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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

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

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


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

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

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

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




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


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



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

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

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

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

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


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

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

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

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




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


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



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

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




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

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

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

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


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

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

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

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




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


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



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

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




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


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

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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

wrote:

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


Per gun? Eeek!

You will love Florida



LOL ... no

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

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems you are willing to pay for what you enjoy.


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

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

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

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




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


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



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

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




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


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



Yup...

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.

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?

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.

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.

On 10/30/2014 6:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:28:15 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:



L'il Snottie spews...

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


You are an amusing little man.
You were the spoiled pampered one...an only child and an adopted one at that.
I figure Inky and his wife over compensated for your numerous short comings.

Don't know if Scotty was adopted or not, but what the **** difference
would that make to your stupid posts?

You keep a data base on folks also?

Is there something wrong with being adopted? Are you a 'better' person
if you're *not* adopted?


For the record, I was adopted... I don't know what kind of sick
insinuation bonnie is making, or trying to make with his reference but
he's a dumb **** anyway so it's no matter.

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.