The gun thread
 

I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite
called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me
there is little hope for a future for this violent country.
You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR
who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists
like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case
they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne
who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like
psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band.

bang bang, boys...it is your future.

Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.
--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.� -
Norman Mailer

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.
--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.� -
Norman Mailer

One of your gangsta buddies take a baseball bat to your hand? What did
you do to **** them off? Oh nevermind. You were probably just being you. ;-)

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite
called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me
there is little hope for a future for this violent country.
You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR
who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists
like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case
they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne
who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like
psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band.

bang bang, boys...it is your future.

Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.


The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun
registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the
different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most
importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand
what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research
on the subjects.

It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all
firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing
dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of
1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these
Acts require a background check for reported federal or state
restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the
completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must
be retained for 20 years by the dealer.

By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts.

Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on
court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated
restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base
varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical
institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that
results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or
alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however,
so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved.

The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun
show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates
vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired
through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any
form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the
transaction.

I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of
current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all*
purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds.
It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented
transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of
firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have
nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights".

To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I
suggest the following:

With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore
your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or
deserve them.

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/14 7:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite
called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me
there is little hope for a future for this violent country.
You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR
who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists
like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case
they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne
who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like
psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band.

bang bang, boys...it is your future.

Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.


The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun
registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the
different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most
importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand
what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research
on the subjects.

It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all
firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing
dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of
1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these
Acts require a background check for reported federal or state
restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the
completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must
be retained for 20 years by the dealer.

By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts.

Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on
court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated
restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base
varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical
institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that
results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or
alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however,
so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved.

The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun
show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates
vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired
through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any
form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the
transaction.

I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of
current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all*
purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds.
It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented
transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of
firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have
nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights".

To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I
suggest the following:

With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore
your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or
deserve them.

I live in Maryland a state many consider restrictive as to gun rights.
In the 11 years I've lived here I've never found maryland's gun
regulations prevented me from buying any firearm i wanted.

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.� -
Norman Mailer

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/2014 7:35 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:14:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything,

Only useless bureaucracy that make no sense like that cartridge case
the state of Maryland is collecting and has yet to use in the
prosecution of a single gun crime.
It is like the ammo logs they collected for over a decade, generating
tons of paper that was totally useless and never even looked at when
the police were investigating shootings.



Not every attempt to address a problem works out Greg. Programs or laws
are implemented with high expectations only to find that they are
useless or unenforceable.

I read a really interesting article last night. It was a scientific
study by physiologists to determine what makes a person "conservative"
and what makes a person a "liberal".

Turns out their are very distinct differences in their physiological
make ups.

A "conservative" personality tends to be more focused on threats and
challenges to what they consider "the norm" compared to the liberal
personality. They tend to resist change and don't like leaving their
shell of security. Interestingly, *all* mentally healthy people are
fundamentally conservative due to instinctive self preservation
influences that are hard wired in our brains. Even a modern "liberal"
will instinctively withdraw to a safe zone of thinking when suddenly
thrust into a situation that challenges or threatens them. Only after
thinking the new challenge through will it be perceived as a real threat
or not.

Liberals aren't perfect either. A really interesting point was made in
the article. Contrary to what they claim when discussing political and
societal issues, the physiological profile that makes up a liberal
indicates that they tend to be less concerned with the known safety
zones of what would make them conservative and are willing to risk the
safety of the known for individual advancement rather than the
advancement of a society as a whole.

"That" should produce some interesting comments. :-)

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/2014 6:25 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.
--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.� -
Norman Mailer

One of your gangsta buddies take a baseball bat to your hand? What did
you do to **** them off? Oh nevermind. You were probably just being you.
;-)

Oh no, he's even got a better story than the burgler busting Toyota!
He's a hero now. Can't believe he didn't get a plate and call the cops
himself, as there were several crimes comitted, but we know krause would
never call the cops at the drop of a hat, or over words on a computer
screen, oh wait!! ROTFLMAO!

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/14 12:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:55:28 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I live in Maryland a state many consider restrictive as to gun rights.
In the 11 years I've lived here I've never found maryland's gun
regulations prevented me from buying any firearm i wanted.

It sounds more like you tailored your wants to what they let you buy.

How many new in the box firearms have you bought in the last 15 years?

--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer

The gun thread
 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:27:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite
called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me
there is little hope for a future for this violent country.
You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR
who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists
like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case
they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne
who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like
psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band.

bang bang, boys...it is your future.

Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.


The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun
registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the
different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most
importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand
what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research
on the subjects.

It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all
firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing
dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of
1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these
Acts require a background check for reported federal or state
restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the
completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must
be retained for 20 years by the dealer.

By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts.

Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on
court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated
restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base
varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical
institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that
results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or
alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however,
so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved.

The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun
show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates
vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired
through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any
form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the
transaction.

I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of
current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all*
purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds.
It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented
transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of
firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have
nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights".

To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I
suggest the following:

With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore
your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or
deserve them.

My responsibility to society includes storing my guns in a safe manner
and operating them responsibly.

Filling out paperwork, if I've done the above, does *nothing* for
society.

The gun thread
 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:48:20 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 08:00:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 7:35 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:14:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything,

Only useless bureaucracy that make no sense like that cartridge case
the state of Maryland is collecting and has yet to use in the
prosecution of a single gun crime.
It is like the ammo logs they collected for over a decade, generating
tons of paper that was totally useless and never even looked at when
the police were investigating shootings.



Not every attempt to address a problem works out Greg. Programs or laws
are implemented with high expectations only to find that they are
useless or unenforceable.

I read a really interesting article last night. It was a scientific
study by physiologists to determine what makes a person "conservative"
and what makes a person a "liberal".

Turns out their are very distinct differences in their physiological
make ups.

A "conservative" personality tends to be more focused on threats and
challenges to what they consider "the norm" compared to the liberal
personality. They tend to resist change and don't like leaving their
shell of security. Interestingly, *all* mentally healthy people are
fundamentally conservative due to instinctive self preservation
influences that are hard wired in our brains. Even a modern "liberal"
will instinctively withdraw to a safe zone of thinking when suddenly
thrust into a situation that challenges or threatens them. Only after
thinking the new challenge through will it be perceived as a real threat
or not.

Liberals aren't perfect either. A really interesting point was made in
the article. Contrary to what they claim when discussing political and
societal issues, the physiological profile that makes up a liberal
indicates that they tend to be less concerned with the known safety
zones of what would make them conservative and are willing to risk the
safety of the known for individual advancement rather than the
advancement of a society as a whole.

"That" should produce some interesting comments. :-)

I don't think most "Liberals" are really that liberal.
They are fine when it comes to the freedoms they think everyone should
have but if they think you do not deserve that freedom, they are not
liberal in any sense of the word.

Examples
It is OK to kill yourself with drugs and dangerous sex practices but
you can't do it on a motorcycle without a helmet, car without a seat
belt and the list goes on.

You have "free speech" and you can even say the most hideous things
about a conservative president or even a candidate but if you say the
wrong thing about blacks, gays or latinos you are a horrible person.
Free speech in general seems to be limited to toeing the left wing
line.

Liberals really seem conflicted about environmental things. They hate
oil and love "renewables" even though most renewables are at least as
bad, if not worse for the environment. They want to save all of the
animals, even the ones who are destroying the environment they profess
to want to save.

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.

The gun thread
 

On 11/3/2014 1:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 07:27:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 6:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I enjoyed reading some of the thread about guns, in which luddite
called for reasonable regulations for firearms. It convinced me
there is little hope for a future for this violent country.
You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything, crazy John Birchers like BAR
who think we are still living in the 18th-century, semi-blind racists
like herring who can't shoot straight but who load up with guns in case
they encounter a black man walking on the sidewalk, whiners like Wayne
who think the world exists just for them, and crackpots like
psychoscotty who should not be allowed within 50 feet of rubber band.

bang bang, boys...it is your future.

Please forgive my lousy typing which in reality is lousy dictation.
Can't use my right hand to type for a while, a circumstance that
provides a wonderful excuse to not spend much time in this cesspool of
self centered right wing extremism.

As always, have nice day.


The recent discussions regarding gun background checks and gun
registration was interesting to me. It made me aware of some of the
different views that exist, regional cultural differences and most
importantly they made me realize that I really didn't know or understand
what the current laws and status of each are. So, I did some research
on the subjects.

It seems that background checks and gun registration exists for all
firearms purchased through a FFL. The current federal laws governing
dealer transactions were established by The National Firearms Act of
1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among other specific items, these
Acts require a background check for reported federal or state
restrictions that may exist in a purchaser's record and requires the
completion of a registry form with details of the transaction that must
be retained for 20 years by the dealer.

By the way, the NRA supported both of these Acts.

Background checks conducted by licensed dealers include data based on
court records (federal and state) and other federally mandated
restrictions. Individual state inputs to the background data base
varies by state but they contain data from police records, medical
institutions and even input by family members. Domestic violence that
results in restraining orders, known substance abuse (drugs and/or
alcohol) and other records are examples. Not all are reported however,
so it's a leaky filter and it needs to be worked on and resolved.

The debate today is on private sales, transfers, Internet sales and gun
show sales that do not involve a federally licensed dealer. Estimates
vary but it is thought that 20 to 40 percent of firearms are acquired
through these means, not involving a FFL and therefore not requiring any
form of background check, registration or even a simple record of the
transaction.

I remain of the opinion that background checks and documentation of
current ownership (registration) should be extended to include *all*
purchases and/or transfers. We don't live in the 1700 or 1800 hundreds.
It won't cover all transfers, I realize, but it makes undocumented
transfers illegal which may, over time, help reduce the number of
firearms used in violent crimes. Law abiding citizens/gun owners have
nothing to lose in terms of their "Rights".

To those who simply cling to their "rights" under the 2nd Amendment I
suggest the following:

With "Rights" come responsibilities. To claim your "Rights" but ignore
your responsibilities to society means you have haven't earned or
deserve them.

My responsibility to society includes storing my guns in a safe manner
and operating them responsibly.

Filling out paperwork, if I've done the above, does *nothing* for
society.



That's part of it. However, selling or transferring a gun to someone
based simply on your knowledge of him or her isn't being responsible to
society, IMO, and that's what this is all about. If you, as you have
said you would do, handle the transaction through a FFL which would
require the background check and record of the transaction, then I think
you are fulfilling your responsibility. You may transfer your gun to a
relative or someone *you* personally know but you don't know what he or
she is going to do with it in the future when you are not around.

That's why I think background checks and a paper trail of ownership
(basically registration) should be required for all transactions.
Doesn't infringe at all on your "Rights" to own a gun or on anyone
else's including the person you transferred the firearm to.