You can't use a pre- to justify some action post-. Neither with slavery or with guns. What's past is past. Saying, "We used to be able to ..." is not an argument I'm willing to consider.
"how do you ***know*** that all of those "kitchen table" dealers had no intention of selling guns?"
Well, let's just say that going from 284,000 "dealers" to 54,000 dealers in a very short period of time was my first clue.
"Who are you, or the Feds for that matter, to tell people precisely how to conduct their business?"
The feds bees the ones with da licenses. THAT'S who they are.
"As for the acquisition of an FFL - the item, in and of itself, is violative of the Constitution."
Violating what part? (Please don't say the 2nd amendment. I'll be so disappointed.)
Actually, it had much more to do with them not wanting to rent retail space. I'd like the option of dealing, but am not going to cough up ~$1000/month to do so.
It is clear to me that you worship at the alter of government power, for what reason I don't know. Everything and anything that is passed as a law or regulation is holy writ as far as you're concerned. Well, not me. I believe very firmly that the government was, is and should be set up to maximize our liberties. We should (and once did) have the liberty to do damned near anything we wanted to in this country - so long as our actions didn't impede on anyone else's liberty to do as they wished.
Oh, and YES the entire concept of an FFL and licensing people to buy and sell firearms IS violative of the 2nd Amendment. It is a very well-worn phrase, but what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
"Well, let's just say that going from 284,000 "dealers" to 54,000 dealers in a very short period of time was my first clue."
Oh, and the fact that they raised the fee from $30 to $200 had nothing to do with that, nor did the fact that the BATF made people prove that they were obeying local zoning ordinances (and why on Earth would the Feds care about local zoning ordnances?).