It seems my last post was wrong to label you as uncompromising.

In fact I am in favor of the compromises you are willing to agree with.

I didn’t say anything about the NRA not compromising. In fact, I think they’ve compromised way too much over the years.

What I said was that the anti-liberty minded won’t compromise. The only compromises they offer are the kind where they settle for getting some of what they want while giving up nothing…and as soon as that “compromise” is settled, they start stridently demanding the things they didn’t get the first time.

That’s not a compromise.

And I don’t know where you came up with “you might not compromise…” I distinctly remember offering up a reasonable proposal for consideration…which is being resoundingly ignored. Go figure.

Actually, what I offered wasn’t even a compromise…I didn’t ask for anything in return.

Just so we’re all clear on what constitutes a compromise, here’s an example:

The anti’s want background checks to be conducted for every firearm sale in the country.

Well, if background checks are being conducted on every sale, then we know that the people buying guns are the good guys right?

So, I will agree to universal background checks in exchange for repeal of all restrictions on the types of firearms available for sale (not including things described as “destructive devices”…like rocket launchers).

See how that works? We each get something, we each give something up. Give and take.

But the authoritarians among us don’t seem to be blessed with the spirit of giving.

You’re wrong. After the Va Tech massacre the NRA compromised well ahead of me.

You might not compromise, but even the NRA will.

Nope, you’re still not clear on it.

It is illegal for a private seller to “knowingly” provide a firearm to a prohibited person in any way, whether by sale or by gift. In fact, it would be illegal if the seller “reasonably SHOULD have known” that the purchaser was a prohibited person.

I understand your confusion because the anti-liberty forces have been intentionally trying to mislead you for years. Obviously their efforts have paid off.

It is already illegal for ANYONE to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person ANYWHERE.

The issue is that, if the private seller doesn’t know the buyer, they have no way of finding out whether the buyer is a prohibited person or not.

The anti’s “solution” is very carefully calculated. By making background checks mandatory, yet maintaining that the NICS system remains restricted to LIcensed Dealers, they are intentionally limiting the liberty of private individuals to sell their private property. It is a back-door way of introducing registration: dealers are required to maintain form 4473′s for every sale they are involved in, which is a de-facto gun registry. Furthermore, after the newly crafted restriction inevitably proves to be ineffective in reducing crime (again, most criminals get their guns through theft or rogue dealers), would inevitably lead to the next “good first step”…official registration requirements…which leads to the next “good first step”…banning certain classes of firearms…which the newly implemented registry will make it easy for the ATF to seize (at least from the law abiding) if not turned in…then another category of firearms added to those that are prohibited…then another…etc etc etc.

The Anti’s ultimate goal always was, always has been and always will be total civilian disarmament. When they declare otherwise, they are lying. Period.

That’s why they will never consider compromises that would protect the rights of gun owners…even if those compromises actually WOULD increase safety or reduce crime; because it’s not about safety or crime. It’s not even really about guns. It’s about control. Pure and simple.

The problem is that the problem sales could happen privately. In other words someone could transfer ownership of a weapon to someone they knew to be a deranged lunatic and not be subject to any penalty for having done so.

Admittedly, it is often hard to judge just who is a lunatic. “We” as a society have attempted to make such ownership more difficult. Even the private individual might be reluctant to make firearms available to the lunatic. But some are going to make a healthy living off of selling to lunatics as long as the exception remains.

I’m extremely torn by this issue. I want to maintain unrestricted rights to gun ownership while keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

No “such a sale,” could not take place (legally) at a gun show.

In light of posts by pro-gun posters I am going to stick with my belief that the problem is not with gun shows in and of themselves. The problem lies with private sellers at gun shows.

If you have knowledge that the vendors are somehow exempt from the requirements placed upon other firearms “dealers” please educate me.

If the buyer and seller did not change, then you are wrong, the sale could not take place at a gun show, either.

If the seller is not a dealer, then the sale could take place no matter where it was conducted. It is not the PLACE of the sale that matters, but whether the seller is a licensed dealer. There is no “Gun Show Loophole,” only a “Private Seller Loophole.”

However, you implied that no arrest would have been made had this been a gun show

My statement, “Make that 55″ was a definitive one. However, the use of ellipsis was not. It was merely to mention the possibility that such a sale could take place at a gun show and not be caught by the system, something that almost every poster here has agreed is the case.

If he DID know that he was a suspect in that killing, and tried to legally buy a gun anyway…then you’re right, he’s just an idiot.

Which is fine by me. I prefer stupid criminals. They’re easier to catch.

Thank you for opening my eyes. Now that I know that all the Police are is a bunch of frightened people with no regard for life and who want to kill me, I’ll give them a wide berth.

Little David figured out the dark secret of the anti-liberty crowd: There is no gun show loophole. Any sale that is legal inside a gun show is legal outside a gun show.

That means that creating special restrictions that only apply to gun shows would be meaningless. All that the private individuals would have to do is go across the street to complete the sale and they’d be completely legal again.

The problem for the anti’s is that the general public won’t buy into a complete ban on private sales. So they settle on this “good first step” with the goal of increasing the infringement later on after it inevitably has no effect on crime.

As an aside: you ever notice that every proposal the anti’s forward is “a good first step.” So, what is the “last step”? They swear they don’t want to “take away our guns”…so, where is the line. Which laws will be enough and, after attaining them, all of the anti-liberty groups will turn out the lights and lock the doors for good?

At any rate, requiring background checks on private sales would be completely unenforceable without another of the anti’s favorite infringements and one that will never be accepted by gun owners: registration.

If the .gov doesn’t know who’s got the guns, how are they possibly going to know whether a private sale took place? If you don’t know the sale took place, how do you enforce the background check requirement?

I’m actually not philosophically opposed to background checks for private sales, what I’m opposed to is the subsequent restrictions that will be required in order to enforce MANDATORY checks.

Besides, most criminals get their guns through theft or from rogue dealers. Both of those are already crimes. I don’t imagine a criminal will submit to a background check before stealing a gun.

So, who would actually follow a law requiring background checks? The exact people who don’t really need them…law abiding citizens.

Conscientious, law abiding gun owners have no more desire to see guns fall into the wrong hands than the most zealous of anti-liberty advocates. The problem is that right now, under current law, not only are we not required to conduct background checks…we are not ALLOWED to.

How about this compromise: Make the NICS system available to private individuals AT NO COST, for the purposes of voluntarily performing background checks. That would ensure that no rights are infringed and if I’m selling to someone well known to me, I don’t have to bother…but if I offer a gun for sale on the open market, it gives me the ability to vet the purchaser…which, right now, I cannot even if I wanted to.

Conscientious sellers such as myself and the other 99.3% of gun owners would then have the ability to be sure we’re not selling to prohibited persons…a tool that most of us would welcome if it were available; criminals will continue being criminals…which they will do either way; and no one’s rights are infringed.

Oops…that last one is is the problem: What self-respecting anti-liberty activist would pass up an opportunity to infringe someone’s rights???

However, you implied that no arrest would have been made had this been a gun show and that simply isn’t factually accurate:

Make that 55.

Now had this been at a gun show…..

All I know is that the NRA was willing to give it up when upon my own beliefs about private gun ownership. I was forced to accept the NRA compromise on this issue.

I do not see a problem with laws that will punish private gun owners from transferring their ownership rights to terrorists.

Our current era of hysteria (post 9/11) has seen many efforts to destroy our core Constitutional rights and many more power grabs by all levels of government.
We citizens must reign-in government and restore our freedom.

Private sales of pistols and rifles is such a small portion of the market such sales are not a significant factor in crime. Almost all of the guns used in crime were either stolen or bought at a legitimate store.

For those who try to see both sides of this debate, we understand the concern some have with regard to criminals obtaining weapons, however upon examining the facts with regard to private transactions, these dealings between citizens are not part of the problem.

Stick to the Constitution and insist that government power remain limited to within the Constitution. The government, nor anyone else, has the right to know if you own a pistol or a rifle, unless your rights have been suspended due to prior criminal activity.

Among the pro-gun side, a major concern that has recently arisen is over the government’s use of psychological evaluations to deny gun ownership. From the pro-gun side, this action is seen as exactly what the old Soviet Union did to deny their citizens’ fundamental, God-given rights. On the other side, the misplaced belief is that somehow Cho, the VT shooter, could have been prevented from killing by denying legal access to a gun. The fact is that Cho could have stolen or borrowed a gun from a family member, or many other legitimate sources. He could have passed his psych test, then still flipped out.

The underlying problem of how Cho was mistreated by the Tech faculty and staff; actions that ostracized him from his peers and exacerbated his emotional isolation, have never been addressed. Had Cho been urged to channel his thoughts through his writings, he could have turned out to be another Edgar Allen Poe, instead his teacher caused him to “lose face” before his peers, the worst thing you can do to an Asian man.

Had all the right things been done, yet Cho still flipped, the large number of murders could have been prevented if Concealed Carry, or firearms in general, been allowed on campus. A similar situation at the Appalachian School of Law was quickly brought under control when the shooter, and African immigrant, was surprised to be confronted by two students who had quickly retrieved guns from their cars. The National Press suppressed the part of the Law School story that involved the use of firearms to stop a crime in progress. Had a few Tech students had weapons, Cho would have been stopped or even prevented from killing.

Guns do save lives, however when misused, just as a drunk driver misuses a car, a gun can be used for crime. It is not the gun’s fault, but the person pulling the trigger. Prosecute the criminal, but do not punish the law-abiding free citizens of our Nation for merely acquiring a weapon.

Private individuals should have the right to transfer ownership of weapons to people that they are sure are good people. But if they transfer ownership rights to someone they have no knowledge of they should be forced to assume liability for the transfer without a background check.

If you are so certain the person you transfer ownership rights is a good person, then you should be ready to assume liability. This would squash the tendency of someone who thinks they can make a quick buck by selling their weapon at inflated prices at gun shows to someone they have no idea about.

If you are so damn certain the private individual is clean, (your brother or your best friend) you have nothing to fear. But if you are going to sell to a stranger, without a background check, you assume liability.

Problem solved.

Gun show vendors are not the problem. The problem is that there are a wealth of private sellers to be found at gun shows that are the problem? That if one has no access to private sellers anywhere else, you can find one at a gun show?

Perhaps you can explain the “so called” gun show loophole to me? You posted about it so perhaps you know more then me.

I stated “so called” because an NRA member explained to me that there is no such loophole. That before the delivery of the weapon can be completed, the purchaser must complete a background check. That only after completion of the check will the weapon be delivered. Is this erroneous?

The only people that don’t have to do the checks are those without FFLs, who never (be it at a gun-show or selling to a friend or acquittance at home) have to do a background check on people.

There is no such thing as the “gun-show loophole”.