In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it.
Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people.
Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely
to get their hands on one. Simple as that.

===

One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen.
Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns
in the first place?


Lawmakers write the laws, last I heard.
Vote for the ones you like, and live with it.
By "marginal" I'm simply talking about non-gun nuts who won't go to the
trouble to comply, so won't get their hands on guns.
Their call. It won't stop the gun nuts. They can have their guns.
"Casual" gun ownership is dangerous.
Strict gun laws save lives.
Let the gun nuts and cops take care of the bad guys.
If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment
rights" you don't deserve them.

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 3:29:28 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it.
Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people.
Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely
to get their hands on one. Simple as that.

===

One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen.
Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns
in the first place?


Lawmakers write the laws, last I heard.
Vote for the ones you like, and live with it.

You sound like someone who's never stood up for anything you beleive in.

"Casual" gun ownership is dangerous.
Strict gun laws save lives.

It doesn't work in Chicago. Cite?

If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment
rights" you don't deserve them.

Occasionally you almost get something right. "If you don't stand up for your rights, you don't deserve them". There, I fixed it for you.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment
rights" you don't deserve them.

===

That's a bit twisted in my opinion. The 2nd ammendment doesn't say
anything about a requirement to "jump through hoops." The entire
Bill of Rights, of which the 2A is a part, was added as a remedy to
citizen concerns regarding past governmental abuses. If we as
citizens do not continually push back on infringements to those
rights, then we deserve to lose them.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:31:07 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

If you ever shoot at Quantico, be sure to take the chamber blocks.
They will not let you put the gun down and clear your position without
one in the chamber.

===

Same at my range, at least during formal events.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:48:27 -0400, BAR wrote:

Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and
step back.

===

That means the RSO (Range Safety Officer) is not doing their job.



The only time I've seen one of the RSO's walking around is on weekends
when the range is fairly busy. During the weekdays there is rarely one
around. The range isn't busy either.


My range has RSOs on duty constantly - in a glassed-in room right
behind the firing lines. If one of them sees a problem he's at the
lane getting it corrected.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it.
Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people.
Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely
to get their hands on one. Simple as that.

===

One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen.
Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns
in the first place?


Lawmakers write the laws, last I heard.
Vote for the ones you like, and live with it.
By "marginal" I'm simply talking about non-gun nuts who won't go to the
trouble to comply, so won't get their hands on guns.
Their call. It won't stop the gun nuts. They can have their guns.
"Casual" gun ownership is dangerous.
Strict gun laws save lives.
Let the gun nuts and cops take care of the bad guys.
If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment
rights" you don't deserve them.


More horse**** from the cognoscenti.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:48:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment
rights" you don't deserve them.

I could say the same about voting.

I've been hinting about that throughout this discussion. No one will
bite.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:04:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to
make the buyer fill out the form.
BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It
is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They
still move around.

I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with
legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage.
You've mistaken me for Basskisser.

OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking
about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings,
robberies gone bad and gang violence?

BTW, despite your contention otherwise, some of the Columbine weapons
were illegally purchased at a Colorado gun show.

One in a row, what about the rest of them?
Didn't you just say "Most gun crimes are done with
legally purchased guns"

If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they
love, registration and background checks mean nothing.
Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass
any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there
is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used.

Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it.
Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people.
Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely
to get their hands on one. Simple as that.

No, they are just more likely to get one from the gray/black market.
You are starting to sound like those people who want to quarantine
everyone because of ebola. You want to punish 40 million gun owners
because a few thousand of them killed someone and most of them were in
the underworld anyway, beyond the reach of these laws.

BTW who are the "marginal" people? Blacks and Latinos? (statistically
most likely to murder or be murdered)
You will be smoking a turd in liberal purgatory for that one.

That wasn't me! I said nothing about 'marginal' people. I'm guessing
the definition of marginal gun owners are those who use them to commit
crime - Amen.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:08:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:36:40 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:48:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment
rights" you don't deserve them.

I could say the same about voting.

I've been hinting about that throughout this discussion. No one will
bite.

That is something that always bothered me. We managed to elect
everyone from Washington to Lincoln to Reagan with the polls only
being open on the first tuesday in november and you had to get there
on your own. Now suddenly people think they should be able to vote in
their underwear at home.

....several times...in several places...with several names.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with
legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage.
You've mistaken me for Basskisser.

OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking
about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings,
robberies gone bad and gang violence?


Gun crimes by legal gun owners.

BTW, despite your contention otherwise, some of the Columbine weapons
were illegally purchased at a Colorado gun show.

One in a row, what about the rest of them?
Didn't you just say "Most gun crimes are done with
legally purchased guns"


Gotta be black and white for you I suppose.
I just corrected you. I don't care how many you line up.

If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they
love, registration and background checks mean nothing.
Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass
any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there
is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used.

Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it.
Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people.
Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely
to get their hands on one. Simple as that.

No, they are just more likely to get one from the gray/black market.
You are starting to sound like those people who want to quarantine
everyone because of ebola. You want to punish 40 million gun owners
because a few thousand of them killed someone and most of them were in
the underworld anyway, beyond the reach of these laws.

BTW who are the "marginal" people? Blacks and Latinos? (statistically
most likely to murder or be murdered)
You will be smoking a turd in liberal purgatory for that one.

"Marginal" was meant to describe those who wouldn't buy a gun if they
had to jump through a few hoops.
Gun nuts like you and Harry would jump.
I would too if I were a gun nut.