Low on time at the moment and we're getting long, so I'll just hit your final questions.

I read a very good article on this recently I'll refer you to in the interests of time constraints on my end.

No point, as long as a person is not held legally accountable for what is done with a gun they bought which was lost or stolen, which would be unethical to do, I could go buy six guns and hand them off to criminals under the table for a 50% mark up and claim they were stolen if it ever came up. The re-sell issue is always tricky problem of who can buy what, as I mentioned to Ghav below, it sort of works for booze and smokes with kids, because they're consumable things you need a steady supply of, and even then the control it gives us is very limited and half-assed. You only need to buy a gun once a blue moon, not daily or weekly. But as i also said to him, background checks don't much bug me, I just view them as a waste of time, especially since I'm on the record for believing it is absurd not to let a 40 year old vote and own a gun because he spent ages 18-24 in jail for grand theft. There's nothing wrong with a background check option, felons, reformed or not, have little legit expectation of privacy about the fact that they were convicted of a crime.

My objection then is that I can't see it accomplishing much, yet it does represent an increased hassle for legal vendors and buyers, so it can easily be seen as red tape to know end or deliberate inconvenience to discourage gun ownership, so like Conceal permits it would all be about the language and specifics. I have no strong objection to this

What do you mean by better? That's very vague. The law is the law, and should be enforced, at the same time, 'better enforcement' can get Orwellian real fast. Also, existing law enforcement isn't under congressional purview, it's the DOJ, state/local that does that. I don't think a piece of legislation is likely to include 'better law enforcement' without a prefix of in the hope that this will allow...

As above, prosecution of people violating the current law is not congresses concern, it's a matter for the local prosecutor, unless its a federal law, in which case its a matter for DOJ, not congress. I'm not generally going to object to trying anyone for a law they appear to have broken. So you're right on that one, you don't need to bargain with us, but then I can't recall the GOP or NRA saying we shouldn't prosecute apparent criminal action, regardless if we happen to think a given law is unjust. The thing is, I don't know what you mean by a history of selling to criminals, if they are selling to convicted felons by the drove it is a different story then if they are selling to a non-felon who is reselling, or if the purchases are being made by non-felons who then go become felons. These are all very different cases, which is why I said some of those examples were vague. Without some very detailed specifics I don't know if Tom's Gun Hut is selling guns ten times as often to criminal because they want to or if because the area just happens to have 10 times as many criminals and is a good gun spot because the high crime rate makes a lot of non-criminals want guns too.

Devil's in the details. What phrasing of legislation did you have in mind to achieve better enforcement and prosecution of existing laws?