Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:52:28 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 04:16:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

When I was young and driving old beat up cars, I used to experience a
fair number of trumped up harassment stops. When I was able to afford
newer cars it stopped. I suspect it also happens a lot with minority
drivers because cops believe there is an increased likelihood of
finding something amiss.

A lot of these profile stops happen to minority drivers but in some
places they will harass everyone. (within 100 miles of the Mexican
border)
Rich looking white people, driving around in "normal" hours, generally
are left alone
When I was working 3d shift, I was stopped a lot for pretty much
nothing until all of the Monkey County cops got to know me.



Back in the mid 1980's four of us dressed in business suits were
traveling on I-95 in a dark blue Lincoln Town Car that was owned by my
boss. I've forgotten if it was in New York or New Jersey. We were on
our way to a business meeting with a customer. A State cop pulled us
over, peered at all of us, asked my boss for his license and
registration and went back to his car to "run" the plate and license
info. He then came up to the car, handed the license and registration
back, pointed at the windshield rear view mirror and told my boss that
he pulled us over because of a device he saw on it. He said he thought
it was a radar detector (apparently illegal in whatever state we were
in). It was actually a sensor for a automatic headlight dimming system.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:22:22 -0400, 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!

Well, I've not spent a lot of time calling him names or comparing him
to assholes in the group.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:10:45 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

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.

You might just try an apology for a stupid comment rather than the
bull****.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:23:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

Ditto.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.


More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take
long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those
records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it.

I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having
some of the guns registered.



Heh. What do you expect to hear?


CNN Breaking News!

Joe Blow of Bum**** Arkansas acknowledged to police today that he
decided *not* to shoot his nagging mother-in-law.

When asked why he reached that decision, Mr. Blow stated that his gun
was registered.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:54:33 UTC-3, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.


More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take
long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those
records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it.

I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having
some of the guns registered.

The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police.
If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had.
It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns.
Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm.
When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house.
The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law.
BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:59:02 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:10:45 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

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.

You might just try an apology for a stupid comment rather than the
bull****.

You could apologize for calling me stupid first..and I'm talking about yesterdays post.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:57:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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.



You notice I make a point of talking about my vacations after I get
home and I talk about guns that are already known to the government
via the 4473. I am not paranoid but I understand what you are saying
here. Anything you say on the internet is public knowledge.
Google knows a lot more about what you are doing from day to day than
the government but if the government asks, Google will tell them.



Yup.

The information available on everybody is unbelievable. The cable
companies even have services that customize the advertisements you see.
You may see one advertisement and your neighbor may see another even
though you are watching the same channel at the same time.

Good example is the Medicare thing we were talking about recently.
I turned 65 this month but since September I've been noticing that every
other commercial is for Medicare supplemental plans, reverse mortgages
and Medimucil (to keep me regular).

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 12:06 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:18:35 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

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

What I beleive he meant is that the American public hasn't been railing against background checks. Your linked article even points out that the measure had a 90% public approval rating. It was the politicians that didn't get the job done.

They really do not explain what "universal background check" means.

If they explained that I could not give my wife a shotgun for
christmas without her submitting to a background check and having a
federally licensed person do the "transfer", they might get a better
feel for it.
If I just buy the gun myself and give it to her with a bow on it under
the tree, I am a "straw buyer" and she is an illegal gun owner.



I think the main issue is making unreported sales of firearms at gun
shows and similar venues. I remember one reporter who was able to buy
anything he wanted at a show with no check, no questions asked.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 12:07 PM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:54:33 UTC-3, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.


More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take
long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those
records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it.

I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having
some of the guns registered.

The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police.
If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had.
It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns.
Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm.
When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house.
The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law.
BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns.



The "permission by the wife" cracks me up.