[Poco Loco]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:





Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've
advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that
performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers.

It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a
dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states.

I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people
would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is:

"It won't keep criminals from getting guns".
"It's another tax"
"Slippery slope"
"Data base for future confiscation of all firearms"
"Why should I pay a fee to a FFL"

(that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you
are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably
shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range)

Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras
and driver's licenses"

I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to
oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in
ownership of a firearm.

The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing
on my 2A rights".

*That* is ridiculous.

You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you.

And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest
they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will
make society 'safer'.

So, we disagree.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:36:45 -0500, KC wrote:

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 know of anywhere in the constitution that defines the right to
privacy but we all assume it is there.
The real problem?
If the government is going to all the trouble of keeping track of
something, it is just a matter of time before they start taxing it and
then they become addicted to the tax. Minorities always get taxed the
most. You only have to look at smokers to see that. If you can believe
the left, we are in the minority and an unpopular one at that.





The well worn, "Slippery Slope" again. :-)

The first major federal legislation governing firearms and firearms
registration was the National Firearms Act ... enacted in 1934.

It was basically enacted to ban certain types of guns ... like machine
guns, sawed off shotguns, silencers and certain other firearms typically
used in crimes of that era.

Since then there have been several significant changes to federal gun
laws, most of them *removing* restrictions from the original 1934 law.

If you believe in the "slippery slope" it is running in the wrong
direction.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:28 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.



You mean the one that has existed for the 400 years we have been in
North America?

Next time I have to fend off an Indian attack with a musket I'll let you
know.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:





Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've
advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that
performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers.

It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a
dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states.

I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people
would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is:

"It won't keep criminals from getting guns".
"It's another tax"
"Slippery slope"
"Data base for future confiscation of all firearms"
"Why should I pay a fee to a FFL"

(that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you
are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably
shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range)

Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras
and driver's licenses"

I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to
oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in
ownership of a firearm.

The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing
on my 2A rights".

*That* is ridiculous.

You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you.

And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest
they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will
make society 'safer'.

So, we disagree.



Correct me if I am wrong but I think you acknowledged that the document
you linked to was *not* a federal form. If I understand correctly it's
simply an optional and personal, official looking bill of sale.

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

I would assume that you are in favor of requiring proof of citizenship
and proof of residency in the precinct you want to cast your ballot too.


Absolutely. At the same time I can understand that some people may
have a hard time producing "proof" of citizenship or age so I am open to
alternative ways other than SS numbers, Drivers Id, etc. Affidavits by
friends/family/employers can suffice in some cases. The proof
requirements should be reasonable but require some effort to produce.
Nobody should be able to just verbally declare themselves a citizen, 18
years or older in order to vote.

[Poco Loco]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:21:32 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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."

Why should folks who can't afford an ID for voting have to go through
the hassle, pay for the FFL, and provide picture ID's simply to
purchase a gun?

Try joining the discussion, which, until your arrival, has been
relatively rancorless.

[KC]

On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, BAR wrote:


Why do we let idiots, and I do mean idiots, vote? Should people have to
take an IQ test so that we are assured that the people casting votes are
of enough intelligence or intellect that we will be comfortable with
them making decisions that affect those of a higher level intelligence
or intellect.


I don't care.. If they are a citizen and only vote once/understand and
respect the sanctity of the voting booth, I just don't care.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:36 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:36:45 -0500, KC wrote:

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 know of anywhere in the constitution that defines the right to
privacy but we all assume it is there.
The real problem?
If the government is going to all the trouble of keeping track of
something, it is just a matter of time before they start taxing it and
then they become addicted to the tax. Minorities always get taxed the
most. You only have to look at smokers to see that. If you can believe
the left, we are in the minority and an unpopular one at that.



It is interesting that the 2A has the words "shall not be infringed"
while the others don't.



The 2A has all kinds of "interesting" words that are subject to
interpretation and debate.

For example, the first four words a

"A well regulated Militia...."

Note the word "regulated"?

It also says in the same sentence (after referring to the Militia):

"the right of *the* people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


What people? It doesn't say "all" people. It doesn't say "citizens".

This is the big debate. Some people feel it is talking about people in
the "Militia" only. Others think all people were part of the Militia,
so it applies to everyone.

Are you in the Militia? I am not.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 8:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

"It won't keep criminals from getting guns".
"It's another tax"
"Slippery slope"
"Data base for future confiscation of all firearms"
"Why should I pay a fee to a FFL"

They all sound accurate. I agree the fee is not that big right now but
the slippery slope is always taxes and fees.
What was the tax on a pack of cigarettes in the 60s? a dime?
In places where cigarettes are considered politically incorrect it is
well over $4 now.
Those tend to be the same places that think guns are politically
incorrect.
Confiscation will not be forced surrender, they could just tax "legal"
guns out of existence and the people who did not have any guns would
cheer them on.
NFA34 already established that exorbitant taxes were legal (The $200
for an NFA stamp is about $3500 in 2014 dollars) That doubled the
price of a Thompson SMG and was 10 times the price of a short barreled
shotgun or rifle.



The purpose of the NFA in 1934 was to effectively ban machine guns and
sawed off shotguns that were popular in the crime circles of the time.

It really had nothing to do with banning or taxing citizen's right to
own arms.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 8:07 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:21:32 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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."


Why should folks who can't afford an ID for voting have to go through
the hassle, pay for the FFL, and provide picture ID's simply to
purchase a gun?

How much does a voter ID cost? Every state I checked offer them for free.