Posted on 02/08/2007 6:58:20 PM PST by Copernicus
That's dishonest.
By whose moral code other than the one in your fevered imagination?
You have a very strange view of "dishonesty". Getting a gun license and using it to buy guns is "dishonest"? Please try to explain that. You've talked yourself into a corner that you can't get out of.
Check out his home page... he's the self-proclaimed "Morality Police". On this topic, things just aren't quite as black-and-white as he seems to think.
rp: Gosh I hope so.
As the Muslims and Marxists have discovered; the only way to enforce a fanatical elitist model of government and society is through deceit and force. Have you had any successful conversions or are you still goin' it alone?
PS, all NFA weapons are fully registered, tax stamps paid, legal, etc.
Apparently not using a license to its fullest is somehow dishonest.
And this makes sense to you.
You'll submit a photo of yourself, give the government your fingerprints, submit to a background check, AND throw in 10 bucks a year in order to avoid "government interference" (ie., completing a simple yellow form) when you purchase a gun maybe once every ten years.
Justify? No. Simply to explain that there are constitutional reasonable restrictions on all our rights.
Because of that, there's nothing in the state constitution that would prevent the California legislature from banning all guns. If they did, however, there would probably be a federal constitutional challenge since the states are expected to defend the republic (via the organized and unorganized militias) and totally disarming the public would prevent that.
If it's not federal law, then how does a federal agency enforce it? What in the hell are you talking about -- the BATFE "made that one up"?
And how do they enforce that "requirement"? You are so full of it. There is no federal law requiring you to have a storefront.
Give me a quote from the BATFE "saying" this. You can't. You're making things up.
What a joke.
No more than, and possibly considerably less than you've "made up" a Type 01 license saying you intent to sell the firearms you're buying.
Not I. Go back to post #31. HE said "a LOT"' of small-time FFLs are abusing the system.
You say it's only "a few", yet you cannot explain (without lying about required storefronts) why suddenly 230,000 FFLs went out of business.
(You have yet to admonish the poster who actually did the insulting. Hard to believe you're actually insulted.)
You have yet to establish that getting a Type 01 License to buy guns for personal use is "abusing the system". Who decided that?
Nope. Maybe you were because you're trying to squirm away from the debate, but starting at post #31 we were discussing those who get a Type 01 FFL simply to buy guns at wholesale.
"grossly bigoted view of that subset"
I call 'em as I see 'em. It's dishonest to acquire this license simply to buy guns for yourself at wholesale.
"You have absolutely shown no basis for holding that any number of them absolutely intended to NEVER sell guns"
Gee. Common sense doesn't qualify as a "basis"? If any of those 230,000 intended to buy and sell guns they would have kept their license, yes?
"If it is merely your opinion that most of a couple hundred thousand law-abiding citizens are "dishonest", fine."
That was, and is, my opinion.
Those who acquire the Type 01 license with no intention of buying and selling, yes. That's dishonest.
"which gets the same benefits that you're objecting to a Type 01"
Same benefits? A Type 03 allows you to buy a new gun wholesale from a manufacturer?
"I recommend you spend some serious time there"
I did, and couldn't find anything about the federal government, or the BATFE, requiring a storefront. You said a storefront is now a federal requirement, and that requirement drove these dealers out of the market.
That's a powerful claim. I'm simply asking you to either back it up with a link or retract it.
I'm not allowed an opinion on the practice? This forum would be a ghost town if that's your attitude.
"In short, you're ticked that someone might be getting a discount on a purchase but you're all good with an unspecified amount of drinking alcohol behind the wheel of an automobile?"
In short, you're confused. There's more than one debate going on and you're smashing them together.
I'm not ticked. I simply made on observation and offered my opinion. An individual who acquires a license to buy and sell guns simply to buy guns at wholesale for himself is being dishonest. Not illegal. Dishonest. If you disagree and think this practice is just fine and dandy, I couldn't care less.
The other debate concerned a poster who adopted that attitude that who cares how many FFLs there are, they don't harm anyone. I agreed and said that neither do those who drink and drive.
Two different debates. Keep them separate if you're going to jump in.
You don't see the dishonesty? Well, I certainly am not the one to explain it to you.
Point out that "law" for me, would you? You keep referencing it. I can't find it.
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.