On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html

That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:22 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:15 AM, 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.



Harry keeps a dossier on everyone's guns including yours. Maybe he can
trade that information for the scope he can't afford to buy.


No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to
some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door
any day now to confiscate them.


Who said that?

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:46:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".



Valid points. It's going to happen anyway though, so I think it may be
better to be pro-active in the process rather than being totally rigid
about the subject.


When will it stop? That's the question. You seem to think it will take
only a few more minor compromises. I don't.

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.

On 10/31/2014 10:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.

The pair of them are fruitcakes. Dumb and dumber, if you will.

On 10/31/2014 9:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html

That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.


Yet I get trolled for saying the exact thing... lol!

On Friday, 31 October 2014 11:10:55 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.


My, my JohnnyMop..... you're on the verge of getting hysterical about this adoption thing.

My comment was in reply to one of your Moppetts trying to belittle another poster by inferring that he has a 'baby brother' complex.

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

I simply pointed out that your Moppett was more likely to have been catered to and spoiled because he was an only child and an adopted one at that....
That is.. his adoptive parents WANTED him rather than his conception being an accident. That they got a defective unit isn't the issue...... or maybe it was..mmmm.

On 10/31/2014 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:46:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".



Valid points. It's going to happen anyway though, so I think it may be
better to be pro-active in the process rather than being totally rigid
about the subject.


When will it stop? That's the question. You seem to think it will take
only a few more minor compromises. I don't.


Ok. You have a right to your opinion.

On 10/31/2014 10:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html


That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.


Yet I get trolled for saying the exact thing... lol!


Maybe it's the way you say it.