Posted on 08/06/2013 2:41:31 PM PDT by marktwain
i agree , but not for felons that have already proven they will use weapons violently against others. in the olden days they’d be dead by sentencing, and so there’d be no issue of them ever being back in the public.
but for non-violent felons, and believe me, more and more crimes are felonies now, just to disarm people, that have nothing to do with violence or guns, they shjould not have their 2a rights abridged.
California asserts there is no right to privacy for modern pistols or revolvers, and requires private sales to be performed with the cooperation of a licensed dealer, to perform a background check, waiting period etc.
Interestingly less modern revolvers, still as effective as they ever were (say .44 Army or .36 Navy) are sold without background checks or waiting periods, and are just about never used in robberies.
I know a young lady that carries hers when she goes camping for that extra touch of security one might desire when living under a bit of canvas. She also spends some time as a Civil War re-enactor with a mounted unit.
Generally the parts kits don’t have the receiver, or have the receiver demilitarized (cut up).
Gun Control types favor the strawman purchaser as their preferred evil source of evil weapons, because that gives them an excuse to demand that people who are not felons and have committed no crime still be denied weapons because they might someday be a strawman purchaser.
I think it was the 12th Century that the Catholic Church banned the use of horrible crossbows against Christians. It was still considered ok to use them against Muslims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.