Had to share this story
 

KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


My mom was an artist and painted with Oil for years... harry doesn't
paint, all he does is lie on the internet... lol!

Sarcasm, moron.
--
Posted from my iPhone

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 8:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100
for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process
allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they
might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with
that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it
would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the
Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not
me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations
current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment
and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's
the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple
years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good
reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.




Because for liberals, "compromise" is just a stepping stone to an end...


I didn't expect anything otherwise from you, but that's ok. Some people
will never have any empathy for others. It's all about them and what
*they* think.



Wow, coming from you that's pretty funny...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


Well, of course you didn't, because appreciation of art or the creation
of it, why, they are liberal arts pursuits.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.� -
Norman Mailer

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/14 8:21 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:25:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I knew Jimmy
Hoffa -distantly- in Detroit when the Teamsters were aligned with my UAW
client, I knew Roy Williams pretty well from my reporter days and his
union days in Kansas City, and I did some work for the Teamsters when
Jackie Presser ran the show. Jackie had a habit of calling me early
Sunday mornings...it was a bit of a startle the first few times.

===

With friends like that you really don't need any enemies.

I had a neighbor at one time who was a self proclaimed union hotshot
with "connections". He disappeared one day - couldn't have happened
to a nicer guy.


We had two dirty business agents who screwed the Union. One slapped the
girl he was dating around, her father was a big "Italian" guy from
Windsor Locks, and a week or so later the girl got her fiance to go down
parking by the river where he apparently held his hand outside of the
car, shot himself in the forehead and the bullet ended up in the
passenger seat, the pistol in his lap.. :) Suicide it was ruled.. The
next guy came home one night and found his home burned, family dead....
not fun guys...

Sounds like they met the "full patch" motorcycle gang member you were
threatening me with, eh?


--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 9:00 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100
for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process
allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they
might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per
gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with
that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it
would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the
Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not
me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable
gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations
current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and
valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment
and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's
the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple
years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good
reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't
live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance
and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.




Because for liberals, "compromise" is just a stepping stone to an end...


I didn't expect anything otherwise from you, but that's ok. Some people
will never have any empathy for others. It's all about them and what
*they* think.



Wow, coming from you that's pretty funny...

Maybe you don't know me as well as you think you do. Not surprising.
There are issues and problems in the world that experts in their fields
wrestle with everyday because there are no black or white answers.
But not so for Scott Ingersol. He has it all figured out because he got
the straight scoop from FoxNews.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 9:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


Well, of course you didn't, because appreciation of art or the creation
of it, why, they are liberal arts pursuits.



So? I like music but I can't sing worth a damn.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/14 9:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or
show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


Well, of course you didn't, because appreciation of art or the creation
of it, why, they are liberal arts pursuits.



So? I like music but I can't sing worth a damn.



But you play a few instruments, right? So, you sing with instruments.


--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.� -
Norman Mailer

Had to share this story
 

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:25:46 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D lied AGAIN, and posted :

Oh, I've known a few of the "real deal" guys over the years.

Nice fellows, and far less crooked than your banksters. I knew Jimmy
Hoffa -distantly-

That's the biggest pile of **** lie you've told to date you old, wrinkled failure.

Had to share this story
 

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:02:44 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 7:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:25:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I knew Jimmy
Hoffa -distantly- in Detroit when the Teamsters were aligned with my UAW
client, I knew Roy Williams pretty well from my reporter days and his
union days in Kansas City, and I did some work for the Teamsters when
Jackie Presser ran the show. Jackie had a habit of calling me early
Sunday mornings...it was a bit of a startle the first few times.

===

With friends like that you really don't need any enemies.

I had a neighbor at one time who was a self proclaimed union hotshot
with "connections". He disappeared one day - couldn't have happened
to a nicer guy.



Oh, I've worked with much tougher guys than those gents. My junior high
school girlfriend's father was a caporegime in the family headed by
Frank Costello, and her family took me one Christmas holiday to
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, where we spent a week "comped" at a hotel owned
(controlled?) by Costello. Great girl, great family.



Sure, krause....another ****ing TOTAL lie.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 9:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 9:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:24 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or
show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


Well, of course you didn't, because appreciation of art or the creation
of it, why, they are liberal arts pursuits.



So? I like music but I can't sing worth a damn.



But you play a few instruments, right? So, you sing with instruments.



Can't play them worth a damn either. When I sing my neighbor's cat howls.

Had to share this story
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more liberal
Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.

I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws. And even
more ignorant laws coming. Where do you draw the line? Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!

Had to share this story
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 4:54 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 1:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:28:50 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 11:25 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:36:30 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/28/14 11:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:42:34 -0400, F*O*A*D
wrote:

On 10/28/14 5:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:08:54 -0400, F*O*A*D
wrote:

You send your kids out to collect plastic bottles by the
roadside to
turn in for deposit? I suppose that is easier on you than
finding and
keeping a decent job.

I think he is referring to your "hobby" of killing water
bottles and
performing mundane tasks on firearms, routinely performed by
third
world children.


Ahh, yes, I do enjoy shooting one and two liter sodapop
bottles, and I'm
going to start putting Mentos in some of them. Ginger ale,
I've found,
produces the biggest "explosions."

I doubt "third world children" are working on new in the box
Colt AR15s.

They might have some well-used ones that Dick Cheney's
corporation left
behind somewhere, though. I wonder if those kids have "Go"
and "No Go"
tools in their little kits when they need to replace the
barrels in
those Cheney Saturday Night Specials.

And since you are interested, I might upgrade the trigger in
my AR15.
It's a "milspec" trigger with a "milspec" 6-1/2 pound pull,
and is ok
but not great. I'd like a smoother trigger with maybe half
that amount
of pull.

For a moment there, I thought the Ingerfool family found a
good job
right out of the Grapes of Wrath. :)

It takes a lot more skill to keep those old M16s (and AKs)
running
than a new in the box AR.
The fact that you have access to lots of off the shelf parts
does not
enhance your argument.




I have no use or need for a select fire M16, though I don't see
where
regular maintenance on it would be any more difficult or even
significantly different than on my AR15. There's very little
difference
in stripping them down and keeping them running. Most of the
parts are
identical. The key is keeping the rifle clean and lubed.

I don't know anything about the care and maintenance of the AK
rifles.
They don't interest me.

Non responsive answer ... again.


Your posit was that it took more skill to keep an old M16
running. What
skills would it take beyond my ability to produce a working AR15
from a
stripped lower and upper? I have the skills I need to build and
maintain
my AR rifles. I know where all the pieces and parts go, including
the
various springs and detents. I have no desire or need to
manufacture a
billet lower or hammer a barrel.

As I stated, I don't know anything about AKs.

A 3d world child is keeping an old M16 running with limited access to
parts if any and it is usually a worn out Vietnam era M16A1 that we
gave away during one of our "save the world from communism"
misadventures.
That is far more difficult than simply dropping new parts in a new
lower. and acting like you are a master gunsmith.



Really. What parts are these Third World kids machining? Springs?
Detents? Levers? Are they carving parts out of hickory logs? Or are
they
simply scavenging parts out of one old rifle and tossing them into
another old rifle.

Exactly.

I made no claim of being a master gunsmith. I'm no more of a master
gunsmith than you are a master auto mechanic, public health expert, or
environmental engineer, or an expert in any of the other 100 areas in
which you've claimed mastery.

You only seem to hang your hat on that one skill, assembling erector
set guns..



I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.


No, you ignorant ass. Took art history classes (two) in college.



Or a drafting class.


Took mechanical drawing in junior high school. In those days, the public
schools had $$$ for interesting electives. Took "art" in two grades,
chorus in 9th grade. What did your junior high do for "culture," Bilious,
hand out comic books?



My junior high school and high school were excellent schools. My public
high school had the highest grade point and graduation rate of any public
school at UC Berkeley. But UC professors and administrators kids went to
these schools. And was the last of the 50's students, so we actually had
good teachers, and not union protected incompetents. Lots of our teachers
went to school on the GI bill for WW2, so they had both life experience and
some common sense. Unlike what we have for teachers now.

Had to share this story
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/29/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or show
my expertise with Trompe-l'Å“il oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


Well, of course you didn't, because appreciation of art or the creation
of it, why, they are liberal arts pursuits.


Bull****. Some are creative in other than painting, and other "art".

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety and ownership concerns in the 21st Century.

What you consider reasonable and what Bloomberg, et al, consider
reasonable are two very different things.

Citing the 2nd
Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

Who's doing that?

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.




My point, which you seem adept at skipping over, is that very
unreasonable laws *could* be made without those changes to the
Constitution you deemed impossible.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:34:32 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:24:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:54:46 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/29/2014 2:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:36:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I don't see rec.boats as a place where I would want to discuss or show
my expertise with Trompe-l'œil oil painting.


Oh brother.... learned a new word on the internets I see... lol.

Paint by number?


It is just a pretentious way of saying you have a degree of
perspective in your picture. It is usually taught in the introduction
to art class.
In it's most simple sense, you create a vanishing point somewhere near
the center of the picture with lines to the edges of the frame and use
that to scale object sizes as you move forward toward the viewer.
Once you get the concept, you know objects far away are smaller than
objects up close and you adjust shapes to reflect it still using those
imaginary lines.
The more off center your vanishing point is, the more oblique the view
is that you are representing.

My father was an artist in his spare time, mostly working in charcoal.
I learned these concepts in grade school. I just never really found
the love for the process.


Well, of course you didn't, because appreciation of art or the creation
of it, why, they are liberal arts pursuits.

Again you totally misunderstand what I said. I just had no interest in
drawing or painting. I still appreciate the work of people who do.
The mechanics interested me, I just was not that interested in doing
it myself. Perhaps my dyslexia may have had something to do with it.

Oh ****. Something else for Harry to add to his data base. In twenty
years he'll be calling you names with 'dyslexia' therein.

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:21:32 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:46:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 5:34 PM, amdx wrote:
On 10/28/2014 7:06 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/28/14 7:58 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data - right?



Not at all. The conclusion is that you are an ill-informed, ignorant
racist.


I'm curious, is he racist because of something he said in this post,
or are you are you just calling people racist again.

Mikek





Some years before your arrival here, Herring worked as a substitute
babysitter teacher frequently made racist comments about his minority
students and their families, he's made anti-ethnic remarks about
Latinos, and over the years, he's made all manner of racist remarks
about blacks. I call him a racist because he is one.

Curiosity satisfied?

===

What if the remarks he made about his students were true? Would he
still be a racist? Under the law you can not libel someone with a
true statement.

It's for damn sure any comments I made about students and their lack
of parental support were true.

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:34:34 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 10/28/2014 7:06 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/28/14 7:58 AM, Poco Loco wrote:


It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data - right?



Not at all. The conclusion is that you are an ill-informed, ignorant
racist.


I'm curious, is he racist because of something he said in this post,
or are you are you just calling people racist again.

Mikek



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

For the record: Harry is a liar. Many, many examples of same are
readily available.

Of course, there may be some folks here who actually believe Harry
took the photo of the owls posted as his own, or that he actually does
have a 'Maryland red barn' on his property.

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:25:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 6:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:57:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 5:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:21:29 -0400, Harrold wrote:

Alarms, booby traps, security lighting, security cameras, guns behind
the double deadbolted steel doors. Nah, he's not paranoid. All that's
missing is a moat and a gun turret on the roof. What is Krausie so
afraid of?

===

That's easy, he's afraid of the past. Did you ever see the episode of
the Sopranos where Tony is in a small town in Maine and runs into a
mob informer who is now in the witness protection program? It's not
pretty. I don't think Harry is in the WPP but there are still things
that can go bump in the night, even if you've lived an otherwise
exemplary life like he has.



Still got that alarm system on your dock, W'hine? How about the one on
your house for when you are out of town?

===

Maybe you should watch that episode of the Sopranos if you missed it.
It might make you a little "tight" under the collar.


Oh, I've known a few of the "real deal" guys over the years.

Nice fellows, and far less crooked than your banksters. I knew Jimmy
Hoffa -distantly- in Detroit when the Teamsters were aligned with my UAW
client, I knew Roy Williams pretty well from my reporter days and his
union days in Kansas City, and I did some work for the Teamsters when
Jackie Presser ran the show. Jackie had a habit of calling me early
Sunday mornings...it was a bit of a startle the first few times.

So, you still have that alarm system on your dock, W'hine?

Gosh, breakfast with all those presidents, Yale education, and
friendships with mobsters...what *haven't* you done, Harry?

And why are you crossposting? Do the folks in the other group really
need to hear of your exploits?

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:58:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights?
If you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.



I'll bet there is no one here unwilling to compromise on 'reasonable'
gun controls. For example, I see nothing wrong with a law prohibiting
the sale of 'fully automatic' weapons to the general public. And I
have no problems with a background check, as long as the check isn't
used at some later date to confiscate or take other action against me
for gun ownership.

Define 'reasonable'. That's the problem. When do 'reasonable gun
controls' give away my rights? You say $1300/gun is 'unreasonable' and
therefore couldn't happen. How about $273.94/gun every six years?
Would that be 'unreasonable'? If we changed it to every three years?
How about every year? Have you ever seen a 'tax' go away?

I have. Last year I wrote emails and letters to the state and Governor
in regards to the state parks charging $10/night/dog in a campsite.
That cost me an extra $20/night. This year the state stopped adding
the extra fee. I doubt my correspondence changed any minds, but it
might have helped a bit.

Had to share this story
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:21:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/29/2014 8:13 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks?

Closer to a "benny" here in season if you want to play a nice course..



I am sure John must get decent fees at the military courses he plays.

Quantico and Fort Belvoir charge me $26/18 holes - walking. A cart
adds $16 and greatly reduces the calorie burn.

Mostly I play a local county course - Greendale - which charges me $19
to play 18 holes - walking.

But, if they raised the rates to $450, I couldn't complain that my
Constitutional rights were being violated.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:31:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:48:41 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:34:32 -0400, wrote:

Again you totally misunderstand what I said. I just had no interest in
drawing or painting. I still appreciate the work of people who do.
The mechanics interested me, I just was not that interested in doing
it myself. Perhaps my dyslexia may have had something to do with it.

Oh ****. Something else for Harry to add to his data base. In twenty
years he'll be calling you names with 'dyslexia' therein.

I did hesitate to bring it up bercase Harry has no limits to what he
would ridicule.

===

That's because Harry doesn't believe in dog.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


You said, "...and refusing to consider any laws or rules...", to which
I asked, "Who's doing that?"

I should have been more clear.

I've *never* said there should be no laws or rules regarding gun
control.

My argument is that it is possible to greatly infringe on the gun
ownership rights of folks *without* nullifying, modifying, or throwing
out the Constitution - which you stated could never happen. The
requirement for exhorbitant registration fees could easily become a
form of 'confiscation'. When one has a choice of paying more than he
can afford, turning in his weapon, or becoming a felon, his rights, in
my opinion, are being infringed upon.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:32:31 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.

If cops can stop a car, take money, and make the owners 'prove' the
money was acquired legally, why can they not stop the gangbangers in
Chicago, take their weapons, and make them 'prove' they had the right
to carry.

I suppose that would be racist.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 9:56 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:25:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 6:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:57:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/29/14 5:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:21:29 -0400, Harrold wrote:

Alarms, booby traps, security lighting, security cameras, guns behind
the double deadbolted steel doors. Nah, he's not paranoid. All that's
missing is a moat and a gun turret on the roof. What is Krausie so
afraid of?

===

That's easy, he's afraid of the past. Did you ever see the episode of
the Sopranos where Tony is in a small town in Maine and runs into a
mob informer who is now in the witness protection program? It's not
pretty. I don't think Harry is in the WPP but there are still things
that can go bump in the night, even if you've lived an otherwise
exemplary life like he has.



Still got that alarm system on your dock, W'hine? How about the one on
your house for when you are out of town?

===

Maybe you should watch that episode of the Sopranos if you missed it.
It might make you a little "tight" under the collar.


Oh, I've known a few of the "real deal" guys over the years.

Nice fellows, and far less crooked than your banksters. I knew Jimmy
Hoffa -distantly- in Detroit when the Teamsters were aligned with my UAW
client, I knew Roy Williams pretty well from my reporter days and his
union days in Kansas City, and I did some work for the Teamsters when
Jackie Presser ran the show. Jackie had a habit of calling me early
Sunday mornings...it was a bit of a startle the first few times.

So, you still have that alarm system on your dock, W'hine?

Gosh, breakfast with all those presidents, Yale education, and
friendships with mobsters...what *haven't* you done, Harry?

And why are you crossposting? Do the folks in the other group really
need to hear of your exploits?


harry thinks he's Forrest Gump...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 11:31 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:48:41 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:34:32 -0400, wrote:

Again you totally misunderstand what I said. I just had no interest in
drawing or painting. I still appreciate the work of people who do.
The mechanics interested me, I just was not that interested in doing
it myself. Perhaps my dyslexia may have had something to do with it.

Oh ****. Something else for Harry to add to his data base. In twenty
years he'll be calling you names with 'dyslexia' therein.

I did hesitate to bring it up bercase Harry has no limits to what he
would ridicule.


It's ok, if you hold back he will just make it up anyway :)

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 9:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:00 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay
$100
for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process
allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they
might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per
gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with
that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it
would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to
own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the
Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did.
Not
me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable
gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations
current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and
valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd
Amendment
and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's
the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple
years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern
and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good
reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether
and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't
live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance
and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put
reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your
rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.




Because for liberals, "compromise" is just a stepping stone to an
end...


I didn't expect anything otherwise from you, but that's ok. Some people
will never have any empathy for others. It's all about them and what
*they* think.



Wow, coming from you that's pretty funny...

Maybe you don't know me as well as you think you do. Not surprising.
There are issues and problems in the world that experts in their fields
wrestle with everyday because there are no black or white answers.
But not so for Scott Ingersol. He has it all figured out because he got
the straight scoop from FoxNews.




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

Had to share this story
 

On 10/29/2014 11:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more liberal
Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.

I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws. And even
more ignorant laws coming. Where do you draw the line? Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

Had to share this story
 

KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 11:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay $100 for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did. Not me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd Amendment and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks? What's the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more liberal
Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.

I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws. And even
more ignorant laws coming. Where do you draw the line? Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

What does this have to do with my statement?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 1:54 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:00 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay
$100
for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration process
allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they
might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per
gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem with
that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it
would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to
own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the
Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did.
Not
me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable
gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations
current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and
valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd
Amendment
and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks?
What's
the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple
years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern
and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good
reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether
and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't
live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance
and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put
reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your
rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.




Because for liberals, "compromise" is just a stepping stone to an
end...


I didn't expect anything otherwise from you, but that's ok. Some
people
will never have any empathy for others. It's all about them and what
*they* think.



Wow, coming from you that's pretty funny...

Maybe you don't know me as well as you think you do. Not surprising.
There are issues and problems in the world that experts in their fields
wrestle with everyday because there are no black or white answers.
But not so for Scott Ingersol. He has it all figured out because he got
the straight scoop from FoxNews.




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


Sorry Scotty. In order for you to "hit a nerve" I'd have to take you
seriously. I don't.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 1:54 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 9:00 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 8:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2014 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/29/2014 2:21 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:44:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 5:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/28/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:23:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

$35 every three years doesn't sound onerous to me. We pay
$100
for six
years up here. Free if 70 or over.


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

The $100 is for the license or renewal every 6 years.
You can own as many guns as you want. The registration
process
allows
the state to monitor how many you buy and sell though and they
might
investigate if they suspect you are an unlicensed dealer.

I didn't take John's $35 (for three years) as being a fee per
gun.
It's just for the fingerprinting.


As I said, you missed the fee per gun part.



What was it, $13 bucks or something? I don't have a problem
with
that.

I expect not. You wouldn't have a problem with $1300/gun, but it
would
sure be an infringement on the right of many, including me, to
own a
firearm, wouldn't it? Would it require a change in the
Constitution to
pass such a law in a city, county, or state?



Who said I wouldn't have a problem at $1,300 per gun? You did.
Not
me.

$13 bucks every three years to cover the cost of having reasonable
gun
registration and controls doesn't seem crazy to me. $1,300 does.

We pay $50 (per vehicle) every two years to keep car registrations
current.

We pay $100 every six years to keep our gun permits current and
valid.

All we are talking about are *reasonable* controls to address gun
safety
and ownership concerns in the 21st Century. Citing the 2nd
Amendment
and
refusing to consider any laws or rules that make the rest of the
population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.

What's the going rate for 18 holes of golf? $25-$30 bucks?
What's
the
going rate for a full hookup at a campsite?

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


Cars are not a constitutionally protected item. $$ every couple
years to
keep your guns? More like a poll tax to vote.

True, but I see the whole thing differently. There is much concern
and
controversy surrounding firearm ownership now-a-days, some with good
reason.

Some anti-gun people and groups advocate the ban on them altogether
and
continue to challenge the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. We don't
live
in the 17 or 18 hundreds. Trying to defend gun rights on the nuance
and
interpretation of the 2A wording may backfire someday with a more
liberal Supreme Court. If that happens ... gun owners are screwed.

Rather than dig in our heels and reject every attempt to put
reasonable
controls on gun ownership, why not try to understand the
reasoning of
others and be willing to compromise without giving away your
rights? If
you notice, the lack of compromise and willingness to respect other
views/concerns on issues is at the core of a totally dysfunctional
government. It's not how rational, mature people resolve an issue.




Because for liberals, "compromise" is just a stepping stone to an
end...


I didn't expect anything otherwise from you, but that's ok. Some
people
will never have any empathy for others. It's all about them and what
*they* think.



Wow, coming from you that's pretty funny...

Maybe you don't know me as well as you think you do. Not surprising.
There are issues and problems in the world that experts in their fields
wrestle with everyday because there are no black or white answers.
But not so for Scott Ingersol. He has it all figured out because he got
the straight scoop from FoxNews.




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


Sorry Scotty. In order for you to "hit a nerve" I'd have to take you
seriously. I don't.



Yup...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 3:06 PM, Califbill wrote:


I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws. And even
more ignorant laws coming. [ Where do you draw the line? ] Right here!!!! THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!!!
Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

What does this have to do with my statement?


Um, I answered the question you asked directly in sentence 5 of your
paragraph... Here, I will put it in brackets above to make it easier for
you... snerk

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.




So what? Registration is like car registration, simply another tax and
does not really prevent them from being stolen or misused by their
owner.
The cops are not even using the tools they have now to trace crime
guns. It took about 24 hours to trace Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle back to
the place he bought it and he used a fake ID. That was before GCA86
and all of the registering that came with that law (like the 4473
form).
They can trace guns if it is important to them. It just does not seem
to be that important. I would ask, how many stolen guns are recovered
and returned to the owner? Virtually none. Does that mean none of them
were ever recovered from a criminal? Doubtful.

They already have a federal background check.
"Universal" is just a liberal talking point. There is no way to
enforce much of anything in private sales, particularly when it is a
criminal doing the buying.
We have to ask ourselves, how many of the crimes would have been
prevented by any of these feel good laws? 1% ? 2%?
It certainly was not any of the high profile shootings we always hear
about..





Any gun I buy in MA is registered with the state. I don't pay anything
for it, it's not a tax. It's simply the process of buying a firearm.
The type of firearm, model and serial number is tied to your name,
address and license number. If you sell or transfer the firearm another
form is submitted identifying the new owner and gun license number. The
state maintains a paper trail of legal ownership.

It doesn't "infringe" on anyone's rights and it pacifies the anti-gun crowd.

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.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 4:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 3:06 PM, Califbill wrote:


I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What
we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws.
And even
more ignorant laws coming. [ Where do you draw the line? ]
Right here!!!! THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!!!
Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in
stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is
illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

What does this have to do with my statement?


Um, I answered the question you asked directly in sentence 5 of your
paragraph... Here, I will put it in brackets above to make it easier for
you... snerk

Condescending, obviously. Pretty soon you'll be slithering around here,
like Harry, making dumb and nasty remarks. Do you want to be shown in
the same light as Harry? Think about it.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?


As my expressed opinion to Greg points out:

Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale
or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered
in the registration data base.

It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed
with a stolen firearm.

It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't
infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't
cost a cent in terms of fees or tax.

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.




So what? Registration is like car registration, simply another tax and
does not really prevent them from being stolen or misused by their
owner.
The cops are not even using the tools they have now to trace crime
guns. It took about 24 hours to trace Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle back to
the place he bought it and he used a fake ID. That was before GCA86
and all of the registering that came with that law (like the 4473
form).
They can trace guns if it is important to them. It just does not seem
to be that important. I would ask, how many stolen guns are recovered
and returned to the owner? Virtually none. Does that mean none of them
were ever recovered from a criminal? Doubtful.

They already have a federal background check.
"Universal" is just a liberal talking point. There is no way to
enforce much of anything in private sales, particularly when it is a
criminal doing the buying.
We have to ask ourselves, how many of the crimes would have been
prevented by any of these feel good laws? 1% ? 2%?
It certainly was not any of the high profile shootings we always hear
about..





Any gun I buy in MA is registered with the state. I don't pay anything
for it, it's not a tax. It's simply the process of buying a firearm.
The type of firearm, model and serial number is tied to your name,
address and license number. If you sell or transfer the firearm another
form is submitted identifying the new owner and gun license number. The
state maintains a paper trail of legal ownership.

It doesn't "infringe" on anyone's rights and it pacifies the anti-gun crowd.

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.


Registration can and does bring about laws which can easily lead to
confiscation under a different name. Put an exhorbitant fee on the
re-registration, require fingerprints and picture ID's along with the
trip to the police station, etc, *or* turn in the weapon, *or* be a
felon.

None of those require changes to the Constitution. Washington DC is
well on its way.

Again, your 'chump change' may be big bucks to that guy that can't
afford a taxi ride to the police station.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 4:48 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/30/2014 4:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 3:06 PM, Califbill wrote:


I agree somewhat. I think there should be rational gun laws. What
we have
now is a mishmash of a lot of hysteria driven, non enforced laws.
And even
more ignorant laws coming. [ Where do you draw the line? ]
Right here!!!! THIS QUESTION RIGHT HERE!!!
Like Harry's AR15!
Same weapon with a lighter barrel is illegal? A S&W 626 in
stainless is
legal in California. Same exact weapon with the grey finish is
illegal.
Never been tested and passed by the state. Absolutely stupid!


Most folks set the line right below what they already have....

What does this have to do with my statement?


Um, I answered the question you asked directly in sentence 5 of your
paragraph... Here, I will put it in brackets above to make it easier for
you... snerk

Condescending, obviously. Pretty soon you'll be slithering around here,
like Harry, making dumb and nasty remarks. Do you want to be shown in
the same light as Harry? Think about it.


Scotty doesn't think. He just shoots his mouth off. Most of the time
he's wrong. He will never change though. It's the way he's programmed.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/30/2014 5:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.




So what? Registration is like car registration, simply another tax and
does not really prevent them from being stolen or misused by their
owner.
The cops are not even using the tools they have now to trace crime
guns. It took about 24 hours to trace Lee Harvey Oswalds rifle back to
the place he bought it and he used a fake ID. That was before GCA86
and all of the registering that came with that law (like the 4473
form).
They can trace guns if it is important to them. It just does not seem
to be that important. I would ask, how many stolen guns are recovered
and returned to the owner? Virtually none. Does that mean none of them
were ever recovered from a criminal? Doubtful.

They already have a federal background check.
"Universal" is just a liberal talking point. There is no way to
enforce much of anything in private sales, particularly when it is a
criminal doing the buying.
We have to ask ourselves, how many of the crimes would have been
prevented by any of these feel good laws? 1% ? 2%?
It certainly was not any of the high profile shootings we always hear
about..





Any gun I buy in MA is registered with the state. I don't pay anything
for it, it's not a tax. It's simply the process of buying a firearm.
The type of firearm, model and serial number is tied to your name,
address and license number. If you sell or transfer the firearm another
form is submitted identifying the new owner and gun license number. The
state maintains a paper trail of legal ownership.

It doesn't "infringe" on anyone's rights and it pacifies the anti-gun crowd.

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.


Registration can and does bring about laws which can easily lead to
confiscation under a different name. Put an exhorbitant fee on the
re-registration, require fingerprints and picture ID's along with the
trip to the police station, etc, *or* turn in the weapon, *or* be a
felon.

None of those require changes to the Constitution. Washington DC is
well on its way.

Again, your 'chump change' may be big bucks to that guy that can't
afford a taxi ride to the police station.



That's quite a stretch John. You're starting to sound like Harry and
all the disenfranchised minorities. :-)

That's one of the problems in even considering any gun control reform or
issues. Those on the right immediately draw a straight line from
hands-off ownership to banning or confiscation, direct or defacto.

I wholeheartedly believe that we are a long ways from having the 2A
repealed, either directly or otherwise. Again, I point to the recent
primary vote here in my ultra liberal, progressive state of
Massachusetts. The guy running for Attorney General who was going to
make all handguns sold be "smart" guns was defeated in his bid
overwhelmingly.

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. Put a clause in the legislation that makes any future
attempt to further the control, confiscate, tax or charge excessive fees
for the management of such control to cause this subject legislation to
be null and void. Back to square one.