On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?


As my expressed opinion to Greg points out:

Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale
or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered
in the registration data base.

It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed
with a stolen firearm.

It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't
infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't
cost a cent in terms of fees or tax.


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


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!



This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun
control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of
government control or confiscation.

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?


As my expressed opinion to Greg points out:

Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale
or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered
in the registration data base.

It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed
with a stolen firearm.

It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't
infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't
cost a cent in terms of fees or tax.


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


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!



This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun
control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of
government control or confiscation.

Is the establishment or raising of a fee an 'extreme example'? I think
not.

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.


No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun
control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what
isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in
the sand' is going a bit overboard.

On 10/30/2014 7:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?


As my expressed opinion to Greg points out:

Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale
or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered
in the registration data base.

It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed
with a stolen firearm.

It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't
infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't
cost a cent in terms of fees or tax.


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


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!



This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun
control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of
government control or confiscation.

Is the establishment or raising of a fee an 'extreme example'? I think
not.

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.


No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun
control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what
isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in
the sand' is going a bit overboard.


I am talking about the people who scream "2A" whenever a proposal of any
kind is put forth to try to control gun violence with no consideration
whatsoever to the rational behind the proposal.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:45:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun
control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what
isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in
the sand' is going a bit overboard.


I am talking about the people who scream "2A" whenever a proposal of any
kind is put forth to try to control gun violence with no consideration
whatsoever to the rational behind the proposal.

===

The vast majority of those proposals are politically inspired "feel
good" legislation that don't really accomplish anything but lead to a
creeping erosion of personal rights.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:45:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 7:14 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 6:52 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:07:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 5:00 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 9:45 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:32:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I said:

Citing the 2nd Amendment and refusing to consider any laws or
rules that make the rest
of the population feel more comfortable doesn't make sense.


You replied:


Who's doing that?


and you continued:

For cheap golf, since I walk, yes. Campsites probably average $45. So
what? The Constitution says absolutely nothing about golf or camping.
If the county government wanted to impose an extra $50 tax on camping,
there would be no infringement of my rights.

$100 every six years for your gun permits is chicken feed. But that
same amount to one who can't afford $5 for a photo ID to enable him to
vote may be insurmountable. Therefore his rights are being infringed
upon.



John, twice in one post you hung your argument on the 2A asking "Who's
doing that?" after I suggested that citing the 2A and refusing to
consider *any* laws or rules didn't make sense.


I think it is safe to say that if you are talking about preventing
most of the gun murders, the gun laws are very ineffective.
Murders fall into 2 major categories, criminals killing criminals and
friends/family members killing each other.
Stranger danger gets most of the press but it is a minuscule part of
the problem.
In the case of the criminals, they break laws as part of their normal
life. The guns are as likely to be stolen and/or bought in the black
market as any other source. That is by definition, beyond the law.
Since most of these people are legally prevented form even owning a
gun, if the gun they have is reported stolen, it is just a charge that
gets lost in the noise of the other charges they were arrested for.
There does not seem to be any real effort to trace these guns back
through the path they took to get to the guy carrying them.

The people shooting friends and family, generally have passed
background checks, waiting periods and purchased their guns legally.
For the most part we are talking about a couple of shots so magazine
restrictions are not an issue.

I am just not sure what another law can do.



I think a reasonable step is uniform background checks at the federal
level and registration of firearms at the state level at least. I know
the argument is that criminals won't register their guns but at least it
creates a paper trail to help identify where stolen guns come from.


What good does that do? Would we then punish the person from whom the
gun was stolen? If someone breaks into my house, steals my guns and
shoots someone, should I be punished? If not, what is the purpose of
the 'paper trail' you espouse?


As my expressed opinion to Greg points out:

Registration creates a papertrail of legal ownership. Transfers, sale
or loss (theft or otherwise) must be immediately reported and entered
in the registration data base.

It *could* get a law abiding gun owner off the hook for crimes committed
with a stolen firearm.

It's the system currently in force in my state. It certainly doesn't
infringe on any of my rights to buy or inherit a firearm and it doesn't
cost a cent in terms of fees or tax.


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


Different issue.


Infringement of rights. Before MA passed the infringement laws, you
could buy what you wanted. Wait until they decide to raise the fees!



This is what I mean John. People are afraid of even considering gun
control issues so they immediately jump to extreme examples of
government control or confiscation.

Is the establishment or raising of a fee an 'extreme example'? I think
not.

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.


No one that I know of has buried his head in the sand and ignored gun
control. We may have differing views on what is legitimate and what
isn't, but to accuse those who disagree with you of 'burying heads in
the sand' is going a bit overboard.


I am talking about the people who scream "2A" whenever a proposal of any
kind is put forth to try to control gun violence with no consideration
whatsoever to the rational behind the proposal.

Most of the 'proposals' are ridiculous attempts to get votes from
liberals, to make ownership of 'any' gun more difficult and/or to fill
the coffers of the applicable government.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.

On 11/1/2014 12:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.



I agree with that. Idealism is nice but reality prevails, something
many far left liberals can't get though their heads.

On 11/1/2014 12:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.

Luckily there aren't too many footballers committing murder, otherwise
they'd have to ban football.