptom (and fail on top of that).

I want the Government to take away all my firearms. They were all free and did not cost me anything. Then the police can keep me "safe" from the 180 lb guy with a baseball bat or knife. (or firearm)