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.


I just checked. I don't have any safety stickers. Am I in danger?

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.

Why don't the cops use those laws to confiscate guns from criminals?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:06 AM, 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?


Dana might have something to rub. Not sure about the others, but YMMV. :-)

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 8:15 AM, 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.



Harry keeps a dossier on everyone's guns including yours. Maybe he can
trade that information for the scope he can't afford to buy.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:57:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


===

OK, you're getting close. After you get the global map, use the
window bars and cursor to draw a blue box that looks like this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/37wm5h47tgov8ni/Screenshot%202014-10-31%2009.15.16.png?dl=0

The box defines the lat/lon co-ordinates of the area that you are
interested in.

At the bottom select "GFS" from the pull-down and then click
"request".

That should bring up an option box where you specify dates, times,
model parameters, etc.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)

What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel plans. ;-)

Had to share this story
 

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

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

Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

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

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 8:33 AM, 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.

From the refuse heap at 6331................... what's the name of that
street again?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:22 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:15 AM, 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.



Harry keeps a dossier on everyone's guns including yours. Maybe he can
trade that information for the scope he can't afford to buy.


No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to
some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door
any day now to confiscate them.

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


Yeah, I saw Al Sharpton interviewed on Fox too, doesn't mean he works
for Fox... You made assumptions, just admit it and move on...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:19 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:06 AM, 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?


Dana might have something to rub. Not sure about the others, but YMMV.
:-)



Boy, you really are taking over for harry while he's gone... Did you
guys make some kind of agreement?

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:35 AM, KC 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


Yeah, I saw Al Sharpton interviewed on Fox too, doesn't mean he works
for Fox... You made assumptions, just admit it and move on...


Where did I say that she "worked" for FoxNews? I didn't. Assumptions?

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:27:55 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

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.

===

There will be no guarantee because gun haters will keep stirring the
pot. I prefer to call them gun haters as opposed to liberals because
there are some perfectly reasonable liberals out there (although not
as many as I'd like).

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:35 AM, KC 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


Yeah, I saw Al Sharpton interviewed on Fox too, doesn't mean he works
for Fox... You made assumptions, just admit it and move on...


Where did I say that she "worked" for FoxNews? I didn't. Assumptions?

Forget it dick, go play with harry...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".



Valid points. It's going to happen anyway though, so I think it may be
better to be pro-active in the process rather than being totally rigid
about the subject.

Had to share this story
 

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

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

===

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

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:22 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:57:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


===

OK, you're getting close. After you get the global map, use the
window bars and cursor to draw a blue box that looks like this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/37wm5h47tgov8ni/Screenshot%202014-10-31%2009.15.16.png?dl=0

The box defines the lat/lon co-ordinates of the area that you are
interested in.

At the bottom select "GFS" from the pull-down and then click
"request".

That should bring up an option box where you specify dates, times,
model parameters, etc.



Hmmmm... If I draw a box on the map with the curser, it immediately
disappears when I release the mouse button and the curser reverts back
to the "hand" style for panning.

I also don't have the menu bar on the left when the map is displayed.

I'll keep playing with it.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:22 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:15 AM, 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.



Harry keeps a dossier on everyone's guns including yours. Maybe he can
trade that information for the scope he can't afford to buy.


No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to
some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door
any day now to confiscate them.


Who said that?

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:46:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".



Valid points. It's going to happen anyway though, so I think it may be
better to be pro-active in the process rather than being totally rigid
about the subject.


When will it stop? That's the question. You seem to think it will take
only a few more minor compromises. I don't.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.

The pair of them are fruitcakes. Dumb and dumber, if you will.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.


Yet I get trolled for saying the exact thing... lol!

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, 31 October 2014 11:10:55 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.


My, my JohnnyMop..... you're on the verge of getting hysterical about this adoption thing.

My comment was in reply to one of your Moppetts trying to belittle another poster by inferring that he has a 'baby brother' complex.

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

I simply pointed out that your Moppett was more likely to have been catered to and spoiled because he was an only child and an adopted one at that....
That is.. his adoptive parents WANTED him rather than his conception being an accident. That they got a defective unit isn't the issue...... or maybe it was..mmmm.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:46:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".



Valid points. It's going to happen anyway though, so I think it may be
better to be pro-active in the process rather than being totally rigid
about the subject.


When will it stop? That's the question. You seem to think it will take
only a few more minor compromises. I don't.


Ok. You have a right to your opinion.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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


That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.


Yet I get trolled for saying the exact thing... lol!


Maybe it's the way you say it.

Had to share this story
 

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

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

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

===

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

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



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

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:22:22 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.



Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check
in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a
compromise is reached, they go for the next step.


Yet I get trolled for saying the exact thing... lol!

Well, I've not spent a lot of time calling him names or comparing him
to assholes in the group.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:10:45 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

On Friday, 31 October 2014 11:10:55 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.


My, my JohnnyMop..... you're on the verge of getting hysterical about this adoption thing.

My comment was in reply to one of your Moppetts trying to belittle another poster by inferring that he has a 'baby brother' complex.

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

I simply pointed out that your Moppett was more likely to have been catered to and spoiled because he was an only child and an adopted one at that....
That is.. his adoptive parents WANTED him rather than his conception being an accident. That they got a defective unit isn't the issue...... or maybe it was..mmmm.

You might just try an apology for a stupid comment rather than the
bull****.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:23:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:46:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:13:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

===

The problem is that no amount of compromise legislation will prevent
crazies and criminals from getting guns. That means that incidents
will continue to happen from time to time, and each one will cause an
outburst of emotional frenzy, and that will create more calls for
legislation. If we start compromising with the gun haters we will end
up with a process of creeping rights erosion, just like has happened
with to the so called "war on drugs".



Valid points. It's going to happen anyway though, so I think it may be
better to be pro-active in the process rather than being totally rigid
about the subject.


When will it stop? That's the question. You seem to think it will take
only a few more minor compromises. I don't.


Ok. You have a right to your opinion.

Ditto.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to
some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door
any day now to confiscate them.


More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take
long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those
records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it.

I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having
some of the guns registered.



Heh. What do you expect to hear?


CNN Breaking News!

Joe Blow of Bum**** Arkansas acknowledged to police today that he
decided *not* to shoot his nagging mother-in-law.

When asked why he reached that decision, Mr. Blow stated that his gun
was registered.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:54:33 UTC-3, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to
some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door
any day now to confiscate them.


More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take
long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those
records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it.

I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having
some of the guns registered.

The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police.
If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had.
It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns.
Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm.
When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house.
The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law.
BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:59:02 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:10:45 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

On Friday, 31 October 2014 11:10:55 UTC-3, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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! :)



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel
plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.




So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in
his little fortress. Right?

No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or
where the are, or any other personal information he can glean.

Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a
slam against a person.


My, my JohnnyMop..... you're on the verge of getting hysterical about this adoption thing.

My comment was in reply to one of your Moppetts trying to belittle another poster by inferring that he has a 'baby brother' complex.

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

I simply pointed out that your Moppett was more likely to have been catered to and spoiled because he was an only child and an adopted one at that....
That is.. his adoptive parents WANTED him rather than his conception being an accident. That they got a defective unit isn't the issue...... or maybe it was..mmmm.

You might just try an apology for a stupid comment rather than the
bull****.

You could apologize for calling me stupid first..and I'm talking about yesterdays post.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:57:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's
why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel plans. ;-)

What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how
many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything
you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what
you do and where you are.



You notice I make a point of talking about my vacations after I get
home and I talk about guns that are already known to the government
via the 4473. I am not paranoid but I understand what you are saying
here. Anything you say on the internet is public knowledge.
Google knows a lot more about what you are doing from day to day than
the government but if the government asks, Google will tell them.



Yup.

The information available on everybody is unbelievable. The cable
companies even have services that customize the advertisements you see.
You may see one advertisement and your neighbor may see another even
though you are watching the same channel at the same time.

Good example is the Medicare thing we were talking about recently.
I turned 65 this month but since September I've been noticing that every
other commercial is for Medicare supplemental plans, reverse mortgages
and Medimucil (to keep me regular).

Had to share this story
 

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

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

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

Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory.

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

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

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

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



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

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 12:07 PM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:54:33 UTC-3, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to
some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door
any day now to confiscate them.


More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take
long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those
records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it.

I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having
some of the guns registered.

The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police.
If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had.
It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns.
Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm.
When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house.
The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law.
BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns.



The "permission by the wife" cracks me up.