|
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 5:36 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? 30 You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. If I want a gun, I have to get a pardon first. I had to go to the town and apply to vote. I have no problem with that. Paperwork keeps guns from "floating" like a cell phone or a tv at a pawn shop so folks buy a tv, then sell it, buy another when they need it, etc.... I see no problem with a paper trail, in fact if it keeps the guns from flowing like water, I am all for it. Nowhere that I know of in the constitution does it say the govt can't keep track of guns, just that you can have 'em.... Just my .02 I agree 100 percent Scott. Background checks and the registration of a transfer or sale in no way infringes on anyone's rights. The NRA has a very interesting history. It started as an organization promoting marksmanship and safety. It supported and endorsed early gun control laws to benefit citizens as a whole. More recently the NRA has actually split into sub organizations one of which lobbies heavily against *any* changes in gun laws. The approach they take is "shotgun" style, meaning they will oppose *any* change, regardless of how valid or beneficial that change might be. Wayne alluded to that in a recent post. It's the "slippery slope" syndrome used basically to instil concern that eventually the government is coming to take your guns. This is not the NRA of old. It still exists and still promotes safety and responsibility in the ownership of firearms. It's the off shoot sub-division within the NRA umbrella that became the lobbying arm. |
The gun thread
|
The gun thread
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. |
The gun thread
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:19:50 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... It will show the current or last registered owner. The fewer guns being transferred with no traceability the better off *everyone* is. That's right. I'd make gun owners run a few hurdles too. Thirty day wait times. Gun safety courses. Moderate annual fees. Maybe 3 year retraining. Jail time for gun theft/loss law reporting violations. A bit more than a 16 year-old has to comply with to drive a car. Nothing that would even hinder the serious gun nut, but would put off the "casual" gun owner. It'll happen when society is free of old guys with old paranoid ideas. In the meantime they'll be the primary tools of the gun industry. And so it goes. Ought to do the same thing with voting. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:00:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/3/2014 4:46 PM, wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:02:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: You think the authorities are going to come knocking on your door? You might get a warm feeling about this but if they were going to come knocking on your door, they still will. Murders are usually solved by motive and opportunity if they don't just catch the guy with the gun (most acquaintance murders and suicides) If the person you sold the gun to was a total stranger, this might help you, but John already said he would go though a FFL with a stranger. I might just settle for a bill of sale that had the driver's license number on it. (maybe a picture of the guy or his car, with tag) I took a picture of the FFL who bought my machine gun standing by his truck with the tag showing. If this is a family member or close friend, you are probably still on the suspect list if they did not report it stolen/lost and you have a link to the victim or you look like the suspect.. When you are in a state without required registrations "I sold it" is still a defense. They still have to put you at the scene of the crime with a plausible reason you might kill this person. BTW the chance that they can or would actually trace a gun back to the original buyer are pretty slim. If you do know the guy who bought it from you, you can still finger the guy and a signed bill of sale is certainly a plus. I chuckled a little with your descriptions of creative ways to prove you sold or transferred a gun to someone. Why not just use the existing system that has been in use successfully for many years. It's in place and recognized as valid proof of transfer throughout the country. If "throughout the country" is true if you are just talking about the 8 states that regulate private sales. Greg, the whole debate is about expanding the number of states that regulate private sales pr make it universal throughout the USA. It's on the ballot in Washington (state) tomorrow. Ironically there are two initiatives. Initiative 591 would ban background checks on firearms, unless in compliance with federal standards. The second, Initiative 594 would require universal background checks on all gun purchases. The second (594) has a 2:1 support level according to polls. |
The gun thread
On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people who expect the government or a government regulated business will provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state government and hired talent coddling them all the way. Well said. === Yes. All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real risk of making the cure worse than the problem. Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking his nose in your tent. :-) If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows. Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum. "once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way." -- “There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” - Norman Mailer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com