Guns and Pie

[baron555 934]

Here in Illinois, if I do a deal in the parking lot with another private individual, from this state, we both have to verify each has a valid FOID card.

By definition, to obtain the FOID card (validity of only three years), one has to undergo a background check. So therefore by default a background check has been conducted.

I'm not sure what I need to do to sell to a out of state person but for that kind of sale, I wouldn't do a parking lot sale. I know where to look up the regs, I just personally don't do those types of deals.

Matter of fact is that the existing laws are quite adequate; they just have to be properly enforced, across the board.

More laws or better enforcement of existing?

Where have we heard this before?

Making laws is easy and makes everyone feel happy; enforcing existing laws takes law enforcement teeth and even still judicial teeth and guts and don't worry about the criminals rights. As far as I am concerned, they gave those up when they committed their crime. Shooting them on the spot would be a great deterrent. Actually a better idea, as my lunch group has discussed, let them go but allow all the militia groups around the country free access to hunt them down and take them out. If they can survive, then they deserve to; if not, then maybe they'd think twice before they cross the line.

Edited December 18, 2009 by baron555

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Here in Illinois, if I do a deal in the parking lot with another private individual, from this state, we both have to verify each has a valid FOID card.

By definition, to obtain the FOID card (validity of only three years), one has to undergo a background check. So therefore by default a background check has been conducted.

I'm not sure what I need to do to sell to a out of state person but for that kind of sale, I wouldn't do a parking lot sale. I know where to look up the regs, I just personally don't do those types of deals.

Matter of fact is that the existing laws are quite adequate; they just have to be properly enforced, across the board.

More laws or better enforcement of existing?

Where have we heard this before?

Making laws is easy and makes everyone feel happy; enforcing existing laws takes law enforcement teeth and even still judicial teeth and guts and don't worry about the criminals rights. As far as I am concerned, they gave those up when they committed their crime. Shooting them on the spot would be a great deterrent. Actually a better idea, as my lunch group has discussed, let them go but allow all the militia groups around the country free access to hunt them down and take them out. If they can survive, then they deserve to; if not, then maybe they'd think twice before they cross the line.

Phil, I know about the FOID rules and Illinois' unusual (bizarre) way of doing things. What my issue with Mox is the proposed federal laws to close the "gun show loophole" There is no "gun show loophole" to close with federal law.

Mox will learn eventually, that these proposed gun laws sieze upon some "reasonable sounding" purpose, spew out inaccurate info to a populace then generally has no clue what gun laws already exist, and then proceed to ban as many firearms or firearms as transactions as they can with no regard to being reasonable. They use misleading sound bites to mislead uninformed people. The NRA, who opposes it, because they KNOW the laws and KNOW the proposal is nothing about what it purports...is then decried as "unreasonable".

The same thing was done during the run up to the so-called "assault weapons" ban. That law banned NOTHING, took not one single "assault rifle" off the street and was nothing more than congressional vomit regarding some really unimportant cosmetic features of guns. Take the muzzle break off and we are good to go! What non-sense! The average firearms ignoramus couldn't tell you a pre-ban from a post-ban rifle, and functionally there was no difference. But the NRA was unreasonable for opposing it? Then, after insisting congress "do something" before the summer recess (because "criminals don't take a summer vacation") Clinton waits a two full months until mid-september to sign the bill. In the meantime the magazine manufacturers work 3 shifts stamping out magazine bodies from sheet metal to be grandfathered under the law! Durint the entire 10 year moratorium (it was not a ban, it was a moratorium on new manufacture) there was never a shortage of large capacity magazines and the prices did not even go up any signifigant amount. The entire exercise was nothing but political soundbites and posturing. There never was any reason for the law and therefore it cannot be reasonable.

[mox 298]

Mox will learn eventually, that these proposed gun laws sieze upon some "reasonable sounding" purpose, spew out inaccurate info to a populace then generally has no clue what gun laws already exist, and then proceed to ban as many firearms or firearms as transactions as they can with no regard to being reasonable. They use misleading sound bites to mislead uninformed people. The NRA, who opposes it, because they KNOW the laws and KNOW the proposal is nothing about what it purports...is then decried as "unreasonable".

Just thought I'd mention that I've presented my own common sense solutions, nothing more. If requiring private sellers and licensed dealers to play by the same rules is something the NRA opposes, then I'll try to act really really surprised, but I don't think I can manage it.

What I hope you and others eventually learn: digging your heels in, resisting sensible legislation, and proving your point by scaring the ####### out of people instead of educating them does nothing but harm to your right to carry a gun. Showing up to hear the President speak with a gun may be your god given right, but all you're doing is making Nancy Pelosi look like a pretty reasonable person.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox will learn eventually, that these proposed gun laws sieze upon some "reasonable sounding" purpose, spew out inaccurate info to a populace then generally has no clue what gun laws already exist, and then proceed to ban as many firearms or firearms as transactions as they can with no regard to being reasonable. They use misleading sound bites to mislead uninformed people. The NRA, who opposes it, because they KNOW the laws and KNOW the proposal is nothing about what it purports...is then decried as "unreasonable".

Just thought I'd mention that I've presented my own common sense solutions, nothing more. If requiring private sellers and licensed dealers to play by the same rules is something the NRA opposes, then I'll try to act really really surprised, but I don't think I can manage it.

What I hope you and others eventually learn: digging your heels in, resisting sensible legislation, and proving your point by scaring the ####### out of people instead of educating them does nothing but harm to your right to carry a gun. Showing up to hear the President speak with a gun may be your god given right, but all you're doing is making Nancy Pelosi look like a pretty reasonable person.

OK, maybe I missed "Mox's common sense gun show proposal" What is it? How do individuals and dealers play by the same rules?

[mox 298]

OK, maybe I missed "Mox's common sense gun show proposal" What is it? How do individuals and dealers play by the same rules?

Of course I support private sales. I also support background checks, so the matter seems simple to me: private owners should be required to verify that a buyer has passed a background check, whether they're at a gun show or in a parking lot. What's so hard about that? Please don't tell me it's an undue burden on the seller. In this day and age we should be able to do it on the internet within minutes. (yeah I know we can't yet, but we should). Or the buyer visits their local law enforcement office and obtains a verifiable certificate good for some periodicity like 90 days or something. This is sensible, and it doesn't violate anybody's rights.

Now, if you're not a supporter of background checks, then the solution gets even easier. Nobody, including licensed dealers, are required to verify background checks. Done and done.

Either way, there just needs to be parity.

[baron555 934]

OK, maybe I missed "Mox's common sense gun show proposal" What is it? How do individuals and dealers play by the same rules?

Of course I support private sales. I also support background checks, so the matter seems simple to me: private owners should be required to verify that a buyer has passed a background check, whether they're at a gun show or in a parking lot. What's so hard about that? Please don't tell me it's an undue burden on the seller. In this day and age we should be able to do it on the internet within minutes. (yeah I know we can't yet, but we should). Or the buyer visits their local law enforcement office and obtains a verifiable certificate good for some periodicity like 90 days or something. This is sensible, and it doesn't violate anybody's rights.

Now, if you're not a supporter of background checks, then the solution gets even easier. Nobody, including licensed dealers, are required to verify background checks. Done and done.

Either way, there just needs to be parity.

I wonder how many sales are stopped due to these background checks? Mox the real problem is that imposing rules on law-abiding citizens DOES NOTHING for the criminals who by definition circumvent all laws. How do you rationalize that?

You can't. Criminals by definition, do not follow the laws. Why tax the majority for the sake of the criminals. All restrictive gun regs do is place undo burden on law abiding citizens. Why would we want to do that? And just stop in at your local police office? Maybe the police have their own agenda? All the control regs are geared for is the control part........please do not hide behind the fact that they talk about the big bad assault weapons or the cop killing bullets (sheesh). It's all about control. Do not be mislead; it's all about control of the masses. Welfare does a very good job of it. Stalin did it. Hitler did it. It's all the same. Some may not think so, but it is. Government should not control our people.

[mox 298]

I wonder how many sales are stopped due to these background checks? Mox the real problem is that imposing rules on law-abiding citizens DOES NOTHING for the criminals who by definition circumvent all laws. How do you rationalize that?

I wonder how many people break the speed limit even though we require them to be licensed to drive? All speed limits do is impose rules on law abiding citizens who know how to drive.

How about voting? Criminals who pad the voting rolls aren't going to bother registering to vote, and all registering to vote does is place undo burden on law abiding citizens. And maybe the local government have their own agenda. ...

I could go on.

Laws are established as baselines. If we as a society don't want criminals to have guns, we have to establish baselines. If we establish a baseline of "you must be this tall to purchase a gun," then there has to be some mechanism in place to enforce that requirement. If not, then you're de facto making it legal for somebody who has no business buying a gun to buy a gun. If a person knowingly circumvents the controls put in place, then they're operating outside the law.

You can't. Criminals by definition, do not follow the laws. Why tax the majority for the sake of the criminals. All restrictive gun regs do is place undo burden on law abiding citizens. Why would we want to do that? And just stop in at your local police office? Maybe the police have their own agenda? All the control regs are geared for is the control part........please do not hide behind the fact that they talk about the big bad assault weapons or the cop killing bullets (sheesh). It's all about control. Do not be mislead; it's all about control of the masses. Welfare does a very good job of it. Stalin did it. Hitler did it. It's all the same. Some may not think so, but it is. Government should not control our people.

Hehe...Godwin's law. I win.

Seriously though, if you're trying to convince me that there should be absolutely zero limits placed on our 2nd amendment rights, I'm just not going to buy it. Yes, there's some terrible legislation out there, and in many places 2nd amendment rights are unduly and unconstitutionally abridged. That needs to be fixed. But to turn it into some holy, untouchable god-given free-for-all? No. That's reading WAY more into the 2nd amendment than was ever intended, and I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind at all.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

OK, maybe I missed "Mox's common sense gun show proposal" What is it? How do individuals and dealers play by the same rules?

Of course I support private sales. I also support background checks, so the matter seems simple to me: private owners should be required to verify that a buyer has passed a background check, whether they're at a gun show or in a parking lot. What's so hard about that? Please don't tell me it's an undue burden on the seller. In this day and age we should be able to do it on the internet within minutes. (yeah I know we can't yet, but we should). Or the buyer visits their local law enforcement office and obtains a verifiable certificate good for some periodicity like 90 days or something. This is sensible, and it doesn't violate anybody's rights.

Now, if you're not a supporter of background checks, then the solution gets even easier. Nobody, including licensed dealers, are required to verify background checks. Done and done.

Either way, there just needs to be parity.

So in other words, open the instant background check system to private persons? OK. I have no problem with that. Currently it is not set up that way and could not work that way, but I am sure it could be. There is no reason it couldn't be implemented online and provide a bar-coded approval for any given person. The person could do a background check on themselves, print out the results and provide that along with their cash. The seller can retain the printout. Simple. No problem from me. The background check could be valid for 5 days, just as it is now for dealers. Good idea Mox.

The only thing I will point out, again, is that no such law has ever been proposed by congress and NRA has never had any opportunity to support such a law. I am sure they would as it would relieve a burden from dealers and allow us to do our own background checks and provide the printouts to a seller, whether it was a dealer of a private indivisual. The gun show loophole laws which have been proposed so far are nothing of the sort, they are simple bans on private sales, the NRA and I and YOU oppose that.

[visaveteran 1]

I think from the beginning of the USA, American gun owners, the ones who take the time and energy to be good with them, want arms to avoid a tyrannical government. It's in our king killing, tyrant overthrowing DNA. Yes, we have fun with guns too. Hunting. Competition shooting. Plinking. Skeet. But the ownership of guns within the big picture is still about defending the person, the home and keeping us a free nation.

So, Mox, you ask us to allow the fox to guard the chicken house by entrusting power over gun transactions to the very government that could bring tyranny. We can't own machine guns without special licenses, a ton of paperwork, and money. Why? So we have a weaker hand if the govenment needs to crack down on us. Maybe you find this funny or silly, but I still remember how far Richard Nixon went off the reservation within the Federal Government. Why should we be declawed and de-nutted by the very government we may someday need to confront.

You don't want us to sell each other guns...neighbor to neighbor...without bringing in Big Brother government. You want us to involve cops or the FBI background check database in selling a friend a .22 single shot pop gun.

You are willing to trust the government. Many of us will not. The agenda by gun controllers is to eliminate ALL guns. And they have been more successful than it might appear if you look back over the last 100 years of buying and selling guns. When I was very young, adults could go into a Sears or Monkey Wards and buy M1 Carbines and Garands for $15. Simply pay up and walk out. Now it can take days or weeks to get your gun after paying for it. Slowly slowly. Step by step. There are some US counties that require a 30 day waiting period! How long can it take to figure if it's cool or it's not to allow the sale to go through? It's harassment. It's to discourage gun ownership.

Our guns won't be lost in one big government push...or even two or three. It will come, as it already has, incrementally. Step by step.

And the current American mythology is guns are for pleasure or personal or home defense. The truth is, guns keep Uncle Sam democratic and a little fearful of its citizens. Gun hating people will ask, "Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?" Or "Why do you need a 30 round magazine?

Answer. Just in case.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Gun hating people will ask, "Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?" Or "Why do you need a 30 round magazine?

Answer. Just in case.

apparently those asking forgot about the rodney king riots.

[slim 1,525]

Guess that makes me a flip-flopper huh?

No, it makes you a lib!

What's that old saying? If you're not a liberal when you're 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40 you have no brain!

That's not one of those "paddle" holsters, is it? I saw a Youtube video demonstrating how easy it was to grab somebody's gun from one of those things, wondering how realistic that was.

Mine's not a "paddle" holster, it's a piece of kydex that's form-fitted to the gun and then shoved inside my waistband. The clip is on the outside and simply holds it in place on my pants or belt. (Check it out here - http://www.sharktac.com/home)

Most holsters for concealed carry don't offer much in the way of retention other than they're designed so your gun won't just fall out. They're not designed to prevent people from ripping it out when you're not looking because - they shouldn't see it! The video you watched on YouTube was probably very realistic in that someone can remove a gun from a holster when the wearer isn't aware.

There are several layers of retention and security built into some holsters. Others have none at all. Typically speaking, cops wear holsters that have a lot of retention, even to the point where one must press down and forward then pull up while simultaneously engaging a thumbreak or a similar device. Why? Because cops wear guns that're "out there" for all to see. Everyone knows a cop has a gun and someone might try to grab it. So, the cop employs a more secure retention device to carry his sidearm in. If you're out working a fence row on your property, you may want no retention at all, just something to hold your gun. So you go for a holster with no security and no retention. Anyone could just rip that right out. While concealed carrying, nobody is supposed to know you have a gun... so, no retention needed.

Most "paddle" style holsters are for concealed carrying or less-secure open carrying. They're not designed to prevent someone from removing your gun without your knowledge. Once again, this seems to be a case of someone out there saying "well that's just not safe" and then people jumping on the bandwagon. Ever notice how cops seem to cover their sidearms when walking through a crowd? That's so nobody takes it out. It's called weapons retention. When you're taking a whiz at 7-11 and you're carrying, the first thing you should be thinking about when someone joins you is "is my gun secure?" If you're smart about it, they'll never even know you're armed. If you're not smart about it (and your gun is out there for them to see - and snatch!) then you might get your gun taken away or you might want to have a little more security and retention built into your holster. - And you should probably carry a taser, baton and pepper spray too, cause you're doing it wrong!

We also have laws that prohibit people from running stop signs. But some people still run stop signs, so should we just make it legal to run stop signs?

No, we shouldn't make it legal. However, when people run stop signs I very seldom hear an outcry from special-interest groups to ban cars.

So if you were the President, you'd be perfectly comfortable standing--with your family--in front of a couple thousand armed citizens of all political persuasions? You'd have no problem at all with that? Come on.

Absolutely not. First of all, I'd be armed too, and second of all, they SHOULD BE armed - they're Americans.

What many people, and almost all politicians, have twisted is the fact that just because someone is armed they're all of the sudden more dangerous than if they're not armed. Why is that?

Everybody should be scared of a populace using their 2nd amendment rights to suppress their 1st amendment rights.

So it's OK for the government to use arms to suppress our 1st Amendment Rights but not OK for us to use our 2nd Amendment Rights to protect them?

What if everyone at that rally had been armed? Would nobody have spoken?

And why is it that we never had supporters openly packing at Republican rallies? Certainly there would be a LOT of gun owners who were thankful enough for McCain's support of their 2nd amendment rights that they'd show their thanks by an open show of their right to bear arms. And yet not one of them did. It was only when the black librul showed up that some idiot decided this was a perfect time and place to exercise his open carry rights. In my book, at the very least, that's brandishing a weapon while not under threat, at least in spirit. Every 2nd amendment supporter in America should have condemned that jackass.

Wasn't that jackass also black? I saw a lot of pictures of that guy... but not too many showing anything more than his big scary gun and his back. Where were the libs on that aspect?

The same thing was done during the run up to the so-called "assault weapons" ban. That law banned NOTHING, took not one single "assault rifle" off the street and was nothing more than congressional vomit regarding some really unimportant cosmetic features of guns. Take the muzzle break off and we are good to go! What non-sense! The average firearms ignoramus couldn't tell you a pre-ban from a post-ban rifle, and functionally there was no difference. But the NRA was unreasonable for opposing it? Then, after insisting congress "do something" before the summer recess (because "criminals don't take a summer vacation") Clinton waits a two full months until mid-september to sign the bill. In the meantime the magazine manufacturers work 3 shifts stamping out magazine bodies from sheet metal to be grandfathered under the law! Durint the entire 10 year moratorium (it was not a ban, it was a moratorium on new manufacture) there was never a shortage of large capacity magazines and the prices did not even go up any signifigant amount. The entire exercise was nothing but political soundbites and posturing. There never was any reason for the law and therefore it cannot be reasonable.

I used my post-ban "assault rifle" to teach 30+ Boy Scouts how to shoot man-sized targets at 300 yards weekend before last. It was cool though, because there's no flash suppressor or bayonet lug on it so it's not nearly as dangerous as all those pre-ban "assault rifles."

What I hope you and others eventually learn: digging your heels in, resisting sensible legislation, and proving your point by scaring the ####### out of people instead of educating them does nothing but harm to your right to carry a gun. Showing up to hear the President speak with a gun may be your god given right, but all you're doing is making Nancy Pelosi look like a pretty reasonable person.

Once again we're back to this "people with guns are scary" line of thought. Politicians, more than anyone, should be comfortable around armed people. After all, they're representing them!

I wonder how many people break the speed limit even though we require them to be licensed to drive? All speed limits do is impose rules on law abiding citizens who know how to drive.

Speed limits impose rules on law abiding citizens who are LICENSED to carry out a PRIVILEGE. Bearing arms is not a privilege - it's a RIGHT. You don't license a Right and you shouldn't be able to pass laws to infringe upon it. I love how folks always compare guns to driving yet never once consider the difference between the free exercise thereof. One is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution and passed on to us from GOD. The other is just something we do cause we're lazy.

Your "right" to operate an automobile is not anywhere in the Constitution. It can be "interpreted" in many of the same places as your "right" to health care, but it's not the same as your RIGHT to bear arms that's spelled out in very easy to understand written form.

That needs to be fixed. But to turn it into some holy, untouchable god-given free-for-all? No. That's reading WAY more into the 2nd amendment than was ever intended, and I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind at all.

I know we touched on this in one of our past threads, but what is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? What did our founding fathers have in mind?

I have way too many quotes to address every single point of yours, mox, but I'd like to reinforce my statement of you being a completely different gun owner one year from now. It seems your heart is in the right place but you've been liberal-media-fucktarded to death and, as a sensible guy, don't want to throw caution to the wind just yet. I get that. It actually makes sense. I'll give you a lot of credit (and the reason I know you'll change your mind is) because you're not saying, "No way, you guys are wrong." You're saying, "show me why you're right." When people have an open mind about things, even if they've previously based all their assumptions on liberal-media-fucktardedness, they tend to come around when confronted with the truth. - We can chock it up to all those years in Kali!

I'm already enjoying working you over... grinding away at that newsmedia-infused exterior to get down to the good old conspiracy theorist that's in there somewhere! I'd also like to thank Gary and Phil for providing some great supporting fire. If I had more quotes, I'd put a real nice thumbs up under visaveterans post as well. Keep up the good work gentlemen. Someday in the not-too-distant future we'll be counting mox as a member of our fire team as we head over to OT to convert the naysayers over there. Keep your peckers hard and your powder dry!

[slim 1,525]

Just saw this link - http://video.foxnews.com/12637412/smash-and-grab

How do we stop criminals like these with more laws?

[baron555 934]

What did our founding fathers have in mind?

It was a very intellectual, multi-tiered reasoning:

1. Everyone had an arm and used it as the tool is was intended for. Back in that day it was a necessity to live.

2. Men, in those day, might need to be pressed into militia (call it military service). Having them pretrained made perfect sense.

3. They had just witnessed what had occurred for decades in Europe; dictatorship type rule by kings and queens and religious zealots had totally squashed the public because they had no rights, no freedoms and most importantly, no means to protest that fact.

Yamamoto (sp?) very famously stated in WWII that he dare never invade the continental US because there was "a gun behind every blade of grass".

Hitler first dearmed the public. Lenin and Stalin did the same. An unarmed public can be controlled. Make no small talk about it; an unarmed public can be controlled.

I echo Slim's comments about the media making folks who own guns automatically evil. Actually, they are more sane and sensible than their opposites. Why? They understand their right and they accept the inherent responsibility.

Make no small talk, an unarmed public can be controlled. This is a very important thought that all should contemplate as we slowly give up our freedoms.

If you need, I can give you the analogy of how to trap wild pigs.

[mox 298]

I have way too many quotes to address every single point of yours, mox, but I'd like to reinforce my statement of you being a completely different gun owner one year from now. It seems your heart is in the right place but you've been liberal-media-fucktarded to death and, as a sensible guy, don't want to throw caution to the wind just yet. I get that. It actually makes sense. I'll give you a lot of credit (and the reason I know you'll change your mind is) because you're not saying, "No way, you guys are wrong." You're saying, "show me why you're right." When people have an open mind about things, even if they've previously based all their assumptions on liberal-media-fucktardedness, they tend to come around when confronted with the truth. - We can chock it up to all those years in Kali!

I'm already enjoying working you over... grinding away at that newsmedia-infused exterior to get down to the good old conspiracy theorist that's in there somewhere! I'd also like to thank Gary and Phil for providing some great supporting fire. If I had more quotes, I'd put a real nice thumbs up under visaveterans post as well. Keep up the good work gentlemen. Someday in the not-too-distant future we'll be counting mox as a member of our fire team as we head over to OT to convert the naysayers over there. Keep your peckers hard and your powder dry!

Hehe...you're making some pretty big assumptions. I don't let the media--whether it's the left or "Faux News" tell me what to believe. (slightly off-topic: if you are forming ANY of your opinions from ANY of the cable news outlets, whether it's FOX or MSNBC or CNN, congratulations you've just become dumber.) Feel free to keep grinding away, I don't mind. And I'll keep grinding away at you folks too. All I ask is that you try to understand my position. VV, for example, seems to think that I advocate taking guns away and giving all our rights to the government. Either I'm not explaining myself well, or my posts are being skimmed for talking points and nothing more. But it's certainly not what I'm advocating. I think we're all a LOT closer on the issues than you think.

[slim 1,525]

Hehe...you're making some pretty big assumptions.

Well, you know what they say about assumptions.

I don't let the media--whether it's the left or "Faux News" tell me what to believe.

I believe you on that but you seem inclined to review all the evidence from all the sources (like the YouTube video) and sometimes some of the sources are only propagating ideals to their own end. Not saying you shouldn't believe all of what you hear and half of what you see but it's important, especially in the 2A debate, to view all things from big-picture and long-term standpoint.

I don't agree with all that the NRA does and I don't dispute all that Pelosi proposes. However, I try to consider each fact based on my personal experiences and not what I've seen on TV. I also try to keep in mind why they're doing what they're doing and the long-term ramifications of their actions. 9 times out of 10, NRA is doing something on the side I agree with. Pelosi? Well, there's that 1 out of, I don't wanna say 10, maybe more like 100.

I wonder if you would've considered carrying your SR9 cocked and locked had you not read about the recall of the earlier models on Wikipedia and even Ruger's own website. Regardless, the updated information is - they've fixed it.

Feel free to keep grinding away, I don't mind. And I'll keep grinding away at you folks too. All I ask is that you try to understand my position. VV, for example, seems to think that I advocate taking guns away and giving all our rights to the government. Either I'm not explaining myself well, or my posts are being skimmed for talking points and nothing more. But it's certainly not what I'm advocating.

The thing about gun control is when you advocate for "common sense" legislation, you're advocating for taking all our guns away. Banning private sales at gun shows or making NICS checks mandatory for all transfers does, in fact, surrender our Rights to the government. Giving up ANY of our Rights puts us on the path to eventual disarmament. This is where the NRA loses most folks like yourself. Ever heard that quote about the man who surrenders liberty for security will lose both and deserves neither?

That's you right now.

You made a good argument about either requiring checks for everyone or nobody at all. Which side of that do you stand on? Also, please clarify, how does that not infringe upon your Right?

I think we're all a LOT closer on the issues than you think.

I believe we are too, and that's why I'm making assumptions!