On 10/30/2014 6:59 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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!


I'd offer the same caution to you. :-)
Having DNA is not race specific.

On 10/30/2014 7:01 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Maybe. But at some point in our human evolution we should say it's time
to start doing something about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

On 10/30/2014 7:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.


I am talking about the people who scream "2A" whenever a proposal of any
kind is put forth to try to control gun violence with no consideration
whatsoever to the rational behind the proposal.

On 10/30/2014 7:32 PM, wrote:
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)

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.


At a certain point, why are we keeping them alive?



Because they have "rights". In the old days they'd just be strung up at
dawn. :-)

On 10/30/2014 7:47 PM, wrote:
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.

But you can't sell them and in some places you can't even give them to
your heirs.
There are people who would push for laws that would not even
grandfather them in.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Conjecture based on other laws that have been passed. There is some
ammo that was outlawed and if they catch you with it, you can be
charged, no matter when you bought it.



And many would agree rightly so. I think sometimes we forget that the
majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing.

John H.
- show quoted text -
" 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? "


Stick to what else you know little about, Johnny.......gun legislation.

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

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.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.

On 10/30/2014 6:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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?


For the record, I was adopted... I don't know what kind of sick
insinuation bonnie is making, or trying to make with his reference but
he's a dumb **** anyway so it's no matter.

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. 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.

===

Let me ask you what problem that solves other than to partially
placate the anti-gun crowd?

On 10/30/2014 6:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:58 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.



And you will never change, judgmental, bigoted, and willing to bend
truth to get to your high horse...

Examples please?




Deciding I was a tea party supporter because I mentioned "Dana". BTW, I
never said Dana Loash (sp), and I never said I supported the "Dana" at
all. Your arrogance let you decide who I was talking about, that I must
be a supporter, and that that made me a Tea Party Supporter... then your
insecurity really made you lash out at the lady... Could have been
talking about Dana Perino, I never really said but I guess it wouldn't
matter, you already got all the info that supports your point of vie..
er um, all you need... lol... For such a rich guy, you are pretty
narrow... for sure...


You are so full of **** it's unbelievable.
Funny though.



Your words... "...you are a tea party supporter, noted". You are
starting to act like harry krause.