Posted on 02/08/2007 6:58:20 PM PST by Copernicus
Contrary to popular opinion, anarch isn't always bad. On the other hand, tyranny is always bad. Which would you prefer?
As well they should. And I'm sure you agree, being law abiding and all.
"it becomes real understandable why some some collectors and retired part-time dealers tried to jump through every hoop"
The operative word is "dealer". Not someone who's calling themselves a dealer to get a discount.
Again, who exactly is suffering as a result of those folks not paying as much for their weapons?
By "exercising an ability" I think you mean, "exploiting a loophole". Applying for a federal license to buy and sell guns when you have have absolutely no intention whatsoever to buy and sell guns (merely to obtain them for yourself at a discounted price) is dishonest.
Call up some manufacturer, tell them you're a retailer and you want to order some items at wholesale. That OK? Is that honest?
Never mind. You probably think it is. That'll teach me try try to argue morality with someone who doesn't have a clue. Hey don't worry -- if it's legal that means you can do it. Screw everyone else. Look out for #1.
WHO IS THE "EVERYONE ELSE" WHO ARE GETTING SCREWED IN THIS SCENARIO?!?!?!?
No Guns ~ No Rights!
Why is it that the same freedom hating, gun hating trolls show up on these threads, whining the same old broken record tripe.
Of course not. Talk about stupid analogies!
What the hell is dishonest about that? Where's the misrepresentation? Where's the intent to deceive?
The guy with the FFL "is" buying and selling guns. He's just got a very small customer base, very low overhead, and low profit. That's called "competition".
The notion that someone has to have a "physical storefront" isn't REQUIRED as a condition of law for doing business for ANY other business. There are literally tens of thousands of people doing various businesses out of their homes and garages--especially with the advent of the internet (E-Bay springs to mind) EXACTLY this way--part-time, low overhead, and smaller profit margins. So for the BATF**Ks to require this for FFL's is ridiculous.
So, yes---it's perfectly honest and legit--and you're wrong.
And as to disagreeing, it seems that a number of other folks on this thread agree with me and not you.
That is a great observation which, IMHO, too many people overlook.
Here's an example. When I get a new job and have to fill out a W-4 form, I claim 1 dependent in order for the withholding on each paycheck to be lower. Now, I'm not married nor do I, to the best of my knowledge, have any children. So technically I am lying when filling this form out, yet it is perfectly legal.
No, the basis of anarchy is individualism.
Individualism is opposed to any philosophy which stresses that communal, group, societal, racial, or national goals should take priority over individual goals.
Individualism is also opposed to the view that tradition, religion, or any other form of external moral standard should be used to limit an individual's choice of actions.
The basis of conservatism is tradition.
Quite frankly, with America under a domestic assault, when we are being overrun with illegal immigrants, when there are undoubtedly Muslim extremists moving in through our open borders, when we know there are Muslim extremist cells here already, --
-- It's unbelievable that the reaction is to restrict the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.
We need more armed citizens, not less.
Totally agree. When citizens are armed, crime goes down.
Mind-bending comment, - seeing that you admit both above and below that you are "-- glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level --"
I just see removing the loophole amateur FFLs as a way to (help, perhaps only a little) ensure only law abiding citizens have easy access to weapons through the retail purchasing distribution.
I accept the need for FFLs, because I don't some psychotic on leave from the local Home for the Bewildered buying a .50 Barret, and having to fill out the yellow form at my local FFL-licensed dealer helps prevent that even if just a little, because the dealer isn't going to put his license and business on the line for one sale to a weirdo.
The 2d Amendment does not say you have to buy it from a FFL. You can buy it from your next door neighbor.
Not in California, according to their 'laws'.
-- Is it true that you support the idea States can make laws to that effect? --- Could you agree with this comment:
'--- Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --'
The legitimate dealer.
The taxpayer who has to pay for a BATF large enough to track 280,000 "dealers" vs. 54,000 legitimate dealers.
In other words, our individual Rights and Freedoms are so important that they should be tightly limited and regulated.<p.
Just when I think you can't sink any lower... Go away you troll.
How is this mindset any different than the philosophies laid out in "It Takes A Village" by Hillary Clinton? And what exactly is a "racial goal"? I'm a white boy and frankly, I can give a crap less about what other honkies' goals are.
Individualism is also opposed to the view that tradition, religion, or any other form of external moral standard should be used to limit an individual's choice of actions.
You're wrong again. I'm a Christian (yes, I realize that you have an asinine view that libertarians can't be Christians, even though I strongly suspect that I attend a more fundamentalist church than you), and my religious beliefs limit my personal choice of actions. I try to be a good person because God commands it. I take Him a bit more serious than the government.
There's quite a bit of difference between changing the Constitution on the one hand, and changing the law on the other, particularly because many people (including many Constitutional scholars) believe that many portions of the GCA are unconstitutional (whereas some people merely disagreed with the 13th Amendment...but that issue had been settled in 1865). Additionally, the mere sale or transfer of firearms, in and of itself, harms no one - something that cannot be said of slavery.
As for the acquisition of an FFL - the item, in and of itself, is violative of the Constitution. Further, and more to the point, how do you ***know*** that all of those "kitchen table" dealers had no intention of selling guns? Many of them actually did, although they didn't have their stores behind a plate glass window on Main Street with regular hours. Who are you, or the Feds for that matter, to tell people precisely how to conduct their business? Maybe someone wanted to buy lots of guns, use them for a while, and then be able to sell them to people in various parts of the country? Doing so without a license was and is illegal (though, again, I believe the whole concept of the FFL is itself unconstitutional), so these people paid their fees and submitted to background checks. What's the problem?
The legitimate dealer.
Another facet of conservatism which you apparently disregard is the belief that capitalism and a free market are the way to go. With what other industries do you support government price controls?
The taxpayer who has to pay for a BATF large enough to track 280,000 "dealers" vs. 54,000 legitimate dealers.
There shouldn't even BE a BATFE. It's blatently unconstitutional. Aren't you the one who defends states' rights to enact gun laws claiming that only the Federal Government is bound by the 2nd Amendment?
They had no intention of buying and selling guns retail. Maintaining an inventory. Providing a service.
Well that's about stupid. FFL dealers are not required to sell retail. Businesses sell to their market. Business owners determine their market.
There is nothing dishonest with becoming a non retail FFL. Something else you might want to consider. A LOT of gunsmiths have FFL's because they do custom work and gun repairs. If you are going to send them your gun, they need to be an FFL.
FFL licenses allow people to be the receviers of firearms through the mail.
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.