Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 1:54 PM, KC wrote:
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...


Sorry Scotty. In order for you to "hit a nerve" I'd have to take you
seriously. I don't.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 1:54 PM, KC wrote:
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...


Sorry Scotty. In order for you to "hit a nerve" I'd have to take you
seriously. I don't.



Yup...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 3:06 PM, Califbill wrote:


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? ] Right here!!!! THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!!!
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?


Um, I answered the question you asked directly in sentence 5 of your
paragraph... Here, I will put it in brackets above to make it easier for
you... snerk

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.




So what? Registration is like car registration, simply another tax and
does not really prevent them from being stolen or misused by their
owner.
The cops are not even using the tools they have now to trace crime
guns. It took about 24 hours to trace Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle back to
the place he bought it and he used a fake ID. That was before GCA86
and all of the registering that came with that law (like the 4473
form).
They can trace guns if it is important to them. It just does not seem
to be that important. I would ask, how many stolen guns are recovered
and returned to the owner? Virtually none. Does that mean none of them
were ever recovered from a criminal? Doubtful.

They already have a federal background check.
"Universal" is just a liberal talking point. There is no way to
enforce much of anything in private sales, particularly when it is a
criminal doing the buying.
We have to ask ourselves, how many of the crimes would have been
prevented by any of these feel good laws? 1% ? 2%?
It certainly was not any of the high profile shootings we always hear
about..





Any gun I buy in MA is registered with the state. I don't pay anything
for it, it's not a tax. It's simply the process of buying a firearm.
The type of firearm, model and serial number is tied to your name,
address and license number. If you sell or transfer the firearm another
form is submitted identifying the new owner and gun license number. The
state maintains a paper trail of legal ownership.

It doesn't "infringe" on anyone's rights and it pacifies the anti-gun crowd.

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 4:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 3:06 PM, Califbill wrote:


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? ]
Right here!!!! THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!!!
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?


Um, I answered the question you asked directly in sentence 5 of your
paragraph... Here, I will put it in brackets above to make it easier for
you... snerk

Condescending, obviously. Pretty soon you'll be slithering around here,
like Harry, making dumb and nasty remarks. Do you want to be shown in
the same light as Harry? Think about it.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?


As my expressed opinion to Greg points out:

Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale
or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered
in the registration data base.

It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed
with a stolen firearm.

It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't
infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't
cost a cent in terms of fees or tax.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.




So what? Registration is like car registration, simply another tax and
does not really prevent them from being stolen or misused by their
owner.
The cops are not even using the tools they have now to trace crime
guns. It took about 24 hours to trace Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle back to
the place he bought it and he used a fake ID. That was before GCA86
and all of the registering that came with that law (like the 4473
form).
They can trace guns if it is important to them. It just does not seem
to be that important. I would ask, how many stolen guns are recovered
and returned to the owner? Virtually none. Does that mean none of them
were ever recovered from a criminal? Doubtful.

They already have a federal background check.
"Universal" is just a liberal talking point. There is no way to
enforce much of anything in private sales, particularly when it is a
criminal doing the buying.
We have to ask ourselves, how many of the crimes would have been
prevented by any of these feel good laws? 1% ? 2%?
It certainly was not any of the high profile shootings we always hear
about..





Any gun I buy in MA is registered with the state. I don't pay anything
for it, it's not a tax. It's simply the process of buying a firearm.
The type of firearm, model and serial number is tied to your name,
address and license number. If you sell or transfer the firearm another
form is submitted identifying the new owner and gun license number. The
state maintains a paper trail of legal ownership.

It doesn't "infringe" on anyone's rights and it pacifies the anti-gun crowd.

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.


Registration can and does bring about laws which can easily lead to
confiscation under a different name. Put an exhorbitant fee on the
re-registration, require fingerprints and picture ID's along with the
trip to the police station, etc, *or* turn in the weapon, *or* be a
felon.

None of those require changes to the Constitution. Washington DC is
well on its way.

Again, your 'chump change' may be big bucks to that guy that can't
afford a taxi ride to the police station.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 4:48 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/30/2014 4:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 3:06 PM, Califbill wrote:


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? ]
Right here!!!! THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!!!
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?


Um, I answered the question you asked directly in sentence 5 of your
paragraph... Here, I will put it in brackets above to make it easier for
you... snerk

Condescending, obviously. Pretty soon you'll be slithering around here,
like Harry, making dumb and nasty remarks. Do you want to be shown in
the same light as Harry? Think about it.


Scotty doesn't think. He just shoots his mouth off. Most of the time
he's wrong. He will never change though. It's the way he's programmed.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 5:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.




So what? Registration is like car registration, simply another tax and
does not really prevent them from being stolen or misused by their
owner.
The cops are not even using the tools they have now to trace crime
guns. It took about 24 hours to trace Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle back to
the place he bought it and he used a fake ID. That was before GCA86
and all of the registering that came with that law (like the 4473
form).
They can trace guns if it is important to them. It just does not seem
to be that important. I would ask, how many stolen guns are recovered
and returned to the owner? Virtually none. Does that mean none of them
were ever recovered from a criminal? Doubtful.

They already have a federal background check.
"Universal" is just a liberal talking point. There is no way to
enforce much of anything in private sales, particularly when it is a
criminal doing the buying.
We have to ask ourselves, how many of the crimes would have been
prevented by any of these feel good laws? 1% ? 2%?
It certainly was not any of the high profile shootings we always hear
about..





Any gun I buy in MA is registered with the state. I don't pay anything
for it, it's not a tax. It's simply the process of buying a firearm.
The type of firearm, model and serial number is tied to your name,
address and license number. If you sell or transfer the firearm another
form is submitted identifying the new owner and gun license number. The
state maintains a paper trail of legal ownership.

It doesn't "infringe" on anyone's rights and it pacifies the anti-gun crowd.

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.


Registration can and does bring about laws which can easily lead to
confiscation under a different name. Put an exhorbitant fee on the
re-registration, require fingerprints and picture ID's along with the
trip to the police station, etc, *or* turn in the weapon, *or* be a
felon.

None of those require changes to the Constitution. Washington DC is
well on its way.

Again, your 'chump change' may be big bucks to that guy that can't
afford a taxi ride to the police station.



That's quite a stretch John. You're starting to sound like Harry and
all the disenfranchised minorities. :-)

That's one of the problems in even considering any gun control reform or
issues. Those on the right immediately draw a straight line from
hands-off ownership to banning or confiscation, direct or defacto.

I wholeheartedly believe that we are a long ways from having the 2A
repealed, either directly or otherwise. Again, I point to the recent
primary vote here in my ultra liberal, progressive state of
Massachusetts. The guy running for Attorney General who was going to
make all handguns sold be "smart" guns was defeated in his bid
overwhelmingly.

Here's an idea: Draft some reasonable legislation that responds to some
of the anti-gun crowd concerns but doesn't infringe on anyone's right to
own a firearm. Put a clause in the legislation that makes any future
attempt to further the control, confiscate, tax or charge excessive fees
for the management of such control to cause this subject legislation to
be null and void. Back to square one.