Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



You don't have to divulge anything. You've broadcasted every gun you
own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:15:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



You don't have to divulge anything. You've broadcasted every gun you
own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet.


No, no, no....only here! :)

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 7:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.




I guess I am not being clear.

There's a growing anti-gun sentiment in this country.
What I am saying is why not concede some minor and unimportant points
... like background checks and registration to appease the gun haters
and take pressure off the politicians?

The other option is to continue to demand your "rights" under the 2A and
risk stronger laws, regulations and maybe eventually a new
interpretation of what the word "infringe" means.

It's called compromise. Dying art now-a-days.

I've no problem conceding minor, unimportant points...if there is a
guarantee it will stop there.

There are just too damn many liberals out there who want all guns
taken away from law-abiding citizens.

Had to share this story
 

Mr. Luddite
- hide quoted text -
On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



" You don't have to divulge anything. *You've broadcasted every gun you
own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. "


SNERK!
Johnny's verbal diarrhea problem will do him in.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 7:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

No. We're talking about ways the 2A can be circumvented by smart,
tricky liberal politicians.


Which can happen under any circumstances. It is already and is likely
to continue.

So, instead of giving them the argument that no discussion, negotiation
or compromise is possible with gun-owners, take that political
ammunition away by being willing to work with them and be willing to
accept non-invasion rules on your "rights" like background checks and
registration.

If you seriously think the liberals are going to take your guns away,
don't register your presently owned firearms.

What it does it takes away some of the "right-wing crazies" rhetoric and
gives them a pseudo political victory that really doesn't mean anything
or affect your right to bear arms.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:41:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 7:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
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.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

No. We're talking about ways the 2A can be circumvented by smart,
tricky liberal politicians.


Which can happen under any circumstances. It is already and is likely
to continue.

That's the problem.

So, instead of giving them the argument that no discussion, negotiation
or compromise is possible with gun-owners, take that political
ammunition away by being willing to work with them and be willing to
accept non-invasion rules on your "rights" like background checks and
registration.

I've no problem with background checks.

If you seriously think the liberals are going to take your guns away,
don't register your presently owned firearms.

OK, I won't.

What it does it takes away some of the "right-wing crazies" rhetoric and
gives them a pseudo political victory that really doesn't mean anything
or affect your right to bear arms.


I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 4:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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


You asked last night where Harry was. I bet he was in Orlando to attend
the fund raiser for Rick Scott. Dana, Shaun, and Herman were all there.
How could Harry resist rubbing elbows with the three of them?

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:33:18 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

Mr. Luddite
- hide quoted text -
On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



" You don't have to divulge anything. *You've broadcasted every gun you
own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. "


SNERK!
Johnny's verbal diarrhea problem will do him in.

....as you bypass the adoption issue, you f'ing coward.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:06:00 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 4:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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


You asked last night where Harry was. I bet he was in Orlando to attend
the fund raiser for Rick Scott. Dana, Shaun, and Herman were all there.
How could Harry resist rubbing elbows with the three of them?

Be a good 'boat' ride for him.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 7:29 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.

consider it a badge of honor to lave a whacked out liberal socialist
call you that.