How would you respond to this?

[StarKing]

"To be honest I cannot think of a single reason a person would need to buy more than one handgun a month."

To be honest this statement is only a commentary on this person's ability to think, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there is a reason. We are not responsible for this person's limited thinking abilities.

 

[techres]

"To be honest I cannot think of a single reason a person would need to buy more than one handgun a month."

I can do this, and have:

Dear sir:

i have bought more than one gun in a month and it was for a very good reason that might never occur to someone not familiar to the current restrictions on gun purchases: returns.

A few months back I wanted to buy a particular firearm that is not commonly carried locally. So I ordered one from a dealer out of state and in accordance with law had it sent to my dealer. I went down, filled out the paperwork, paid a transfer fee, got a background check and brought it home. Sadly, after a careful inspection and cleaning I found a problem with it known as "front sight canting" and called the dealer who had me send it back. He then shipped me another one and I went through the entire paperwork and background check a second time and after a few days found a different problem, again requiring a return. Nicely, the out of state dealer and I decided on a completely different type of rifle and when it arrived, again I got to do the BATF paperwork and background check and this time we had a winner.

Now, due to the vagaries of firearm law, that situation counted as 3 buys for me and 6 total buys all involved. The span of time was 3 weeks, but could have been as little as 1 week had the dealer been closer. Now, had more than one buy in 5 days had taken place and this had been a handgun, not only would there have been the usual, repeated, and paid checks taken place ($25-50 each time), but there would have been an additional form filed and check done to see if I was a bad guy illegal dealer that is sprung by any two handgun purchases within 5 days. Luckily that was not required.

Now, imagine for a minute that your wife's closet full of different sizes and colors of shoes required a $20 (at best) government tax, 10 minutes of paperwork, and a background check on each and every pair. Imagine that any time she bought a pair the system treated it as a sale even if she were merely exchanging them for a pair that was not torn or 1 size larger. Worse yet, imagine if she were told that despite any good sale, or rare find, she had to limit herself to one purchase a month because the government decided that she really did not need more than one pair per month. Maybe you and your paycheck would come out ahead, but your mental health would not, and really is that a decision that you think the government gets to make?

I have bought more than one gun in a month, even more than one gun in a trip to he gun store if there was a good deal on or if I had come across a rare find. Now you would assume that I must have 10,000 guns in my home and you would be wrong because like most gun owners I have to let many go for many to come in. Often those get sold to the very dealers I am buying new ones from. They are always sold in full and careful compliance with all state and federal laws as I like my freedom.

So, yeah, there are plenty of reasons someone might buy more than one firearm a month. Sales, a need for 3 gun competition (which requires 3 separate guns to compete in), a rare collectors find, or just simply a set of returns involved in what would normally be considered a single purchase but which is not due to our already stringent gun laws.

Keep in mind, none of these laws from 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994 have done a lick of good in solving the problems of illegal gun use even though they total 20,000 on the books to date. And I do not see where new laws are going to do any more use other than make a guy like me fill out more forms, spend more money, and waste more of my time because unlike a criminal I actually follow the law. And please keep that in mind as we consider again passing worthless laws that make non-gun owners feel good and make my life more difficult, all while criminals pay no attention what so ever.

In any case, I hope that helps answer your question!

 

[danielocean03]

I don't see how giving up yet another piece of our freedom in being able to buy most anything as we see fit when we see fit benefits us one bit. This is just more worthless gun control with no supporting argument behind it.

 

[techres]

I don't see how giving up yet another piece of our freedom in being able to buy most anything as we see fit when we see fit benefits us one bit. This is just more worthless gun control with no supporting argument behind it.

On a large scale you are absolutely right. The correct answer is that how and when I buy a firearm, or in what numbers, is between me, the seller, and God (although perhaps my wife too, perhaps).

But, on a one on one basis, we should always take the "I just don't understand the problem" people and try to educate them. Personally, I find more success in trying to give examples and building a bridge to a place that they could understand rather than just saying "It's my right and you can't take it."

Mostly, they need to hear that (1) there is a reason to want more than one a month and that they might too, (2) we already are jumping through hoops and paying attention to already rediculous laws, and (3) that we are people who have a collector's itch just like other people they know, etc. Then at the end, toss in (4) which is, and you don't really think criminals are doing any of this do you? Will they if you pass another law? Etc.

That is my strategy to help people understand us better and perhaps get them to a place where they may someday understand the real reason which is "Because it's my God given right!"

 

[dice dealer]

only way i could respond to that post would be like this ..


Dear sir ,
How does it feel to be a complete and total F@@kin idiot ?




nuff said

 

[schwaky18]

Easy: it is a restriction on a Con. right. It is infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. If you give them an inch they want 100 miles. You don't need to buy more than 1 car a month but it would be Bull S$^t to restrict this. You don't need to buy more than 1 book a day either.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT OUR MOTHER, and shouldn't tell us what we need and what we can and cannot buy.

and then tell him to F'off and go bow before his "one"

 

[SavageEagle]

Easy, He or she entered a 3-gun competition.

That was my first thought. My seond thought was I wanted to buy myself and fiance matching CC guns. Or maybe I buy all four of my kids 22 plinker rifles. Oh then my third thought was finding 4 SKS rifles on sale for $100 a piece.... (Hey a guy could dream right?)

Lastly, I would tell him it's my right just as it's his right to post some dumb rambling more than once a month. Restrict my rights, restrict your rights.

 

[Scout]

Don't underestimate the traditional militia (Yes, it still exists). Obama clearly has a rather totalitarian attitude, and 65-85 million entrenched gun owners rather badly outnumber 2 million soldiers, especially considering that these soldiers belong to "We the People", not to the government, and most of them know that. The military would not stand as a unified block against the people if the government went south on us. Our military, as well as the Soviets have been fought to a virtual standstill by entrenched militias of only hundreds of thousands of armed civilians having weapons far inferior to those currently owned by armed American citizens.

How many wars have we (US gov't) backed out of because we (US gov't) weren't as willing to die as the enemy was? Do you think the Gov't would be willing to slaughter it's own citizens?

 

[baldmax]

Would it a calender month or one every 30 days?

Wouth it be OK if they limit how much beer you could buy? How about gasoline, bread, or corn? It is none of their business what of how much I buy. People, the Government should work for us, not against.

 

[StarKing]

How many wars have we (US gov't) backed out of because we (US gov't) weren't as willing to die as the enemy was? Do you think the Gov't would be willing to slaughter it's own citizens?

I can believe the government might be, especially the Obama government.
I cannot believe the military would, at least not as a unified force. When I was near the end of my time in the USAF, preparations were being made at high levels for the possibility that we (the military) might have to evict Mr. Nixon from the White House by force. I am quite certain it would have happened had he tried to stay by force. I believe the present day military would do the same.