Had to share this story
 

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think sometimes we forget that the
majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing.

BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy
Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a
gun, they just say no.

If we go back to why the NRA was founded, was because there was low
ownership of rifles, and when the war started, was a major problem to get
people trained.

Had to share this story
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The speed limit is 3 mph less than the fast cars.

Had to share this story
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a
big threat to my freedom and rights. I am 65 and have never experienced
any form of this kind of harassment. Maybe I live a boring life.

===

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

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



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


I thought DC and Virginia were the only states near there with a radar
detector ban but who knows?
These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.



It was in the mid 1980's. I don't know what the laws are now.

For giggles and something to play with, I just bought a 1988 Lincoln Town
Car. It's in very good condition with 90K miles. I bought it for cheap
bucks because the seller said it had an issue with the anti-theft system
that shut down the ignition and electrical systems every once in a while
when you went to start it. He had one of those battery disconnect
switches on the negative terminal and told me that when it happens to
just loosen the knob to disconnect the battery and then turn it back in.
He said it "reset" the system.

Turns out it had nothing to do with the anti-theft system at all. The
disconnect switch contact areas were completely pitted and corroded so
electrical contact was minimal. Loosening and tightening it again would
temporarily re-establish the connection but after a few starts it would
oxidize and die again. Took the disconnect switch apart, cleaned it up
and burnished it. Haven't had a problem since.

Car is a boat. It's like driving a couch down the road. Talk about
extremes. Going back and forth from a F-250 Super Duty to the Town Car
boat takes some adjustment.

In the 80's Budget Rent a car would upgrade us to the Town Car. Hated
those things. Would have been OK if driving long distances on the highway,
but a QE2 boat around town.

Had to share this story
 

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

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

I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks.

Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

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

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

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



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

I saw the same or similar program. I think it was BS. The price they paid
for the 3 firearms they purchased were a lot less than normal sales price.
Either they were stolen or a setup. Maybe the TV people should have been
prosecuted for circumventing the law.

Had to share this story
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 7:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:31:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 7:01 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you
own, illegal?
Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel
or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for
that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment).
You registered it, they know you have it.



Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in
several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them.
If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Fifty years ago many of the MA laws would have been 'pure conjecture'
along with most of the recently passed MD laws.



Maybe. But at some point in our human evolution we should say it's time
to start doing something about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

I wonder which of the laws in either MA or MD would have prevented the
school attacks.

All of that looks like any given month in Chicago, which has some of
the most restrictive laws in the country.




I guess I am not being clear.

There's a growing anti-gun sentiment in this country.
What I am saying is why not concede some minor and unimportant points ...
like background checks and registration to appease the gun haters and
take pressure off the politicians?

The other option is to continue to demand your "rights" under the 2A and
risk stronger laws, regulations and maybe eventually a new interpretation
of what the word "infringe" means.

It's called compromise. Dying art now-a-days.

I think the anti gun sentiment is a lot less than you realize. What you
are hearing and reading is from a very vocal, very liberal segment. The
rest keep their mouths shut most of the time.

Had to share this story
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:30:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:23 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 7:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!


Different issue.


Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you
own, illegal?
Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel
or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for
that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment).
You registered it, they know you have it.



Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in
several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them.
If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them.

But you can't sell them and in some places you can't even give them to
your heirs.
There are people who would push for laws that would not even
grandfather them in.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Conjecture based on other laws that have been passed. There is some
ammo that was outlawed and if they catch you with it, you can be
charged, no matter when you bought it.



And many would agree rightly so. I think sometimes we forget that the
majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing.

You can't have it one way, A minute ago you were talking about rights
for minorities as a step forward.

I noticed you dodged the answer about the bill of rights protections
that we are losing and they are far more fundamental than gay marriage
and a parking place close to the door.



I didn't purposely dodge it. I didn't notice it. What was it again?


Again
I understand we may have created rights for some special interest
groups that the founding fathers could have never envisioned but the
ones in the Bill of Rights are under constant attack. I would start
with attacks on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th amendments.

******

Just the 4th amendment problems

There was a great one on the news tonight. FBI agents impersonated
cable guys and did a search of a hotel room without a warrant and with
that information they went back, got a warrant and raided the guys.

This wasn't trying to stop a terrorist attack or catch a serial
killer. It was arresting a bookie in Las Vegas.

There was also a story about "border patrol" check points up to 100
miles from the border and they are using the same rules they use on
the border (search you, search your car, ask questions you have no
real obligation to answer etc)


Of course you really have no rights on the side of the road anyway.
The courts have chipped away at the 4th amendment to the point that a
cop can stop you for no particular reason (always your word against
his about why he stopped you)

Make everyone get out of the car MARYLAND v. WILSON

Question you without a Miranda warning BERKEMER v. McCARTY

Search everyone and the passenger compartment of the car for weapons
Terry v. Ohio

They can "ask" you if they can search your trunk but if you say no,
that is "reasonable suspicion"
They can also detain you until they can get a dog there ILLINOIS v.
CABALLES

Then the kubuki theater starts. It is your word against the cop
whether the dog "alerted". Hint, they always do.
Then he has probable cause.

If you resist in any way they can simply arrest you, maybe taze you,
drench you with pepper spray and beat the **** out of you, impound
your car, then they need to "inventory" it. (AKA rip it apart to be
sure there was no hidden property they might get accused of stealing)

You might just be shot and killed

Who needs the gestapo when we have these guys

Jesus Christ, you sound like a community organizer for criminals.
Cops used to routinely jack people against cars for simple traffic
stops, and answer any lip with a nightstick.
They act much better now. It'll never be perfect.
Seems paranoid to me. Fear the cops, huh?

And you think this is lawful? Who is the criminal?

Had to share this story
 

On 11/3/2014 8:43 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a
big threat to my freedom and rights. I am 65 and have never experienced
any form of this kind of harassment. Maybe I live a boring life.

===

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

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



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


I thought DC and Virginia were the only states near there with a radar
detector ban but who knows?
These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.



It was in the mid 1980's. I don't know what the laws are now.

For giggles and something to play with, I just bought a 1988 Lincoln Town
Car. It's in very good condition with 90K miles. I bought it for cheap
bucks because the seller said it had an issue with the anti-theft system
that shut down the ignition and electrical systems every once in a while
when you went to start it. He had one of those battery disconnect
switches on the negative terminal and told me that when it happens to
just loosen the knob to disconnect the battery and then turn it back in.
He said it "reset" the system.

Turns out it had nothing to do with the anti-theft system at all. The
disconnect switch contact areas were completely pitted and corroded so
electrical contact was minimal. Loosening and tightening it again would
temporarily re-establish the connection but after a few starts it would
oxidize and die again. Took the disconnect switch apart, cleaned it up
and burnished it. Haven't had a problem since.

Car is a boat. It's like driving a couch down the road. Talk about
extremes. Going back and forth from a F-250 Super Duty to the Town Car
boat takes some adjustment.

In the 80's Budget Rent a car would upgrade us to the Town Car. Hated
those things. Would have been OK if driving long distances on the highway,
but a QE2 boat around town.



No question. My F-250 feels like a sports care compared to the Town
Car. But, it's fun to play with. The two rear window motors were burnt
out also. The guy I bought it from included two new motors that he
bought but he didn't want to attempt to install them. I am not much of
a mechanic but I found an excellent YouTube video of a guy explaining
step by step how to take the door panels apart without destroying
anything, drilling holes to get access to the motor bolts and installing
the new motors. With the help of that video I was able to replace both
motors in about an hour each.

Then I started smelling a faint odor of gas after the car was run. It
came from the rear tire on the driver's side. It didn't smell of gas
if the car had not been run, so I figured it wasn't the tank. Finally
found it was the flexible fuel line connector on the line that comes out
of the tank from the fuel pump and connects to the metal fuel line that
runs to the engine. It was weeping ... not a dripping leak or anything.

I removed the connector, cut the line back, wire brushed the metal
tubing and installed a short, rubber fuel line with double hose clamps.
Works fine and no more leak.

Now I have to take the dash apart and fix some vacuum line leaks. They
are associated with the gear selector. Don't have a clue what they are
for but I'll find out.

It's a boat but it rides nice. Keeps me busy with something to play with.

Had to share this story
 

wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:59:34 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

I could say the same about voting.

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

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

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

It is a lot harder if you have to do all of your illegal voting on the
same day ;-)

It is interesting that when the voter fraud deniers talk about fraud,
they admit most of it (that is caught) is with absentee ballots, then
they want to expand that program.

My late fishing partner was from Harrisburg, PA. Said his grandpa was a
ward boss, and would leave early in the morning, to vote all over the city.
Was tiring according to Cal.

Had to share this story
 

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/1/2014 1:48 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/1/2014 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:58:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just
remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there.
The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10
year old with a fingernail file could pop it off.



I'd like to see a trigger lock like that. The ones I have (gun
manufacturer supplied) are pretty well made and substantial.
I took the Ruger 10/22 to the range once and forgot the key.
No way could I or anyone else remove the trigger lock unless we
destroyed something (like the rifle).


This thing is made of plastic. If I get a minute I will give this a
look and see what the easiest way to get it off would be. Obviously I
have tools in the garage that will take just about anything off.

The chamber locks supplied by the gun manufacturers are also pretty high
quality. Sure, maybe a heavy bolt cutter or half an hour with a hack
saw would work but again, the purpose of a trigger or chamber lock is to
help prevent accidental discharge of the firearm by the owner or an
inquisitive visitor when stored in your home. They are not designed to
prevent theft.

10 seconds with a side grinder?


The locks are *required* ... again by law. Even if you purchase a used
firearm from a licensed dealer up here, the dealer is required to
furnish a lock.


I still do not see the value. If your kid is going to be a problem
around your gun, the trigger lock does not prevent access to the gun,
they can play with the gun and the lock just becomes a puzzle for him
and his friends.

When I google how to remove a trigger lock I get hits for the various
brands. Most seem to be destructive of the lock but if you stole the
gun, so what? I would also be curious how hard it is to simply pick
the lock. The one I have looks pretty trivial but I did not spend any
time really looking at it.



I'll repeat again. The locks are *NOT* designed to prevent or even
dissuade theft. They are to help prevent accidental discharge.

The ones I have been supplied are not cheap plastic either. The trigger
lock is metal and would take anyone a while to figure out how to get it
off without the key. A kid that found it in the house (if you were
stupid enough to leave it laying around) isn't going to get it off in
10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours.

10 seconds is a generous amount of time. The standard trigger lock
regarless of what is it made of is very easy to get off of a firearm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfYCCEH0Y4



I don't know but it almost seems the lock is designed that way ...
meaning there's a relatively easy method of taking it off if you lose
the key (if you know how to do it).

A kid or someone who doesn't know how to do it isn't going to get it off
in 10 seconds. Even the guy in the video didn't.

The guy in the video isn't good at making videos. Don't equate his lack
of ability to make a video to everyone's lack of ability to get the lock
off in seconds.


Point again is: They are made to help prevent accidental discharge ...
not theft.

You don't give kids enough credit. They are useless feel good devices
similar to useless feel good laws.

Just go in my garage and get an angle grinder or dremel or the cutting
torch.

Had to share this story
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

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

===

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


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

What about the other 9 of the Bill of Rights?