Background checks at gun shows?

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So basically, if i am a convicted felon, even one that is sought by the police, i can get a gun there, file the number off of it to make it an "illegal weapon" and then no one can trace it after i shoot three police officer, all they can say is that "this is an illegal weapon, it is not proof that there is anything wrong with the private trading business"?

Yeah, that sounds like a real fucking smart plan you yanks got there. I'm just wondering, how many of those "illegal guns" were purchased legally and had the serial number filed off so they couldn't be traced making them the "illegal guns" you scream about being the culprit? 99% is probably extremely close, probably needs some decimals too.

Here we "try" and place the blame were it should go which is on the person committing the crime not the device used.

I have yet to see a gun get up and shot somebody although I heard there was this magician once that had a gun that could do this...............although I am a bit skeptical.

Exactly, so if Iran develops and sells a nuke to a terrorist group, we can't blame Iran for that, right?

I have yet to see a human shoot someone without a gun.

No but if you can find me one gun maker passing out free guns to murderers/felons Ill be there with you to get it shut down.

You have seen a human kill someone with something other than a gun though haven't you?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I consider myself pro-gun, but I believe that back-ground checks and mandatory waiting periods are critical to prevent gun owners from getting a bad name. Although, I do not like the idea of registration.

How do you propose that we "regulate" private sale of firearms without creating a nation registery of all firearms in america and who owns them with access to the system by everyone?

See were that goes? Nobody's business what i own and how much I own of it.

The starts the end around of the 2nd Amendment don't ya think.

How is a registry BAD? It seems that any attempt to gain transparency at any issue is met by "OMG this is the end." I mean the same could be said about other things we need to register like cars. But even simple things that we subscribe to like services like cell phone services, and what not are essentially a "registry" because really the government can access all this also. We're more worried about these things because we're not just telling the government we have a cell phone. They can use it to track where we are, what calls we make, monitor our calls, etc.

A gun registry on the other hand tells the government that you HAVE a gun. You have a gun. Not where you go shoot it, not whom you point it at, not that you use it in domestic violence, etc etc. It's just traceability if you look at it from a professional standpoint. And even if it could be used as a tool to end the second amendment, how's this any different than having the government ban guns all together tomorrow? Nothing. So what's wrong with traceability?

Registration leads to confiscation, 100% of the time. Feel free to point out long standing registration schemes in any country that haven't lead to confiscation of some sort of firearms. It's a slow process, disarming a nation. It starts with licenses to own, moves to registering each weapon, then restricting where they can be kept, then it's a simple matter of taking them all away to the cutting torches. I mean, honestly, we've SEEN it happen in our lifetimes to Australia and the UK. It's the EXACT same tactic that they try to push here. Gun control works like boiling a frog, if you're familiar with the analogy.

The basic foundation of our nation is that we are entitled to every freedom up to the point that it infringes on someone elses. The government's powers and reach are limited to what is required and set forth of it in the Constitution. I don't have to have a reason to own 30 assault rifles, kept in a vault with a loaded magazine in each one. But then, it's not hurting anyone that I do. It's my business. I'm an American, it is my right to do so, and I am free to do so. Instead of looking at the gun trade, look more closely at the people committing the criminal violence that you're actually concerned with. Because their guns are pretty hard to get rid of. And they're committment to violence will continue even if they don't have guns.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

*snip*

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

Wow, not only are you a huge tool, you have no idea what you are talking about either.

You dont really need to debate American rights. We already told the redcoats to fuckoff a while back.

And degrading American troops with your UK brainwashed garbage is getting old.

Add in the insults in every post, you are just a polished turd of a troll.

Problem is that you can't debate me on this, you have no reply so you move on to insults, i wouldn't mind that if you didn't accuse me of one thing...

I have NEVER nor will i EVER degrade US troops, you should apologise for stating that.

If you have ANY balls or any kind of sense of right in your body or mind you should apologise for that.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

*snip*

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

Wow, not only are you a huge tool, you have no idea what you are talking about either.

You dont really need to debate American rights. We already told the redcoats to fuckoff a while back.

And degrading American troops with your UK brainwashed garbage is getting old.

Add in the insults in every post, you are just a polished turd of a troll.

Problem is that you can't debate me on this, you have no reply so you move on to insults, i wouldn't mind that if you didn't accuse me of one thing...

I have NEVER nor will i EVER degrade US troops, you should apologise for stating that.

If you have ANY balls or any kind of sense of right in your body or mind you should apologise for that.

He moved to insults? You start there. Every single post. You feel like you have to be insulting to others in order to grab their attention. I think it's likely that you're simply an aggressive alcoholic that usually posts under the influence.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So basically, if i am a convicted felon, even one that is sought by the police, i can get a gun there, file the number off of it to make it an "illegal weapon" and then no one can trace it after i shoot three police officer, all they can say is that "this is an illegal weapon, it is not proof that there is anything wrong with the private trading business"?

Yeah, that sounds like a real fucking smart plan you yanks got there. I'm just wondering, how many of those "illegal guns" were purchased legally and had the serial number filed off so they couldn't be traced making them the "illegal guns" you scream about being the culprit? 99% is probably extremely close, probably needs some decimals too.

Here we "try" and place the blame were it should go which is on the person committing the crime not the device used.

I have yet to see a gun get up and shot somebody although I heard there was this magician once that had a gun that could do this...............although I am a bit skeptical.

Exactly, so if Iran develops and sells a nuke to a terrorist group, we can't blame Iran for that, right?

I have yet to see a human shoot someone without a gun.

No but if you can find me one gun maker passing out free guns to murderers/felons Ill be there with you to get it shut down.

You have seen a human kill someone with something other than a gun though haven't you?

The maker doesn't need to do that, once it's in the right hands all you need to do is to fix it up so it's untraceable and whoopdefuckingdo you have an illegal gun.

Aye, i have, household chemical compounds too, but this isn't downtown London or NYC, this is a war zone.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I consider myself pro-gun, but I believe that back-ground checks and mandatory waiting periods are critical to prevent gun owners from getting a bad name. Although, I do not like the idea of registration.

How do you propose that we "regulate" private sale of firearms without creating a nation registery of all firearms in america and who owns them with access to the system by everyone?

See were that goes? Nobody's business what i own and how much I own of it.

The starts the end around of the 2nd Amendment don't ya think.

Why would you NEED to own an unregistered firearm? And please, the 2'nd amendment is just bullshit, what would your plink gun do to choppers, jets and tanks? The only reason it was instituted was because AT THE TIME it was a state of the art weapon, today you wouldn't stand a chance against a government wanting complete power if they had control over the military forces, if they didn't, then your plinking guns wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Truth is that you'd accept it if you were to be probed up your arse ever single day by the government as long as you could keep your gun, you've become a nation of wimps, mostly and the most vocal on keeping gun rights are the biggest wimps of this forum i know of.

Can you POSSIBLY make a point without insulting people?

We don't NEED unregistered firearms, but the governement does not NEED registered firearms either. What good does a registry do if the guns just end up getting stolen and sold on the black market? Or imported from somewhere where they are not registered and sold? If people want to commit a crime with a gun and not have it traced to them its quite easy to do.

Also, if it government does happen to break down to the point where its fighting its own citizens, I doubt there will be a lot of tanks/planes/and choppers. If there are, it will be a slaughter.. but then whats the point of being an oppressive government if you have no citizens to control?

But, the main reason I own a gun is that people like YOU are not going to protect me with someone comes into my house looking to harm me or my family. The police, the military, etc are not designed to prevent something like that from happening. I guess if wanting to have a gun and not have to depend on my government to protect me makes me a 'wimp' then so be it.

I define a wimp as someone who refuses to accept responsibility for themselves. If you Brits want the government to hold your dick while you piss, so be it.. I'd prefer to hold it myself thank you very much.

If i needed a firearm to protect my family i'd get out of Kabul or wherever you live real fast.

I am not shitting you, if i needed a firearm to keep my family safe, i would move, i don't even remember to lock my car nor my front door in Sheffield and i've not ONCE walked through the streets of downtown London at night with my kids feeling like i need a firearm.

Perhaps you are just grown up with that kind of thinking and i'm not?

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

First on the ground in Afghanistan, LAST to use a toothbrush.. Seriously, nobody is talking about Afghanistan.. stop bringing it up.

I've never had terrorists attack me where I live either.. does it mean you can go home now? Its pretty unlikely that Bin Ladin will come attack suburban Florida.. he will probably hit places like New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and of course places like London where he knows nobody will be carrying any guns and you will just surrender your family to him.

Besides, being in Florida means I can be hit with a hurricane at any time. As we seen in New Orleans, government won't be there to protect you. But like others have said, who gives a shit what you think of the 2nd Amendment.. you don't live here and you are not a citizen..

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

*snip*

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

Wow, not only are you a huge tool, you have no idea what you are talking about either.

You dont really need to debate American rights. We already told the redcoats to fuckoff a while back.

And degrading American troops with your UK brainwashed garbage is getting old.

Add in the insults in every post, you are just a polished turd of a troll.

Problem is that you can't debate me on this, you have no reply so you move on to insults, i wouldn't mind that if you didn't accuse me of one thing...

I have NEVER nor will i EVER degrade US troops, you should apologise for stating that.

If you have ANY balls or any kind of sense of right in your body or mind you should apologise for that.

Thats ALL you do is insult people in this forum. Nearly every post you make does it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

*snip*

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

Wow, not only are you a huge tool, you have no idea what you are talking about either.

You dont really need to debate American rights. We already told the redcoats to fuckoff a while back.

And degrading American troops with your UK brainwashed garbage is getting old.

Add in the insults in every post, you are just a polished turd of a troll.

Problem is that you can't debate me on this, you have no reply so you move on to insults, i wouldn't mind that if you didn't accuse me of one thing...

I have NEVER nor will i EVER degrade US troops, you should apologise for stating that.

If you have ANY balls or any kind of sense of right in your body or mind you should apologise for that.

He moved to insults? You start there. Every single post. You feel like you have to be insulting to others in order to grab their attention. I think it's likely that you're simply an aggressive alcoholic that usually posts under the influence.

I'm going to ignore you for your own good.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So basically, if i am a convicted felon, even one that is sought by the police, i can get a gun there, file the number off of it to make it an "illegal weapon" and then no one can trace it after i shoot three police officer, all they can say is that "this is an illegal weapon, it is not proof that there is anything wrong with the private trading business"?

Yeah, that sounds like a real fucking smart plan you yanks got there. I'm just wondering, how many of those "illegal guns" were purchased legally and had the serial number filed off so they couldn't be traced making them the "illegal guns" you scream about being the culprit? 99% is probably extremely close, probably needs some decimals too.

Here we "try" and place the blame were it should go which is on the person committing the crime not the device used.

I have yet to see a gun get up and shot somebody although I heard there was this magician once that had a gun that could do this...............although I am a bit skeptical.

Exactly, so if Iran develops and sells a nuke to a terrorist group, we can't blame Iran for that, right?

I have yet to see a human shoot someone without a gun.

No but if you can find me one gun maker passing out free guns to murderers/felons Ill be there with you to get it shut down.

You have seen a human kill someone with something other than a gun though haven't you?

The maker doesn't need to do that, once it's in the right hands all you need to do is to fix it up so it's untraceable and whoopdefuckingdo you have an illegal gun.

Aye, i have, household chemical compounds too, but this isn't downtown London or NYC, this is a war zone.

Yes, everyone knows you are in Afghanistan.. nobody fucking cares in this thread. Its about gun usage in the United States. The fact you are killing terrorists in Afghanistan has no point here other than to stroke your e-dick.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
60 Minutes had a segment on how the brother of one of the killed in the VT massacre was able to go to a gun show and buy $5k worth of guns(assault rifles, pistols, etc) and ammo within a hour without a single verification/background check. He was even able to buy in the parking lot. Only one person asked for a drivers license and when he told the seller he didn't want to show it to him, the seller asked for an additional $100 and sold it to him.

This segment occurred in VA where I guess folks from all over the eastern seaboard (based on the license plates in the parking lot) come b/c the ease to purchase guns.

I thought all that was proven to be a lie? Yeah, that 60 minutes segment was full of bullshit and misinformation.

How?

I'll have to look it up but it turns out the VT brother DID get background checks for what he bought and he lied about all of it. As far as the misinformation it was the whole "You mean I can buy a SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm!" As if there is something special about a semi-automatic firearm when almost all are semi-automatic, there's few that aren't.

Any decent hunting rifle or target shooting rifle that i know of is bolt action. Of course, i have a very selective taste when it comes to rifles. On hand guns i agree, all of my one single favourite is a semi automatic.

Only difference is the rate of fire, and it takes about as long to reload a bolt action rifle as it takes to target a semi again so it doesn't matter really, it's just that semis are usually much lower quality rifles made for those who care more about semi-automatic loading than accuracy.

Now John, there are a number of semi-automatic rifles out there that are among the most accurate in the world. Off the top of my head, Barret and Cheytac spring to mind as the most accurate long range weapons in the military or civilian worlds. I own an H&K PSG-1, and a competition AR-10 that are both capable of 1/2" MOA.

Remember that thread where you spent about 10 posts claiming you could shoot a quarter sized group at 700 meters with any 30.06 bolt action rifle? And those of us that actually have a clue about firearms, competitive shooting and long range shooting quickly put you in your place, calculating your claim out to be somewhere around .0025" MOA? I'm sure I can drag that thread up. You eventually abandoned it to save face when you realized everyone was seeing through your lies.

But you know what, I'm probably way out of line, questioning a guy that just finished snorting spoonfuls of brandy with his SAS sniper buddies.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So basically, if i am a convicted felon, even one that is sought by the police, i can get a gun there, file the number off of it to make it an "illegal weapon" and then no one can trace it after i shoot three police officer, all they can say is that "this is an illegal weapon, it is not proof that there is anything wrong with the private trading business"?

Yeah, that sounds like a real fucking smart plan you yanks got there. I'm just wondering, how many of those "illegal guns" were purchased legally and had the serial number filed off so they couldn't be traced making them the "illegal guns" you scream about being the culprit? 99% is probably extremely close, probably needs some decimals too.

Here we "try" and place the blame were it should go which is on the person committing the crime not the device used.

I have yet to see a gun get up and shot somebody although I heard there was this magician once that had a gun that could do this...............although I am a bit skeptical.

Exactly, so if Iran develops and sells a nuke to a terrorist group, we can't blame Iran for that, right?

I have yet to see a human shoot someone without a gun.

No but if you can find me one gun maker passing out free guns to murderers/felons Ill be there with you to get it shut down.

You have seen a human kill someone with something other than a gun though haven't you?

The maker doesn't need to do that, once it's in the right hands all you need to do is to fix it up so it's untraceable and whoopdefuckingdo you have an illegal gun.

Aye, i have, household chemical compounds too, but this isn't downtown London or NYC, this is a war zone.

you do realize that in the US if you get caught with an illegal (filed number) handgun it is a mandatory 5 year sentence.

That being said let me tell you what would cure this problem.

Make the punishment for convicted felons and owning of illegal guns so severe that no one would use them. Maybe capital punishment for a gun crime used in the commission of a felony or something along that line.

I'd be willing to bet we could curtail this issue.

My point is you can't fix a crime problem by going after the laws that only obtain to the law abiding citizen.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I consider myself pro-gun, but I believe that back-ground checks and mandatory waiting periods are critical to prevent gun owners from getting a bad name. Although, I do not like the idea of registration.

How do you propose that we "regulate" private sale of firearms without creating a nation registery of all firearms in america and who owns them with access to the system by everyone?

See were that goes? Nobody's business what i own and how much I own of it.

The starts the end around of the 2nd Amendment don't ya think.

Why would you NEED to own an unregistered firearm? And please, the 2'nd amendment is just bullshit, what would your plink gun do to choppers, jets and tanks? The only reason it was instituted was because AT THE TIME it was a state of the art weapon, today you wouldn't stand a chance against a government wanting complete power if they had control over the military forces, if they didn't, then your plinking guns wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Truth is that you'd accept it if you were to be probed up your arse ever single day by the government as long as you could keep your gun, you've become a nation of wimps, mostly and the most vocal on keeping gun rights are the biggest wimps of this forum i know of.

Can you POSSIBLY make a point without insulting people?

We don't NEED unregistered firearms, but the governement does not NEED registered firearms either. What good does a registry do if the guns just end up getting stolen and sold on the black market? Or imported from somewhere where they are not registered and sold? If people want to commit a crime with a gun and not have it traced to them its quite easy to do.

Also, if it government does happen to break down to the point where its fighting its own citizens, I doubt there will be a lot of tanks/planes/and choppers. If there are, it will be a slaughter.. but then whats the point of being an oppressive government if you have no citizens to control?

But, the main reason I own a gun is that people like YOU are not going to protect me with someone comes into my house looking to harm me or my family. The police, the military, etc are not designed to prevent something like that from happening. I guess if wanting to have a gun and not have to depend on my government to protect me makes me a 'wimp' then so be it.

I define a wimp as someone who refuses to accept responsibility for themselves. If you Brits want the government to hold your dick while you piss, so be it.. I'd prefer to hold it myself thank you very much.

If i needed a firearm to protect my family i'd get out of Kabul or wherever you live real fast.

I am not shitting you, if i needed a firearm to keep my family safe, i would move, i don't even remember to lock my car nor my front door in Sheffield and i've not ONCE walked through the streets of downtown London at night with my kids feeling like i need a firearm.

Perhaps you are just grown up with that kind of thinking and i'm not?

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

First on the ground in Afghanistan, LAST to use a toothbrush.. Seriously, nobody is talking about Afghanistan.. stop bringing it up.

I've never had terrorists attack me where I live either.. does it mean you can go home now? Its pretty unlikely that Bin Ladin will come attack suburban Florida.. he will probably hit places like New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and of course places like London where he knows nobody will be carrying any guns and you will just surrender your family to him.

Besides, being in Florida means I can be hit with a hurricane at any time. As we seen in New Orleans, government won't be there to protect you. But like others have said, who gives a shit what you think of the 2nd Amendment.. you don't live here and you are not a citizen..

If you don't care what i say, don't give a fuck about my opinion and don't give a fuck about Afghanistan (the WOT) then why the fuck are we even having this debate?

I sure as fuck don't know, but you can rest assured that in the future, i won't reply to your constant parading of your ignorance, i'll leave that up to others.

Cheerio.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I consider myself pro-gun, but I believe that back-ground checks and mandatory waiting periods are critical to prevent gun owners from getting a bad name. Although, I do not like the idea of registration.

How do you propose that we "regulate" private sale of firearms without creating a nation registery of all firearms in america and who owns them with access to the system by everyone?

See were that goes? Nobody's business what i own and how much I own of it.

The starts the end around of the 2nd Amendment don't ya think.

Why would you NEED to own an unregistered firearm? And please, the 2'nd amendment is just bullshit, what would your plink gun do to choppers, jets and tanks? The only reason it was instituted was because AT THE TIME it was a state of the art weapon, today you wouldn't stand a chance against a government wanting complete power if they had control over the military forces, if they didn't, then your plinking guns wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Truth is that you'd accept it if you were to be probed up your arse ever single day by the government as long as you could keep your gun, you've become a nation of wimps, mostly and the most vocal on keeping gun rights are the biggest wimps of this forum i know of.

Can you POSSIBLY make a point without insulting people?

We don't NEED unregistered firearms, but the governement does not NEED registered firearms either. What good does a registry do if the guns just end up getting stolen and sold on the black market? Or imported from somewhere where they are not registered and sold? If people want to commit a crime with a gun and not have it traced to them its quite easy to do.

Also, if it government does happen to break down to the point where its fighting its own citizens, I doubt there will be a lot of tanks/planes/and choppers. If there are, it will be a slaughter.. but then whats the point of being an oppressive government if you have no citizens to control?

But, the main reason I own a gun is that people like YOU are not going to protect me with someone comes into my house looking to harm me or my family. The police, the military, etc are not designed to prevent something like that from happening. I guess if wanting to have a gun and not have to depend on my government to protect me makes me a 'wimp' then so be it.

I define a wimp as someone who refuses to accept responsibility for themselves. If you Brits want the government to hold your dick while you piss, so be it.. I'd prefer to hold it myself thank you very much.

If i needed a firearm to protect my family i'd get out of Kabul or wherever you live real fast.

I am not shitting you, if i needed a firearm to keep my family safe, i would move, i don't even remember to lock my car nor my front door in Sheffield and i've not ONCE walked through the streets of downtown London at night with my kids feeling like i need a firearm.

Perhaps you are just grown up with that kind of thinking and i'm not?

I've already gone over the 2'nd and what it really means... Truth is that with tanks on the streets you'd lift your arms in the air and do absolutely nothing, that is true for 99% of all people on this earth, in a situation where you are faced with supreme firepower that is the most intelligent thing you could do anyway. Me? I'd bide my time and firearms isn't what i'd use anyway, they would be completely useless against anything but soft targets.

First on the ground, son, not Americans who dared not go first in either Afghanistan nor Iraq, all Brits.

So fuck off.

First on the ground in Afghanistan, LAST to use a toothbrush.. Seriously, nobody is talking about Afghanistan.. stop bringing it up.

I've never had terrorists attack me where I live either.. does it mean you can go home now? Its pretty unlikely that Bin Ladin will come attack suburban Florida.. he will probably hit places like New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and of course places like London where he knows nobody will be carrying any guns and you will just surrender your family to him.

Besides, being in Florida means I can be hit with a hurricane at any time. As we seen in New Orleans, government won't be there to protect you. But like others have said, who gives a shit what you think of the 2nd Amendment.. you don't live here and you are not a citizen..

If you don't care what i say, don't give a fuck about my opinion and don't give a fuck about Afghanistan (the WOT) then why the fuck are we even having this debate?

I sure as fuck don't know, but you can rest assured that in the future, i won't reply to your constant parading of your ignorance, i'll leave that up to others.

Cheerio.

The thread isn't about Afghanistan.. what part of that don't you understand? Stop bringing it up. Go talk about it in one of the other 100 threads about the WOT.. this is about purchasing guns in the United States.. it has nothing to do with the WOT..

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
So basically, if i am a convicted felon, even one that is sought by the police, i can get a gun there, file the number off of it to make it an "illegal weapon" and then no one can trace it after i shoot three police officer, all they can say is that "this is an illegal weapon, it is not proof that there is anything wrong with the private trading business"?

Yeah, that sounds like a real fucking smart plan you yanks got there. I'm just wondering, how many of those "illegal guns" were purchased legally and had the serial number filed off so they couldn't be traced making them the "illegal guns" you scream about being the culprit? 99% is probably extremely close, probably needs some decimals too.

Here we "try" and place the blame were it should go which is on the person committing the crime not the device used.

I have yet to see a gun get up and shot somebody although I heard there was this magician once that had a gun that could do this...............although I am a bit skeptical.

Exactly, so if Iran develops and sells a nuke to a terrorist group, we can't blame Iran for that, right?

I have yet to see a human shoot someone without a gun.

No but if you can find me one gun maker passing out free guns to murderers/felons Ill be there with you to get it shut down.

You have seen a human kill someone with something other than a gun though haven't you?

The maker doesn't need to do that, once it's in the right hands all you need to do is to fix it up so it's untraceable and whoopdefuckingdo you have an illegal gun.

Aye, i have, household chemical compounds too, but this isn't downtown London or NYC, this is a war zone.

you do realize that in the US if you get caught with an illegal (filed number) handgun it is a mandatory 5 year sentence.

That being said let me tell you what would cure this problem.

Make the punishment for convicted felons and owning of illegal guns so severe that no one would use them. Maybe capital punishment for a gun crime used in the commission of a felony or something along that line.

I'd be willing to bet we could curtail this issue.

My point is you can't fix a crime problem by going after the laws that only obtain to the law abiding citizen.

Naturally you don't file it off or hammer it BEFORE you do anything illegal with it...

If severe punishments (such as death penalties) really did work then the states that actually HAVE the most severe pentalties wouldn't also have more severe felons than all others, would they?

As an example, check out murder rates and states that have death penalties, doesn't really seem to do much, does it? You know why, they don't expect to get caught, IF they did they wouldn't commit a crime.

That is the problem with penalties and crimes, it's not really a deterrent for criminals, they'll do it anyway, it's a punishment that makes society feel better.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
60 Minutes had a segment on how the brother of one of the killed in the VT massacre was able to go to a gun show and buy $5k worth of guns(assault rifles, pistols, etc) and ammo within a hour without a single verification/background check. He was even able to buy in the parking lot. Only one person asked for a drivers license and when he told the seller he didn't want to show it to him, the seller asked for an additional $100 and sold it to him.

This segment occurred in VA where I guess folks from all over the eastern seaboard (based on the license plates in the parking lot) come b/c the ease to purchase guns.

I thought all that was proven to be a lie? Yeah, that 60 minutes segment was full of bullshit and misinformation.

How?

I'll have to look it up but it turns out the VT brother DID get background checks for what he bought and he lied about all of it. As far as the misinformation it was the whole "You mean I can buy a SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm!" As if there is something special about a semi-automatic firearm when almost all are semi-automatic, there's few that aren't.

Any decent hunting rifle or target shooting rifle that i know of is bolt action. Of course, i have a very selective taste when it comes to rifles. On hand guns i agree, all of my one single favourite is a semi automatic.

Only difference is the rate of fire, and it takes about as long to reload a bolt action rifle as it takes to target a semi again so it doesn't matter really, it's just that semis are usually much lower quality rifles made for those who care more about semi-automatic loading than accuracy.

Now John, there are a number of semi-automatic rifles out there that are among the most accurate in the world. Off the top of my head, Barret and Cheytac spring to mind as the most accurate long range weapons in the military or civilian worlds. I own an H&K PSG-1, and a competition AR-10 that are both capable of 1/2" MOA.

Remember that thread where you spent about 10 posts claiming you could shoot a quarter sized group at 700 meters with any 30.06 bolt action rifle? And those of us that actually have a clue about firearms, competitive shooting and long range shooting quickly put you in your place, calculating your claim out to be somewhere around .0025" MOA? I'm sure I can drag that thread up. You eventually abandoned it to save face when you realized everyone was seeing through your lies.

But you know what, I'm probably way out of line, questioning a guy that just finished snorting spoonfuls of brandy with his SAS sniper buddies.

Yeah. I remember the thread. Which is why I don't bother to reply to his posts.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


If you don't care what i say, don't give a fuck about my opinion and don't give a fuck about Afghanistan (the WOT) then why the fuck are we even having this debate?

I sure as fuck don't know, but you can rest assured that in the future, i won't reply to your constant parading of your ignorance, i'll leave that up to others.

Cheerio.

Because this thread isnt about you, your (non American citizen) opinion, or Afghanistan. Get it sparky?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

The part that folks don't like is that the government won't let people use the system to check. They will only let people they license use it.

And licensees aren't going to do the phone call for you for free (or even do it period a lot of the time).

So what you'd end up with is a people wanting to sell a product, but an artificially limited group that those products would have to go through. As with anything, there is money involved. Follow the trail.

Yeah, so what? We have this where I live and I've bought and sold guns this way privately. You go to a licensed dealer with your buyer and fill out the necessary paperwork, the buyer pays the fees for the background check and the dealer holds the firearm until the background check is completed and the waiting period is over.

As a law abiding gun owner I'd be ashamed to sell a gun to a complete stranger without them first going through a background check.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

The part that folks don't like is that the government won't let people use the system to check. They will only let people they license use it.

And licensees aren't going to do the phone call for you for free (or even do it period a lot of the time).

So what you'd end up with is a people wanting to sell a product, but an artificially limited group that those products would have to go through. As with anything, there is money involved. Follow the trail.

Yeah, so what? We have this where I live and I've bought and sold guns this way privately. You go to a licensed dealer with your buyer and fill out the necessary paperwork, the buyer pays the fees for the background check and the dealer holds the firearm until the background check is completed and the waiting period is over.

As a law abiding gun owner I'd be ashamed to sell a gun to a complete stranger without them first going through a background check.

Until your dealer tells you to piss off. Or charges you $200. Then what? They aren't obligated to do anything by law.

Cash and convenience are king in the US. Why bother going to a dealer who is going to charge you money, when you could just follow the law already in place without any hassle?

If you want to fix it, either open the check system to individuals, or regulate fees that dealers can charge for the transfer.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OCguy

What if we assume that 1 person protects his property or family each year with a gun purchased from a gunshow with no background check?

Why couldn't he submit to a background check?

Why couldnt your person that murdered with a gun from a private seller at a gunshow not have obtained a gun somewhere else?

You are assuming that person would be alive if we closed that loophole. You can go to downtown LA and get a piece rather easily if you talk to a couple people.

Alright, if that's true, what's the harm in closing the loophole then?

EDIT: It was a crime of passion. He has a felony arrest record for domestic violence and he didn't like the way his wife made his coffee. He shot her with the gun he bought at a gun show for home defense.

Because it would be useless legislation. It wouldnt effectively do ANYTHING. Private gun sellers can meet anywhere. Hell...they could post a billboard and rent space somewhere and have a city-wide private show.

Oh wait. That would be a gun show....

edit: Let me put it this way. A guy sees a gun for sale (craigslist, paper, whatever.). He calls the seller and arranges to meet at Denny's parking lot for the sale. He shows up and buys. Now, there are some who would say the seller should be required to do a background check first...but realistically that isnt going to happen so lets deal with what IS.

Now. Put up a tent and invite 100 private sellers to all get together at the same place. There you have a gun show. Why should it be any different than meeting in a Denny's parking lot?

The fuck it would. It would make these transactions illegal...which they should be.

You are arguing for a situation in which someone can buy countless firearms legally (with a background check) and then go sell them privately to complete strangers with no impunity. No fucking way that should be legal.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

The part that folks don't like is that the government won't let people use the system to check. They will only let people they license use it.

And licensees aren't going to do the phone call for you for free (or even do it period a lot of the time).

So what you'd end up with is a people wanting to sell a product, but an artificially limited group that those products would have to go through. As with anything, there is money involved. Follow the trail.

Yeah, so what? We have this where I live and I've bought and sold guns this way privately. You go to a licensed dealer with your buyer and fill out the necessary paperwork, the buyer pays the fees for the background check and the dealer holds the firearm until the background check is completed and the waiting period is over.

As a law abiding gun owner I'd be ashamed to sell a gun to a complete stranger without them first going through a background check.

Until your dealer tells you to piss off. Or charges you $200. Then what? They aren't obligated to do anything by law.

Cash and convenience are king in the US. Why bother going to a dealer who is going to charge you money, when you could just follow the law already in place without any hassle?

If you want to fix it, either open the check system to individuals, or regulate fees that dealers can charge for the transfer.

Exactly. I can't think of a single firearm enthusiast that doesn't want NICS opened up to the public so we can run our own background checks when conducting private sales.

I myself never conduct private sales, but a friend of mine once found himself in the unfortunate situation of realizing that his Kawasaki Ninja was flagged as stolen, after he traded an AR-15, magazines, and several hundred rounds of ammo for it. D'oh.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

The part that folks don't like is that the government won't let people use the system to check. They will only let people they license use it.

And licensees aren't going to do the phone call for you for free (or even do it period a lot of the time).

So what you'd end up with is a people wanting to sell a product, but an artificially limited group that those products would have to go through. As with anything, there is money involved. Follow the trail.

Yeah, so what? We have this where I live and I've bought and sold guns this way privately. You go to a licensed dealer with your buyer and fill out the necessary paperwork, the buyer pays the fees for the background check and the dealer holds the firearm until the background check is completed and the waiting period is over.

As a law abiding gun owner I'd be ashamed to sell a gun to a complete stranger without them first going through a background check.

Until your dealer tells you to piss off. Or charges you $200. Then what? They aren't obligated to do anything by law.

Cash and convenience are king in the US. Why bother going to a dealer who is going to charge you money, when you could just follow the law already in place without any hassle?

If you want to fix it, either open the check system to individuals, or regulate fees that dealers can charge for the transfer.

So regulate the fees. I'm fine with that. It's a far better solution than allowing private owners to sell guns completely unregulated.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OCguy

What if we assume that 1 person protects his property or family each year with a gun purchased from a gunshow with no background check?

Why couldn't he submit to a background check?

Why couldnt your person that murdered with a gun from a private seller at a gunshow not have obtained a gun somewhere else?

You are assuming that person would be alive if we closed that loophole. You can go to downtown LA and get a piece rather easily if you talk to a couple people.

Alright, if that's true, what's the harm in closing the loophole then?

EDIT: It was a crime of passion. He has a felony arrest record for domestic violence and he didn't like the way his wife made his coffee. He shot her with the gun he bought at a gun show for home defense.

Because it would be useless legislation. It wouldnt effectively do ANYTHING. Private gun sellers can meet anywhere. Hell...they could post a billboard and rent space somewhere and have a city-wide private show.

Oh wait. That would be a gun show....

edit: Let me put it this way. A guy sees a gun for sale (craigslist, paper, whatever.). He calls the seller and arranges to meet at Denny's parking lot for the sale. He shows up and buys. Now, there are some who would say the seller should be required to do a background check first...but realistically that isnt going to happen so lets deal with what IS.

Now. Put up a tent and invite 100 private sellers to all get together at the same place. There you have a gun show. Why should it be any different than meeting in a Denny's parking lot?

The fuck it would. It would make these transactions illegal...which they should be.

You are arguing for a situation in which someone can buy countless firearms legally (with a background check) and then go sell them privately to complete strangers with no impunity. No fucking way that should be legal.

It is already illegal for prohibited persons to even attempt to buy a firearm. So the situation you're worrying about (guy selling guns to strangers who turn out to be bad guys) is already illegal. Sadly the criminal in this situation doesn't really care about breaking the law, so it sounds like you want to punish the non-criminal.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

The part that folks don't like is that the government won't let people use the system to check. They will only let people they license use it.

And licensees aren't going to do the phone call for you for free (or even do it period a lot of the time).

So what you'd end up with is a people wanting to sell a product, but an artificially limited group that those products would have to go through. As with anything, there is money involved. Follow the trail.

Yeah, so what? We have this where I live and I've bought and sold guns this way privately. You go to a licensed dealer with your buyer and fill out the necessary paperwork, the buyer pays the fees for the background check and the dealer holds the firearm until the background check is completed and the waiting period is over.

As a law abiding gun owner I'd be ashamed to sell a gun to a complete stranger without them first going through a background check.

Until your dealer tells you to piss off. Or charges you $200. Then what? They aren't obligated to do anything by law.

Cash and convenience are king in the US. Why bother going to a dealer who is going to charge you money, when you could just follow the law already in place without any hassle?

If you want to fix it, either open the check system to individuals, or regulate fees that dealers can charge for the transfer.

So regulate the fees. I'm fine with that. It's a far better solution than allowing private owners to sell guns completely unregulated.

If you regulate the fees you're just going to wind up with FFLs putting up signs saying "BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR WEAPONS PURCHASED HERE ONLY." Basically they'll give the public the finger if they can't charge a fair market price for their time and effort. We'd be in the same situation we're in now.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: OCguy

What if we assume that 1 person protects his property or family each year with a gun purchased from a gunshow with no background check?

Why couldn't he submit to a background check?

Why couldnt your person that murdered with a gun from a private seller at a gunshow not have obtained a gun somewhere else?

You are assuming that person would be alive if we closed that loophole. You can go to downtown LA and get a piece rather easily if you talk to a couple people.

Alright, if that's true, what's the harm in closing the loophole then?

EDIT: It was a crime of passion. He has a felony arrest record for domestic violence and he didn't like the way his wife made his coffee. He shot her with the gun he bought at a gun show for home defense.

Because it would be useless legislation. It wouldnt effectively do ANYTHING. Private gun sellers can meet anywhere. Hell...they could post a billboard and rent space somewhere and have a city-wide private show.

Oh wait. That would be a gun show....

edit: Let me put it this way. A guy sees a gun for sale (craigslist, paper, whatever.). He calls the seller and arranges to meet at Denny's parking lot for the sale. He shows up and buys. Now, there are some who would say the seller should be required to do a background check first...but realistically that isnt going to happen so lets deal with what IS.

Now. Put up a tent and invite 100 private sellers to all get together at the same place. There you have a gun show. Why should it be any different than meeting in a Denny's parking lot?

The fuck it would. It would make these transactions illegal...which they should be.

You are arguing for a situation in which someone can buy countless firearms legally (with a background check) and then go sell them privately to complete strangers with no impunity. No fucking way that should be legal.

It's not legal. You can't deal without a license. If you're buying and selling, the ATF will bust your balls for it. They do it every day. It's what they do.

ATF Form 3310.4, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers

Filled out by the dealer any time he sells more than 1 handgun within a time frame (can't remember how long it is).

If the same handgun is being purchased in quantities, it's a no-brainer what is going on. And the ATF will come a knockin'.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
First, explain what you think this means.. because I have a sincere doubt you truly understand what the "loophole" is.

I don't - that's why I'm asking. There's a loophole?

Well, educate yourself then. Its 100% illegal for firearms dealers to sell people guns at gunshows without background checks etc. Now, if you go and do a little research you will find out what the 'loophole' is, and how it doesn't really apply to gunshows specifically but ALL private sales of firearms. Why would I argue with you why it should be allowed when you don't even know what it is?

Okay, now he knows. So let's hear your argument?

BTW-I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can sell guns privately and at a gun show without doing a background check. WTF is the point of having background checks if you can just go buy a gun at a gun show and avoid that all together?

I think you're looking at this the wrong way.

The part that folks don't like is that the government won't let people use the system to check. They will only let people they license use it.

And licensees aren't going to do the phone call for you for free (or even do it period a lot of the time).

So what you'd end up with is a people wanting to sell a product, but an artificially limited group that those products would have to go through. As with anything, there is money involved. Follow the trail.

Yeah, so what? We have this where I live and I've bought and sold guns this way privately. You go to a licensed dealer with your buyer and fill out the necessary paperwork, the buyer pays the fees for the background check and the dealer holds the firearm until the background check is completed and the waiting period is over.

As a law abiding gun owner I'd be ashamed to sell a gun to a complete stranger without them first going through a background check.

Until your dealer tells you to piss off. Or charges you $200. Then what? They aren't obligated to do anything by law.

Cash and convenience are king in the US. Why bother going to a dealer who is going to charge you money, when you could just follow the law already in place without any hassle?

If you want to fix it, either open the check system to individuals, or regulate fees that dealers can charge for the transfer.

So regulate the fees. I'm fine with that. It's a far better solution than allowing private owners to sell guns completely unregulated.

If you regulate the fees you're just going to wind up with FFLs putting up signs saying "BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR WEAPONS PURCHASED HERE ONLY." Basically they'll give the public the finger if they can't charge a fair market price for their time and effort. We'd be in the same situation we're in now.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No businessman would turn away easy money like that...unless they were complete fucking morons. They don't have to do anything except file some paperwork and hold onto a gun for a week.