Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:28:15 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:



L'il Snottie spews...

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


You are an amusing little man.
You were the spoiled pampered one...an only child and an adopted one at that.
I figure Inky and his wife over compensated for your numerous short comings.

Don't know if Scotty was adopted or not, but what the **** difference
would that make to your stupid posts?

You keep a data base on folks also?

Is there something wrong with being adopted? Are you a 'better' person
if you're *not* adopted?

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:41:24 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you
own, illegal?
Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel
or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for
that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment).
You registered it, they know you have it.

Those righteous folk governing MA would never stoop so low. Would
they? Best hope Bloomberg doesn't get elected governor there.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you
own, illegal?
Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel
or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for
that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment).
You registered it, they know you have it.



Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in
several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them.
If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:33:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:

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.


... and how many crimes do you figure that has prevented?
You are also paying for all of that bureaucracy, whether it shows up
as a line item on your bill or not. It is like the ammo logs we had
for a while. They generated millions of pages of documentation costing
perhaps $50 million dollars and after a decade, even the police
agreed, nobody ever used a single one of those logs to solve a crime.

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.


I don't "think" I can trust the people who are in the government "not"
to do anything.
Who would have thought that they would make you take off your clothes
and submit to a body search,, just to get on an airplane.
40 years ago I doubt anyone would have believed that people could be
required to submit bodily fluids for a drug test, without a warrant.
Who would believe the cops can stop you for weaving (or some other
profile stop), "notice" you have "too much" money in your wallet and
just take it?
No I do not trust them.
.



Despite the growth of government Americans enjoy far more "rights"
overall today than they did 40, 50 or 100 years ago.


Really? There've been some rules, regulations, and laws rescinded in
the past 40, 50, or 100 years. There are 'fewer' of them?

Maybe you could provide some examples of those 'rights' that have been
granted.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:40:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:27 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:22:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

The most successful program seems to be keeping violent felons in jail
longer.
The left complains that we lock too mane people up but most of them
are non violent offenders. Even so, the crime rate is falling at about
the same rate as incarceration rates.



Ever watch "Lock Up" on MSNBC (Friday and Saturday evenings)

Haven't seen MSNBC for several years. It's good to know they have a
show which is not completely anti-conservative.

Many of the violent offenders in prison have absolutely no clue what
living a normal, law abiding life is all about. They live in a narrow
little world and many feel *they* are the victims. I get the sense that
no amount of therapy or rehabilitation will ever permanently change
their views or lifestyle. It's almost like it's in their DNA.


Careful with a comment like that!

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you
own, illegal?
Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel
or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for
that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment).
You registered it, they know you have it.



Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in
several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them.
If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Fifty years ago many of the MA laws would have been 'pure conjecture'
along with most of the recently passed MD laws.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!



This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun
control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of
government control or confiscation.

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!



This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun
control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of
government control or confiscation.

Is the establishment or raising of a fee an 'extreme example'? I think
not.

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.


No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun
control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what
isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in
the sand' is going a bit overboard.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 6:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:33:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:

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.


... and how many crimes do you figure that has prevented?
You are also paying for all of that bureaucracy, whether it shows up
as a line item on your bill or not. It is like the ammo logs we had
for a while. They generated millions of pages of documentation costing
perhaps $50 million dollars and after a decade, even the police
agreed, nobody ever used a single one of those logs to solve a crime.

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.


I don't "think" I can trust the people who are in the government "not"
to do anything.
Who would have thought that they would make you take off your clothes
and submit to a body search,, just to get on an airplane.
40 years ago I doubt anyone would have believed that people could be
required to submit bodily fluids for a drug test, without a warrant.
Who would believe the cops can stop you for weaving (or some other
profile stop), "notice" you have "too much" money in your wallet and
just take it?
No I do not trust them.
.



Despite the growth of government Americans enjoy far more "rights"
overall today than they did 40, 50 or 100 years ago.


Really? There've been some rules, regulations, and laws rescinded in
the past 40, 50, or 100 years. There are 'fewer' of them?

Maybe you could provide some examples of those 'rights' that have been
granted.



Just to put you in the frame of thought:

Women can vote.
Civil Rights Act - technically Afro-Americans could vote in 1869 but
found it difficult to do so until the 1960's.
Gay Marriage Rights.

more if I took the time to research, but you can do that.