I don't know Boss. You seemed kinda grumpy and defensive.
I wasn't particularly arguing.
I am here, though, next. In my own defense.
I think it is a little short on consideration to say that AK and VT residents should follow their convictions when they do not have the option of checking CCW's because their states don't issue CCW's. What do their convictions have to do with it if they cannot demand a non-existent CCW?
And I think it is a little short on consideration to say you think someone who might be legal has several other options when if everyone adopted the level of responsibility you advocate, that legal person would have no option except to submit to a CCW license or buy through an FFL.
Unless I am missing something, which I admit I might because I have not studied your last post thoroughly,it really seems to boil down, not to responsibility and keeping weapons out of the hands of prohibited possessors, but toconcern foryourself. Not that that is necessarily wrong. I'm merely pointing out that if you thought it was sufficiently important to prevent prohibited possessors, you would want everyone to refusea non-CCW private sale. My point here is not that you should personally do it differently. My point is that I think the conversation would go smoother if you didn't use arguments that don't add up. Or more precisely, arguments that seem more for the sake of bolstering your position rather than their actual applicability.
With that said, I'd rather not argue. Lets just say we each know where the other stands and get back to defending 2A.