Do you know that prior to the '68 GCA, under federal law ANYONE could buy a firearm without going through an FFL...because there was no such thing as an FFL. Anyone could contact Colt, Winchester, etc. and buy a gun. You could order from the Sears catalog - check out the 1967 edition if you don't believe me.
The point is that the nanny state didn't exist. People took responsibility for themselves, and the government had limitations on what it could do. Heck, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, anyone could walk into a lot of establishments and buy a machine gun. AND CRIME WAS LOWER.
Why do I (and everyone else out there) have less of an ability to exercise my rights than my father or grandfathers? How (in the absence of a criminal record, drug abuse or mental disease) can that be justified? Because if that can be justified, so can government permits to buy books or magazines, to get internet access or to attend a house of worship. Why shouldn't I be able to get a gun for under retail if I buy it directly from a manufacturer or distributor (thereby cutting out the middle man) without the "holy" permission of the feds (plus paying them hefty fees, and paying the local government hefty fees, and being forced to enter into a business that I may choose not to enter into)? How do you justify it?
Don't tell me "it is to cut crime, because this reduces access to guns by criminals." BS - criminals will get guns in a hundred different ways if they'd like to, including stealing them from dealers, police, the military or average citizens. Why? Because they're CRIMINALS - they disobey the law, that's what they do and why they have that label! The ONLY people affected by the FFL requirements are average citizens - and those that have FFLs as part (or all) of their business now have that much less competition and can charge higher prices (yet another government interference in the private martket).
Maybe I missed something - where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that I have to buy a gun from a licensed dealer?