|
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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. And you will never change, judgmental, bigoted, and willing to bend truth to get to your high horse... |
Had to share this story
L'il Snottie spews... "Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no... " You are an amusing little man. You were the spoiled pampered one...an only child and an adopted one at that. I figure Inky and his wife over compensated for your numerous short comings. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 5:25 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. And you will never change, judgmental, bigoted, and willing to bend truth to get to your high horse... Examples please? |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. 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. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 5:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:25 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. And you will never change, judgmental, bigoted, and willing to bend truth to get to your high horse... Examples please? Deciding I was a tea party supporter because I mentioned "Dana". BTW, I never said Dana Loash (sp), and I never said I supported the "Dana" at all. Your arrogance let you decide who I was talking about, that I must be a supporter, and that that made me a Tea Party Supporter... then your insecurity really made you lash out at the lady... Could have been talking about Dana Perino, I never really said but I guess it wouldn't matter, you already got all the info that supports your point of vie.. er um, all you need... lol... For such a rich guy, you are pretty narrow... for sure... |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 5:58 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:25 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. And you will never change, judgmental, bigoted, and willing to bend truth to get to your high horse... Examples please? Deciding I was a tea party supporter because I mentioned "Dana". BTW, I never said Dana Loash (sp), and I never said I supported the "Dana" at all. Your arrogance let you decide who I was talking about, that I must be a supporter, and that that made me a Tea Party Supporter... then your insecurity really made you lash out at the lady... Could have been talking about Dana Perino, I never really said but I guess it wouldn't matter, you already got all the info that supports your point of vie.. er um, all you need... lol... For such a rich guy, you are pretty narrow... for sure... You are so full of **** it's unbelievable. Funny though. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 6:19 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote: 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. ... and how many crimes do you figure that has prevented? You are also paying for all of that bureaucracy, whether it shows up as a line item on your bill or not. It is like the ammo logs we had for a while. They generated millions of pages of documentation costing perhaps $50 million dollars and after a decade, even the police agreed, nobody ever used a single one of those logs to solve a crime. 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. I don't "think" I can trust the people who are in the government "not" to do anything. Who would have thought that they would make you take off your clothes and submit to a body search,, just to get on an airplane. 40 years ago I doubt anyone would have believed that people could be required to submit bodily fluids for a drug test, without a warrant. Who would believe the cops can stop you for weaving (or some other profile stop), "notice" you have "too much" money in your wallet and just take it? No I do not trust them. . Despite the growth of government Americans enjoy far more "rights" overall today than they did 40, 50 or 100 years ago. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:28:15 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: L'il Snottie spews... "Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no... " You are an amusing little man. You were the spoiled pampered one...an only child and an adopted one at that. I figure Inky and his wife over compensated for your numerous short comings. Don't know if Scotty was adopted or not, but what the **** difference would that make to your stupid posts? You keep a data base on folks also? Is there something wrong with being adopted? Are you a 'better' person if you're *not* adopted? |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. 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. Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees! |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:33:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:19 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote: 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. ... and how many crimes do you figure that has prevented? You are also paying for all of that bureaucracy, whether it shows up as a line item on your bill or not. It is like the ammo logs we had for a while. They generated millions of pages of documentation costing perhaps $50 million dollars and after a decade, even the police agreed, nobody ever used a single one of those logs to solve a crime. 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. I don't "think" I can trust the people who are in the government "not" to do anything. Who would have thought that they would make you take off your clothes and submit to a body search,, just to get on an airplane. 40 years ago I doubt anyone would have believed that people could be required to submit bodily fluids for a drug test, without a warrant. Who would believe the cops can stop you for weaving (or some other profile stop), "notice" you have "too much" money in your wallet and just take it? No I do not trust them. . Despite the growth of government Americans enjoy far more "rights" overall today than they did 40, 50 or 100 years ago. Really? There've been some rules, regulations, and laws rescinded in the past 40, 50, or 100 years. There are 'fewer' of them? Maybe you could provide some examples of those 'rights' that have been granted. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:40:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:27 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:22:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Here's an idea: Draft some reasonable legislation that responds to some of the anti-gun crowd concerns but doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own a firearm. The most successful program seems to be keeping violent felons in jail longer. The left complains that we lock too mane people up but most of them are non violent offenders. Even so, the crime rate is falling at about the same rate as incarceration rates. Ever watch "Lock Up" on MSNBC (Friday and Saturday evenings) Haven't seen MSNBC for several years. It's good to know they have a show which is not completely anti-conservative. Many of the violent offenders in prison have absolutely no clue what living a normal, law abiding life is all about. They live in a narrow little world and many feel *they* are the victims. I get the sense that no amount of therapy or rehabilitation will ever permanently change their views or lifestyle. It's almost like it's in their DNA. Careful with a comment like that! |
Had to share this story
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. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. 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. Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees! This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of government control or confiscation. Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. 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. Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees! This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of government control or confiscation. Is the establishment or raising of a fee an 'extreme example'? I think not. Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century. No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in the sand' is going a bit overboard. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 6:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:33:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:19 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 4:30 PM, wrote: 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. ... and how many crimes do you figure that has prevented? You are also paying for all of that bureaucracy, whether it shows up as a line item on your bill or not. It is like the ammo logs we had for a while. They generated millions of pages of documentation costing perhaps $50 million dollars and after a decade, even the police agreed, nobody ever used a single one of those logs to solve a crime. 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. I don't "think" I can trust the people who are in the government "not" to do anything. Who would have thought that they would make you take off your clothes and submit to a body search,, just to get on an airplane. 40 years ago I doubt anyone would have believed that people could be required to submit bodily fluids for a drug test, without a warrant. Who would believe the cops can stop you for weaving (or some other profile stop), "notice" you have "too much" money in your wallet and just take it? No I do not trust them. . Despite the growth of government Americans enjoy far more "rights" overall today than they did 40, 50 or 100 years ago. Really? There've been some rules, regulations, and laws rescinded in the past 40, 50, or 100 years. There are 'fewer' of them? Maybe you could provide some examples of those 'rights' that have been granted. Just to put you in the frame of thought: Women can vote. Civil Rights Act - technically Afro-Americans could vote in 1869 but found it difficult to do so until the 1960's. Gay Marriage Rights. more if I took the time to research, but you can do that. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 6:59 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:40:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:27 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:22:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Here's an idea: Draft some reasonable legislation that responds to some of the anti-gun crowd concerns but doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own a firearm. The most successful program seems to be keeping violent felons in jail longer. The left complains that we lock too mane people up but most of them are non violent offenders. Even so, the crime rate is falling at about the same rate as incarceration rates. Ever watch "Lock Up" on MSNBC (Friday and Saturday evenings) Haven't seen MSNBC for several years. It's good to know they have a show which is not completely anti-conservative. Many of the violent offenders in prison have absolutely no clue what living a normal, law abiding life is all about. They live in a narrow little world and many feel *they* are the victims. I get the sense that no amount of therapy or rehabilitation will ever permanently change their views or lifestyle. It's almost like it's in their DNA. Careful with a comment like that! I'd offer the same caution to you. :-) Having DNA is not race specific. |
Had to share this story
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 |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 7:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. 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. Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees! This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of government control or confiscation. Is the establishment or raising of a fee an 'extreme example'? I think not. Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century. No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in the sand' is going a bit overboard. I am talking about the people who scream "2A" whenever a proposal of any kind is put forth to try to control gun violence with no consideration whatsoever to the rational behind the proposal. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 7:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:40:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:27 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:22:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Here's an idea: Draft some reasonable legislation that responds to some of the anti-gun crowd concerns but doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own a firearm. The most successful program seems to be keeping violent felons in jail longer. The left complains that we lock too mane people up but most of them are non violent offenders. Even so, the crime rate is falling at about the same rate as incarceration rates. Ever watch "Lock Up" on MSNBC (Friday and Saturday evenings) Many of the violent offenders in prison have absolutely no clue what living a normal, law abiding life is all about. They live in a narrow little world and many feel *they* are the victims. I get the sense that no amount of therapy or rehabilitation will ever permanently change their views or lifestyle. It's almost like it's in their DNA. At a certain point, why are we keeping them alive? Because they have "rights". In the old days they'd just be strung up at dawn. :-) |
Had to share this story
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. |
Had to share this story
John H.
- show quoted text - " Don't know if Scotty was adopted or not, but what the **** difference would that make to your stupid posts? You keep a data base on folks also? Is there something wrong with being adopted? Are you a 'better' person if you're *not* adopted? " Stick to what else you know little about, Johnny.......gun legislation. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we will ever see that happen. === Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea leaves and check which way the wind is blowing. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 6:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:28:15 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: L'il Snottie spews... "Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no... " You are an amusing little man. You were the spoiled pampered one...an only child and an adopted one at that. I figure Inky and his wife over compensated for your numerous short comings. Don't know if Scotty was adopted or not, but what the **** difference would that make to your stupid posts? You keep a data base on folks also? Is there something wrong with being adopted? Are you a 'better' person if you're *not* adopted? For the record, I was adopted... I don't know what kind of sick insinuation bonnie is making, or trying to make with his reference but he's a dumb **** anyway so it's no matter. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:22:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Here's an idea: Draft some reasonable legislation that responds to some of the anti-gun crowd concerns but doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own a firearm. 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. === Let me ask you what problem that solves other than to partially placate the anti-gun crowd? |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 6:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 5:58 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:25 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. And you will never change, judgmental, bigoted, and willing to bend truth to get to your high horse... Examples please? Deciding I was a tea party supporter because I mentioned "Dana". BTW, I never said Dana Loash (sp), and I never said I supported the "Dana" at all. Your arrogance let you decide who I was talking about, that I must be a supporter, and that that made me a Tea Party Supporter... then your insecurity really made you lash out at the lady... Could have been talking about Dana Perino, I never really said but I guess it wouldn't matter, you already got all the info that supports your point of vie.. er um, all you need... lol... For such a rich guy, you are pretty narrow... for sure... You are so full of **** it's unbelievable. Funny though. Your words... "...you are a tea party supporter, noted". You are starting to act like harry krause. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:40:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Many of the violent offenders in prison have absolutely no clue what living a normal, law abiding life is all about. They live in a narrow little world and many feel *they* are the victims. I get the sense that no amount of therapy or rehabilitation will ever permanently change their views or lifestyle. It's almost like it's in their DNA. === Yes, I knew a kid like that. There's no doubt in my mind that he ended up being a career criminal. It was definitely in his DNA. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:45:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in the sand' is going a bit overboard. I am talking about the people who scream "2A" whenever a proposal of any kind is put forth to try to control gun violence with no consideration whatsoever to the rational behind the proposal. === The vast majority of those proposals are politically inspired "feel good" legislation that don't really accomplish anything but lead to a creeping erosion of personal rights. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
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 Sneak my ass. Another BS statement by you. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we will ever see that happen. === Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea leaves and check which way the wind is blowing. I guess I've been reading different tea leaves. If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings. They couldn't even get a universal background check approved. Even the liberal politicians don't want to touch the hot potato of gun control despite many organizations and influential private citizens trying to push legislation. Instead, local governments and some state governments have enacted some laws that limit magazine capacity or some types of firearms. That's more political in isolated areas and really doesn't address the anti-gun culture concerns. Harry's thick barrelled AR-15 (legal) vs the thin barrel version (banned) is an example. Heck, even in the People's Republic of Massachusetts I can legally own an AR-15. I just don't want or need one. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 8:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
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 Sneak my ass. Another BS statement by you. smh... |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 8:26 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 6:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/30/2014 5:58 PM, KC wrote: Deciding I was a tea party supporter because I mentioned "Dana". BTW, I never said Dana Loash (sp), and I never said I supported the "Dana" at all. Your arrogance let you decide who I was talking about, that I must be a supporter, and that that made me a Tea Party Supporter... then your insecurity really made you lash out at the lady... Could have been talking about Dana Perino, I never really said but I guess it wouldn't matter, you already got all the info that supports your point of vie.. er um, all you need... lol... For such a rich guy, you are pretty narrow... for sure... You are so full of **** it's unbelievable. Funny though. Your words... "...you are a tea party supporter, noted". You are starting to act like harry krause. First, there is no question as to which "Dana" you were referring to. IIRC you referenced the interview with her that happened to be on FoxNews. It was the only way I found out who she was. Yes, I've concluded you are a Tea Party supporter based on your numerous references and endorsements of Tea Party politicians and your many references of admiration for FoxNews celebrities like Shawn Hannity. You've lectured me to get news from sources other than MSNBC. I do. I watch FoxNews to get their flavor on current events or subjects. I also watch MSNBC, CNN and a couple of the major broadcast networks to get their "flavor". You seem to only reference FoxNews as the only reliable "news" source. Given all that, I have concluded you are indeed a Tea Party supporter. Nothing wrong with that ... it's your choice. If I am wrong, I extend my apologies. |
Had to share this story
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? |
Had to share this story
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com