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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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".

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.

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

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

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


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


Different issue.


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



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

The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

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



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

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

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

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




I guess I am not being clear.

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

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

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

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