This is my first thread started in the "legal and political" category, so bear with me here. Much, if not all threads started here are something to do with Gun Control, and how it relates to crime, violence, safety, and the general "danger" that guns may or may not present to the general public. The general consensus nationwide (and even amongst gun enthusiasts) is that the battle over gun control has a basis in public welfare: Gun control advocates think guns are dangerous, gun enthusiasts know for certain that they are an inanimate object, and cannot be dangerous, except where used dangerously by humans. The issue to the unthinking public (including many gun enthusiasts) seems to be an argument over public safety: Soccer Mom says guns are evil and violent, Gun Guy says his reasons for gun ownership and protection of his rights is that guns keep his family safe, and he has the Second Ammendment to back him up. Gun Guy is wrong. (At least in a huge area that Gun Guy has not considered if that is his entire belief). Gun Guy needs to FOLLOW THE MONEY. Follow me here, and follow closely: 1) The Federal Government (capitals utilized loosely) doesn't give a rat's rectum about keeping Soccer Mom OR Gun Guy safe. The instrument has not been invented yet to measure their disconcern. Discussion about safety, protecting one's home from intruders, horror at a child drawing a picture of a gun in class, allowing/not allowing your child access and knowledge of firearms, results from school shootings, assasinations, gun crime, etc., mean NOTHING to the Federal Government. 2) Now, having dispensed with what is NOT of concern, we must answer in our pursuit of knowlege about Gun Control, What DOES mean more than a rat's rectum to Federal Government: Anybody? Okay, You: the guy in the back that makes a living working his butt off everyday. What is your answer? BINGO! (for five hundred dollars): MONEY! 3) There are two (and only two of which I am aware) areas of large-money commerce in America where the Federal Government can have little control: One is high-grade art, and the other is firearms. They have already inserted themselves into the private exchange of high-grade art, with controls on such that were unheard-of even 20 years ago (specific pieces tracked for value upgrade, pursuing purchasers and sellers for the tax money imagined due). They run into a significant obstacle when they try to do the same with firearms: that pesky little Second Ammendment. 4) And so, if you are still following the money, and you can place yourself in the shoes of the Federal Government, what would be your best strategy toward gaining a piece of the pie in all this firearms commerce that is going on each and every day in huge amounts that you cannot touch taxwise? Hmmmmm? Yes! You, in the back: the little bespectacled accountant Federal Government guy: "Make it a DANGER TO THE PUBLIC?" Good idea! Just like tobacco and ladders and bicylces and medical attention (even though it kills far less than all those combined). By and large, and very generally, transactions you see on this website between private parties are probably tax free (even in huge dollar amounts). What you see here is microscopic to what happens nationwide. The business owners that are here might flinch, but they make their sales, and pay their taxes because they have made an agreement that they would do so; the vast majority do not really care much about private transaction as any form of competiton. Private commerce in the firearms field in America is huge, profitable, and untouchable. For the working man, especially in this economy of fluctuating values in real estate and stock market and such, collectible guns can be a considerably protected investment. Bought well, they can render easily 10-30% solid increase in value each year (AND TAX FREE!!!) And, if you choose to follow the money, THAT IS ALL THE REASON AND EFFORT BEHIND GUN CONTROL!