About Us

Poco Loco

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:24:22 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:22:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

How many crime guns have actually been traced to a gun show?
You do understand a licensed dealer still needs to record "private"
sales I suppose.

That's one of Harry's big lines, but I've yet to see all the back up
reports of same.

KC

On 10/31/2014 12:10 PM, True North wrote:
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.

don, you are not known here as being all that sharp.. so stupid kinda'
fits...

Poco Loco

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:54:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...

I'm a 10%'er. Add 10% to the limit and set the cruise control. Has
always worked, although I get passed a lot.

Mr. Luddite

On 10/31/2014 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, wrote:

How many crime guns have actually been traced to a gun show?
You do understand a licensed dealer still needs to record "private"
sales I suppose.

Sure. In many states he "records" it in his little black book that is
subject to audit ... maybe. Wasn't that the case in the kid who used
his mother's gun to shoot up some kids at a school? The ATF hadn't
checked his books for years.

That is because none of the guns he handled were ever investigated in
a crime. That should be a good thing.
When they did go looking for one, the system worked. Isn't all you are
looking for?

It also doesn't stop a private or gun show dealer sale of a firearm to a
person legally prohibited from owning one. That was proven by the TV
investigation where they sent a guy to gun shows and he was able to buy
anything he wanted with no background check performed.

There is nothing to stop a person from selling a gun to a person who
shouldn't have one. It is already illegal and making it "more" illegal
is meaningless. If 10 years and $100k fine is not a deterrent, what do
you think your new law would impose that would do the trick? Death?

Did you read the wording on the Federal Transfer Form that John posted a
link to?

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what good it does.
It basically says that you can sell or transfer a firearm to a convicted
felon or nut case as long as you didn't know he was a convicted felon or
nut case.

Mr. Luddite

On 10/31/2014 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:00:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

I don't know about other states but in MA the license plates (or "tags"
as some call them) have a coating designed to optimally reflect the
lasers used in speed traps. It's the preferred "target".

Some of the old MA plates were issued with one plate only .. to be
mounted on the rear of the car. Can't get them anymore. Cops want two
plates and require both to be on the car.

We only run one tag here. From what see, it is just a suggestion
anyway. I see at least one car a week without a tag.

They do sell a tag cover that you can read the tag through but it
seriously reduces the laser reflection and it is hard to see from an
angle, frustrating cameras.

Heh. You don't have annual vehicle inspections in Florida like we do.
People have tried the plastic over the front plate trick by getting
fancy plate holders. Won't pass inspection if you have one installed.

KC

On 10/31/2014 9:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:30:15 -0400, KC wrote:

I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

If you lived in Maryland when they were the speed trap state, it would
make more sense to you. 65 on the beltway was not endangering anyone.
Writing tickets for it was simply revenue.

Were they writing tickets for less than ten over?

Mr. Luddite

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?

Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?

Mr. Luddite

On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front "vanity" plate for that very reason.

The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.

I just drive 65. Max.

Mr. Luddite

On 10/31/2014 9:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

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)

Not too many people watch MSNBC.

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.

You need to do some serious root cause analysis to find out why the
inhabitants of jails and prisons are there. The problem is not the
judicial system, it goes further back into their lives than their first
encounter with the police.

That's why the show is interesting. It goes into that sort of stuff.
It's not a liberal political thing like the rest of the MSNBC programing.

Mr. Luddite

On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.

One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oh yeah, we've got our share...	jps	General	1	June 17th 14 02:18 PM
Had to share this with y'all...	Tom Francis - SWSports	General	0	September 24th 09 04:51 PM
I don't often share humor, but...	Mille GT Owner	General	0	August 25th 09 08:16 PM
Thought I would share...	Short Wave Sportfishing[_2_]	General	1	August 10th 08 04:07 PM
Yacht share.	nimbusgb	Electronics	1	January 29th 07 11:49 AM

Menu

About Us