Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 10:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A.

===

That would provoke a nationwide disturbance not seen since the civil
war, and would be political suicide for any strong advocate. There
would be states that threatened secession from the union and they'd be
serious about it.


PS, I regret to report that my forecast for a weekend nor'easter up
your way still looks pretty solid.


I'll have to check the local forecast again. Last word I heard is that
it was going to just clip the Cape which means some rain and wind but
not too bad.

5-8 inches of snow in Maine though.

I am still playing with the ViewFax program you provided the link to. I
can see the "get data" in the pull down menu and when I click on it I
get this:

http://tinyurl.com/pkl9mdc

But when I request any of the areas (Boston in this case) the display
either comes up blank or it comes up with the text of a weather forecast
like this:

http://tinyurl.com/ohbt4zj

If I click on "open" under file in the pull down, and then on the image
file, it loads the global map but there's no weather information on it.

I'll figure it out eventually.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 11:01 PM, KC wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

First, there is no question as to which "Dana" you were referring to.
IIRC you referenced the interview with her that happened to be on
FoxNews. It was the only way I found out who she was.



Did you really, or are you getting more and more like harry cause the
Dana you trashed doesn't work for Fox news and I have never seen her
there so I don't see how you really could have... oh, forget it... Dana
Perino is on Fox news... so.....redux.


Since you've never seen her on FoxNews I thought maybe you would like to
have this link. Yes, it's Dana Loesch of the "Dana Show" that you
referenced along with your idol, Shawn Hannity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-MfBKJfnE

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:30:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:23 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

You can't have it one way, A minute ago you were talking about rights
for minorities as a step forward.

I noticed you dodged the answer about the bill of rights protections
that we are losing and they are far more fundamental than gay marriage
and a parking place close to the door.



I didn't purposely dodge it. I didn't notice it. What was it again?


Again
I understand we may have created rights for some special interest
groups that the founding fathers could have never envisioned but the
ones in the Bill of Rights are under constant attack. I would start
with attacks on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th amendments.

******

Just the 4th amendment problems

There was a great one on the news tonight. FBI agents impersonated
cable guys and did a search of a hotel room without a warrant and with
that information they went back, got a warrant and raided the guys.

This wasn't trying to stop a terrorist attack or catch a serial
killer. It was arresting a bookie in Las Vegas.

There was also a story about "border patrol" check points up to 100
miles from the border and they are using the same rules they use on
the border (search you, search your car, ask questions you have no
real obligation to answer etc)


Of course you really have no rights on the side of the road anyway.
The courts have chipped away at the 4th amendment to the point that a
cop can stop you for no particular reason (always your word against
his about why he stopped you)

Make everyone get out of the car MARYLAND v. WILSON

Question you without a Miranda warning BERKEMER v. McCARTY

Search everyone and the passenger compartment of the car for weapons
Terry v. Ohio

They can "ask" you if they can search your trunk but if you say no,
that is "reasonable suspicion"
They can also detain you until they can get a dog there ILLINOIS v.
CABALLES

Then the kubuki theater starts. It is your word against the cop
whether the dog "alerted". Hint, they always do.
Then he has probable cause.

If you resist in any way they can simply arrest you, maybe taze you,
drench you with pepper spray and beat the **** out of you, impound
your car, then they need to "inventory" it. (AKA rip it apart to be
sure there was no hidden property they might get accused of stealing)

You might just be shot and killed

Who needs the gestapo when we have these guys




****. Now I am afraid to drive to Duncan Donuts. :-)

I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a
big threat to my freedom and rights. I am 65 and have never experienced
any form of this kind of harassment. Maybe I live a boring life.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 12:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
"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.

It is the taxes that will be added later is the scare. Like state senator
Perata here. Wanted to add a 5 cents per bullet tax. Of course Perata has
never met a tax he did not like, if paid by someone else. And he is
against any new CCW licenses. But he has one.



*Anything* is subject to taxation if the politicians get it in their heads.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:20:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.



I've lost the right to vote without an ID.
Liberals are taking more of my money to pay for social welfare
programs.
I must travel and pay for the 'right' to get married.

More if I took....

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:23:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


I'm already considered the racist.

Had to share this story
 

Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
"****. *Now I am afraid to drive to Duncan Donuts. *:-)

I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a
big threat to my freedom and rights. *I am 65 and have never experienced
any form of this kind of harassment. *Maybe I live a boring life. "


Same here. I can barely remember the last time I was stopped for speeding.....maybe 35 years ago.
Every couple of years I might get caught in one of those roadside stops to check safety stickers but am always thanked and waved right on.
Maybe the cops can sense the attitude of drivers.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:31:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

I wonder which of the laws in either MA or MD would have prevented the
school attacks.

All of that looks like any given month in Chicago, which has some of
the most restrictive laws in the country.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:45:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

Most of the 'proposals' are ridiculous attempts to get votes from
liberals, to make ownership of 'any' gun more difficult and/or to fill
the coffers of the applicable government.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think sometimes we forget that the
majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing.

BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy
Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a
gun, they just say no.

I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put
on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough.