|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 9:34 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... I didn't purposely dodge it. I didn't notice it. What was it again? You simply forgot to don your tin hit. My tin hat is presently soaking in WD-40. |
Had to share this story
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:49:04 PM UTC-4, John H. 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? Asshole racist herring was the first abortion that lived. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: We were discussing the possibilities or probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. === That would provoke a nationwide disturbance not seen since the civil war, and would be political suicide for any strong advocate. There would be states that threatened secession from the union and they'd be serious about it. PS, I regret to report that my forecast for a weekend nor'easter up your way still looks pretty solid. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 9:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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. Did you really, or are you getting more and more like harry cause the Dana you trashed doesn't work for Fox news and I have never seen her there so I don't see how you really could have... oh, forget it... Dana Perino is on Fox news... so.....redux. 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. Those were not your words, but you can go back if intellectual integrity matters any... You assumed because I mentioned someone (in another context), I supported that person, then you made further conclusions based on that mis-information, that I was a tea party supporter. Nothing about anything I have said in the past, etc.... your words, not mine... 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. Never said that at all, in fact I do remember talking about how CNN has gotten much better in the last few years too... you make up your mind, then allow the harry and your imagination to fill in the rest... :) Given all that, I have concluded you are indeed a Tea Party supporter. Nothing wrong with that ... it's your choice. Really doesn't matter anyway, you made your decision from an uninformed and mis-informed place.. so garbage in, garbage out... but you seem to be cool with that, whatever... If I am wrong, I extend my apologies. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:18:25 -0500, 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? === I don't think it's paranoid at all. The sort of thing that Greg describes happens all the time. I always chuckle when I read a news account where the driver "consented to a search of his vehicle". You just know that's some kind of BS. |
Had to share this story
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. If you had a pre ban AR in California, you had to register it, when it was banned, pay a $200 license, and if you got caught later, without the license, they take it and arrest you. What if they decide, that you now have to pay a $1000 license for each firearm you own? Yearly? As much legality and possibility as the AR tax. |
Had to share this story
"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. It is the taxes that will be added later is the scare. Like state senator Perata here. Wanted to add a 5 cents per bullet tax. Of course Perata has never met a tax he did not like, if paid by someone else. And he is against any new CCW licenses. But he has one. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 10:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were discussing the possibilities or probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. === That would provoke a nationwide disturbance not seen since the civil war, and would be political suicide for any strong advocate. There would be states that threatened secession from the union and they'd be serious about it. PS, I regret to report that my forecast for a weekend nor'easter up your way still looks pretty solid. I'll have to check the local forecast again. Last word I heard is that it was going to just clip the Cape which means some rain and wind but not too bad. 5-8 inches of snow in Maine though. I am still playing with the ViewFax program you provided the link to. I can see the "get data" in the pull down menu and when I click on it I get this: http://tinyurl.com/pkl9mdc But when I request any of the areas (Boston in this case) the display either comes up blank or it comes up with the text of a weather forecast like this: http://tinyurl.com/ohbt4zj If I click on "open" under file in the pull down, and then on the image file, it loads the global map but there's no weather information on it. I'll figure it out eventually. |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 11:01 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/30/2014 9:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. Did you really, or are you getting more and more like harry cause the Dana you trashed doesn't work for Fox news and I have never seen her there so I don't see how you really could have... oh, forget it... Dana Perino is on Fox news... so.....redux. Since you've never seen her on FoxNews I thought maybe you would like to have this link. Yes, it's Dana Loesch of the "Dana Show" that you referenced along with your idol, Shawn Hannity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-MfBKJfnE |
Had to share this story
On 10/30/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
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 ****. Now I am afraid to drive to Duncan Donuts. :-) 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. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 12:37 AM, Califbill wrote:
"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. It is the taxes that will be added later is the scare. Like state senator Perata here. Wanted to add a 5 cents per bullet tax. Of course Perata has never met a tax he did not like, if paid by someone else. And he is against any new CCW licenses. But he has one. *Anything* is subject to taxation if the politicians get it in their heads. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:20:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. I've lost the right to vote without an ID. Liberals are taking more of my money to pay for social welfare programs. I must travel and pay for the 'right' to get married. More if I took.... |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:23:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. I'm already considered the racist. |
Had to share this story
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text - "****. *Now I am afraid to drive to Duncan Donuts. *:-) 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. " Same here. I can barely remember the last time I was stopped for speeding.....maybe 35 years ago. Every couple of years I might get caught in one of those roadside stops to check safety stickers but am always thanked and waved right on. Maybe the cops can sense the attitude of drivers. |
Had to share this story
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. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:45:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. Most of the 'proposals' are ridiculous attempts to get votes from liberals, to make ownership of 'any' gun more difficult and/or to fill the coffers of the applicable government. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:20:01 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: 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. I noticed you dodged the question, coward. I have a grandson who is adopted. I guarantee you he is a much finer person than you'll ever hope to be. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we will ever see that happen. === Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea leaves and check which way the wind is blowing. I guess I've been reading different tea leaves. As were a lot of Australians and British folks! If ownership can be made onerous enough that I relinquish a firearm, then 'confiscation' has been accomplished. 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
|
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:26 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:20:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. I've lost the right to vote without an ID. Good! Liberals are taking more of my money to pay for social welfare programs. That's because you have more money to give. Try being poor instead. I must travel and pay for the 'right' to get married. ???? More if I took.... |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:29 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:23:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. I'm already considered the racist. I'd say you are more of a realist. |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 04:28:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 12:37 AM, Califbill wrote: "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. It is the taxes that will be added later is the scare. Like state senator Perata here. Wanted to add a 5 cents per bullet tax. Of course Perata has never met a tax he did not like, if paid by someone else. And he is against any new CCW licenses. But he has one. *Anything* is subject to taxation if the politicians get it in their heads. YES! And if the registration and re-registration fees, the driving requirements, the photo ID/birth certificate requirements, the fingerprint requirements, and any other requirements the liberal politicians can mandate become a big enough PITA, then 'confiscation' has occurred (or one becomes a felon). |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:31 AM, True North wrote:
Mr. Luddite - show quoted text - "****. Now I am afraid to drive to Duncan Donuts. :-) 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. " Same here. I can barely remember the last time I was stopped for speeding....maybe 35 years ago. Every couple of years I might get caught in one of those roadside stops to check safety stickers but am always thanked and waved right on. Maybe the cops can sense the attitude of drivers. About a year ago I received my first traffic ticket in about 45 years. I had just purchased an older Saturn car and it was the first day driving it after registering it. It needed front brakes badly ... they made that "grinding" sound when applied. This was on a Saturday and I had an appointment at the local mechanic's shop for Monday for new rotors and pads. I was approaching an intersection and the light turned yellow. It was one of those brake hard to stop or go through decisions. Because of the brakes, I went through ... right in front of a MA State Police car. The trooper pulled me over. He was pimply faced and couldn't have been over 21 years old. He read me the riot act, talking about how he could have "T"-boned me and whatever. I could sense there was nothing to be gained in getting into a debate, so I just politely acknowledged my error. $100 ticket but surprisingly my insurance company didn't apply a surcharge on my insurance rates. Several people told me I should have contested it ... demanded a court hearing, etc. Why? I was wrong. Pay the fine and move on. |
Had to share this story
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:18:25 -0500, 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? Here. Look these over...carefully. Keep yourself gainfully occupied for a few months. https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...olice+violence |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:07:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:31 AM, True North wrote: Mr. Luddite - show quoted text - "****. Now I am afraid to drive to Duncan Donuts. :-) 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. " Same here. I can barely remember the last time I was stopped for speeding....maybe 35 years ago. Every couple of years I might get caught in one of those roadside stops to check safety stickers but am always thanked and waved right on. Maybe the cops can sense the attitude of drivers. About a year ago I received my first traffic ticket in about 45 years. I had just purchased an older Saturn car and it was the first day driving it after registering it. It needed front brakes badly ... they made that "grinding" sound when applied. This was on a Saturday and I had an appointment at the local mechanic's shop for Monday for new rotors and pads. I was approaching an intersection and the light turned yellow. It was one of those brake hard to stop or go through decisions. Because of the brakes, I went through ... right in front of a MA State Police car. The trooper pulled me over. He was pimply faced and couldn't have been over 21 years old. He read me the riot act, talking about how he could have "T"-boned me and whatever. I could sense there was nothing to be gained in getting into a debate, so I just politely acknowledged my error. $100 ticket but surprisingly my insurance company didn't apply a surcharge on my insurance rates. Several people told me I should have contested it ... demanded a court hearing, etc. Why? I was wrong. Pay the fine and move on. My last one was for making an illegal u-turn while on my motorcycle. The cop, young guy, spent more time talking about the Moto Guzzi than writing the ticket, but he gave it to me anyway. |
Had to share this story
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. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough. You don't have to divulge anything. You've broadcasted every gun you own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:15:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough. You don't have to divulge anything. You've broadcasted every gun you own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. No, no, no....only here! :) |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "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've no problem conceding minor, unimportant points...if there is a guarantee it will stop there. There are just too damn many liberals out there who want all guns taken away from law-abiding citizens. |
Had to share this story
Mr. Luddite
- hide quoted text - On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough. " You don't have to divulge anything. *You've broadcasted every gun you own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. " SNERK! Johnny's verbal diarrhea problem will do him in. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we will ever see that happen. === Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea leaves and check which way the wind is blowing. I guess I've been reading different tea leaves. If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings. Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the parent or the shooter himself. They couldn't even get a universal background check approved. Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the people you are trying to keep the gun away from. That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of the next two or three generations. No. We're talking about ways the 2A can be circumvented by smart, tricky liberal politicians. Which can happen under any circumstances. It is already and is likely to continue. So, instead of giving them the argument that no discussion, negotiation or compromise is possible with gun-owners, take that political ammunition away by being willing to work with them and be willing to accept non-invasion rules on your "rights" like background checks and registration. If you seriously think the liberals are going to take your guns away, don't register your presently owned firearms. What it does it takes away some of the "right-wing crazies" rhetoric and gives them a pseudo political victory that really doesn't mean anything or affect your right to bear arms. |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:41:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we will ever see that happen. === Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea leaves and check which way the wind is blowing. I guess I've been reading different tea leaves. If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings. Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the parent or the shooter himself. They couldn't even get a universal background check approved. Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the people you are trying to keep the gun away from. That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of the next two or three generations. No. We're talking about ways the 2A can be circumvented by smart, tricky liberal politicians. Which can happen under any circumstances. It is already and is likely to continue. That's the problem. So, instead of giving them the argument that no discussion, negotiation or compromise is possible with gun-owners, take that political ammunition away by being willing to work with them and be willing to accept non-invasion rules on your "rights" like background checks and registration. I've no problem with background checks. If you seriously think the liberals are going to take your guns away, don't register your presently owned firearms. OK, I won't. What it does it takes away some of the "right-wing crazies" rhetoric and gives them a pseudo political victory that really doesn't mean anything or affect your right to bear arms. I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 4:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/30/2014 11:01 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 9:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. Did you really, or are you getting more and more like harry cause the Dana you trashed doesn't work for Fox news and I have never seen her there so I don't see how you really could have... oh, forget it... Dana Perino is on Fox news... so.....redux. Since you've never seen her on FoxNews I thought maybe you would like to have this link. Yes, it's Dana Loesch of the "Dana Show" that you referenced along with your idol, Shawn Hannity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-MfBKJfnE You asked last night where Harry was. I bet he was in Orlando to attend the fund raiser for Rick Scott. Dana, Shaun, and Herman were all there. How could Harry resist rubbing elbows with the three of them? |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:33:18 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: Mr. Luddite - hide quoted text - On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough. " You don't have to divulge anything. *You've broadcasted every gun you own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. " SNERK! Johnny's verbal diarrhea problem will do him in. ....as you bypass the adoption issue, you f'ing coward. |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:06:00 -0400, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 4:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/30/2014 11:01 PM, KC wrote: On 10/30/2014 9:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. Did you really, or are you getting more and more like harry cause the Dana you trashed doesn't work for Fox news and I have never seen her there so I don't see how you really could have... oh, forget it... Dana Perino is on Fox news... so.....redux. Since you've never seen her on FoxNews I thought maybe you would like to have this link. Yes, it's Dana Loesch of the "Dana Show" that you referenced along with your idol, Shawn Hannity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-MfBKJfnE You asked last night where Harry was. I bet he was in Orlando to attend the fund raiser for Rick Scott. Dana, Shaun, and Herman were all there. How could Harry resist rubbing elbows with the three of them? Be a good 'boat' ride for him. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:29 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:23:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. I'm already considered the racist. consider it a badge of honor to lave a whacked out liberal socialist call you that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com