Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:31:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:48:41 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:34:32 -0400, wrote:

Again you totally misunderstand what I said. I just had no interest in
drawing or painting. I still appreciate the work of people who do.
The mechanics interested me, I just was not that interested in doing
it myself. Perhaps my dyslexia may have had something to do with it.

Oh ****. Something else for Harry to add to his data base. In twenty
years he'll be calling you names with 'dyslexia' therein.

I did hesitate to bring it up bercase Harry has no limits to what he
would ridicule.

===

That's because Harry doesn't believe in dog.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


You said, "...and refusing to consider any laws or rules...", to which
I asked, "Who's doing that?"

I should have been more clear.

I've *never* said there should be no laws or rules regarding gun
control.

My argument is that it is possible to greatly infringe on the gun
ownership rights of folks *without* nullifying, modifying, or throwing
out the Constitution - which you stated could never happen. The
requirement for exhorbitant registration fees could easily become a
form of 'confiscation'. When one has a choice of paying more than he
can afford, turning in his weapon, or becoming a felon, his rights, in
my opinion, are being infringed upon.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:32:31 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.

If cops can stop a car, take money, and make the owners 'prove' the
money was acquired legally, why can they not stop the gangbangers in
Chicago, take their weapons, and make them 'prove' they had the right
to carry.

I suppose that would be racist.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 9:56 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:25:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 6:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:57:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 5:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:21:29 -0400, Harrold wrote:

Alarms, booby traps, security lighting, security cameras, guns behind
the double deadbolted steel doors. Nah, he's not paranoid. All that's
missing is a moat and a gun turret on the roof. What is Krausie so
afraid of?

===

That's easy, he's afraid of the past. Did you ever see the episode of
the Sopranos where Tony is in a small town in Maine and runs into a
mob informer who is now in the witness protection program? It's not
pretty. I don't think Harry is in the WPP but there are still things
that can go bump in the night, even if you've lived an otherwise
exemplary life like he has.



Still got that alarm system on your dock, W'hine? How about the one on
your house for when you are out of town?

===

Maybe you should watch that episode of the Sopranos if you missed it.
It might make you a little "tight" under the collar.


Oh, I've known a few of the "real deal" guys over the years.

Nice fellows, and far less crooked than your banksters. I knew Jimmy
Hoffa -distantly- in Detroit when the Teamsters were aligned with my UAW
client, I knew Roy Williams pretty well from my reporter days and his
union days in Kansas City, and I did some work for the Teamsters when
Jackie Presser ran the show. Jackie had a habit of calling me early
Sunday mornings...it was a bit of a startle the first few times.

So, you still have that alarm system on your dock, W'hine?

Gosh, breakfast with all those presidents, Yale education, and
friendships with mobsters...what *haven't* you done, Harry?

And why are you crossposting? Do the folks in the other group really
need to hear of your exploits?


harry thinks he's Forrest Gump...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 11:31 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:48:41 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:34:32 -0400, wrote:

Again you totally misunderstand what I said. I just had no interest in
drawing or painting. I still appreciate the work of people who do.
The mechanics interested me, I just was not that interested in doing
it myself. Perhaps my dyslexia may have had something to do with it.

Oh ****. Something else for Harry to add to his data base. In twenty
years he'll be calling you names with 'dyslexia' therein.

I did hesitate to bring it up bercase Harry has no limits to what he
would ridicule.


It's ok, if you hold back he will just make it up anyway :)

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 9:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:00 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay
$100
for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process
allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they
might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per
gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with
that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it
would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to
own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the
Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did.
Not
me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable
gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations
current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and
valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd
Amendment
and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's
the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple
years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern
and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good
reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether
and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't
live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance
and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put
reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your
rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.




Because for liberals, "compromise" is just a stepping stone to an
end...


I didn't expect anything otherwise from you, but that's ok. Some people
will never have any empathy for others. It's all about them and what
*they* think.



Wow, coming from you that's pretty funny...

Maybe you don't know me as well as you think you do. Not surprising.
There are issues and problems in the world that experts in their fields
wrestle with everyday because there are no black or white answers.
But not so for Scott Ingersol. He has it all figured out because he got
the straight scoop from FoxNews.




Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said
before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 11:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more liberal
Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.

I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws. And even
more ignorant laws coming. Where do you draw the line? Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

Had to share this story
 

KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 11:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more liberal
Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.

I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws. And even
more ignorant laws coming. Where do you draw the line? Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

What does this have to do with my statement?