Just now when FWM tried to insist that by having someone else - an FFL, or maybe a LEO, as an alternative to doing the kind of check oneself that employers do for criminal records - should such a check be required would change a private sale into ...........something else.
He didn't specify what kind of sale OTHER than a private sale that would be, but the implication I took from it was that if an FFL did a check, then it was the FFL's sale.
That is ludicrous. It's like listening to the 'reasoning' such as it was of the classic ventriloquist act done by the dummy Mortimer Snerd and the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen (father of Candace Bergen).
If a mechanic checks over a vehicle before a private sale, the transaction does not suddenly become a sale by the mechanic. If a private owner sells a piece of real estate to a private party, as distinct from buying a foreclosed property from a bank or other institution, it is a private sale, regardless of having to go through the hoops for a mortgage or other financing, ditto arranging insurance, regardless of having to deal with title searches, or a lawyer drawing up a sales contract, or having a housing inspection, or registering a deed either. The owner of the property in the above cases is still the owner, selling to the buyer. Other individuals providing services on which the sale is contingent does not change who owns or sells, or who buys. NOTHING whatsoever in a contingency service changes a private sale into some other form of transaction. Sometimes it appears there are a limited number of wrote responses that gun nuts learn, instead of actually thinking. I can only imagine from the frequency with which your side relies on blindly repeating things without critically thinking if they are correct or not, that you must stand around in a clot, nodding, while mumbling 'un-Huh, un-Huh, un-Hun' in each other's general direction, each one of you afraid to let on to the others that the lot of you are actually clueless. Like Mortimer Snerd, who was known to have a 'unique' sort of logic, the results are entertaining but not reliable. THAT is what Laci and I mean when we are critical of your thought processes; you DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE ANY, other than the sock puppet repetition of what someone else on the gun nut side told you was true, or valid. When your premise falls down in a shambles, you just stand there gob smacked, with no idea how to respond. Stupidity is a terrible thing on its own; stupidity armed with lethal force and nothing other than emotions rather than reason guiding its use is worse. I can't wait for the next argument where one of you offers to climb up to the top of the metaphorical balloon, to push it back down.
