Fine. Then yes, I'm Ok with "gun laws" that prohibit felons from having firearms, "child laws" that prohibit pedophiles from adopting, "traffic laws" that prohibit chronic DUI felons from driving, "voting laws" that prohibit felons from voting, "free speech laws" that prohibit mail fraud, etc., etc., etc. These are slippery slopes I'm willing to stand on.
What I was referring to, however, is the continuing encroachment on MY right to keep and bear arms in a foolish attempt to keep recidivist criminals from getting guns.
Exactly how does prohibiting convicted felons from owning or possessing a firearm encroach on YOUR right to keep and bear arms?
Does the requirement to file a deed with the county infringe on your property rights? Does the fact that you have to purchase air time on the radio infringe on your free speech?
I can only assume that you consider the $5 background check to be heinous. I don't. However, I have an FFL, so most of my purchases don't require it, but I still have to pay for that FFL. Again a slippery slope question. I don't find the background check heinous, as currently administered, but I would readily grant that it could become so. That is always the case. Perpetual vigilance is the price of liberty. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are OK with photo ID checks for voting, which also requires a person to put some money down.
An alternative would be to brand or tattoo felons, so that the rest of us don't have to pay and be inconvenienced because of their actions. I'm OK with that too. In fact, I think every rapist should get an R on their forehead, and every murderer an M. Career thieves can get a T.
Yes, I do.
And here in Kalifornia, the cost is more like $50 per firearm, not counting the additional costs of having to visit the FFL twice to take possession of the firearm.
All of this nonsense was enabled by the federal FFL system. I shouldn't have to answer to you, the government, or anybody else to keep, bear, sell, buy, or manufacture a firearm.
Suppose the government decides that felons should not be able to read books about successful criminals. Does that mean you would support a system which requires me to suffer a background check to purchase a book?
Yes. But such a thing would have no value whatever if the government could be constrained within its Constitutional limits. Without the trillions of dollars being spent on socialism and other progressive nonsense, there would be no motivation whatever to commit voter fraud.
The problem today is that so much is at stake with every election. There should be practically nothing at stake.
The BATFE and the NICS would be among the first to go if the cost-cutting were left to me. The monopoly that you exercise as an FFL would disappear.