…if you don’t want to ban private gun sales. So sayeth several lying, idiotic Senators:
“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington” Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.
There is no “loophole.” As is noted at the link, what they’re trying to do is to ban private gun sales. And the reason people are fighting this unconstitutional power grab is that they believe that they have a right to buy and sell guns, like any other commodity. I hope they won’t be able to find sixty votes for it. I suspect they won’t. There are too many western Democrats who would have to answer to their constituents if they allow this atrocity to occur.
Well, it’s still not like selling other private commodities. The seller and the buyer both have a legal responsibility to verify that the other party is over 18 and a resident of the same state. When I lived on the Michigan/Ohio border, I could not legally drive across to Toledo and buy a gun from someone. That would require the use of a Federal Firearms Dealer, and all of the requisite NICS checks and such that entails, even for a face to face sale.
The reality is the desire to ban private sales means that the federal government can steadily increase the restrictions on gun purchases through federal dealers, effectively tightening the noose around gun purchasers.
Private face to face sales are the only safety valve against dealer sales becoming too restrictive for most citizens.
Lautenberg was not only ignoring the Constitution, he was using a definition of “rational” that no rational person would embrace — as a synonym for “morally right” (assuming, as one must with Lautenberg, a definition for that phrase no moral person would embrace).
It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?
“When I lived on the Michigan/Ohio border, I could not legally drive across to Toledo and buy a gun from someone.”
Handgun? No. Longgun? Yes, you could have.
I hope by “Western Democrats” you aren’t thinking that the senators from Washington are on that list. Because they’re more likely to oppose ‘loophole fixing’ from the perspective “this is way too lax!”
I was thinking more along the lines of Montana and Colorado. And perhaps some southern states.
I don’t think anyone is confused, but I should note that I’m a liberal who has been posting under the name “Bob”, the same name as the first poster in the thread, who isn’t me. I’d be happy to pick a different name, and I’ll note it next time I comment. I’m only commenting now because I’ve been undergoing a change of heart about gun control, and if the two of us keep using the same name, it could get confusing.
Bob-1, I’ve added my last initial. That should clear things up.
“Handgun? No. Longgun? Yes, you could have.”
Very true. Personal bias, I’m a handgun guy. But then most of the restrictions on handguns do not apply to long guns. The only long guns the federal government seems to worry about are the black ones they like to call assault weapons.
For a great review of what would be required to TRULY control guns, take a look at “A World Without Guns,” from National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
I’m only commenting now because I’ve been undergoing a change of heart about gun control
In what way, and why? Just curious. Is there some particular argument that you found particularly compelling?