wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:17:09 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/6/2014 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/6/2014 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:30:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe they
should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent private sales.

Many have expressed their disagreement. That's fine. Concerns about
creating a bureaucratic monstrosity are valid but in this day and age
of computers, data base capacities and virtually instant communications,
it doesn't seem unreasonable or unobtainable to me.

To those who recite 2A infringement issues and argue "slippery slope"
concerns I remain unconvinced for the following reasons:

Federal laws have been on the books (basically since 1934), the intent
of which is to restrict certain types of firearms from being generally
available to the public. The restrictions may be in the form of
taxation to get around the authority of Congress but the result is still
restrictions. Common sense laws exist that prohibit or restrict
military type firearms and weapons as well.

A Federal law requiring that dealers be licensed exists as does the
requirement for a background check and registration for guns purchased
from a dealer. In addition, individual states have their own laws.
Some are much more restrictive than others.

So, for those arguing the 2nd Amendment and their rights to bear arms
not to be "infringed upon", I'd suggest they already are. They are
infringed upon at varying degrees, depending on what state you live in.

If those reasons are as valid as some claim, why isn't there an uproar
about eliminating *all* restrictions, background checks and registrations?

My argument is to establish reasonable laws that really don't "infringe"
on anyone's rights anymore than they already are and to make those laws
uniform throughout the country.

I think the thing that was most telling was your CNN piece that simply
proved that in spite of several laws on point, they had no problem
finding people to break them.

Do you really believe that those sellers who were willing to break a
federal law to make their sale, would hesitate to break another law
requiring "universal" background checks?

They certainly could have checked IDs as required under current law
and done a background check right there if they wanted to. I have not
been to a gun show in decades that did not have an instant check booth
right there. I can't imagine Florida is farther along on this than
Tennessee or South Carolina.
If so, it is time to drop the Floridah jokes.



Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.

Weather is beautiful here, also. But broke boat on Saturday when I went
out for the opener of Dungeness sport crab season. Commercial does not
open until the 15th, so we get a head start. Very rough, 10'+ swells,
close together. Lost one pot when I drove over it in the slop with the
kicker. Did recover the buoy. Was one of my older pots, but $50 of line
on it. Broke a thrust bearing in the jet drive and the shaft came forward
and sliced up the stator vanes. So two new stators at about $275 each, and
maybe a $400 impeller, and $250 in cutlass bearings, seals and thrust
bearing. Bearing itself is at least a $100-140. Been at least 10 years
since I changed one. So couple weeks to get all the stuff together, and
get the impellers either replaced or welded and fixed. So at least a grand.
Damn expensive crabs. Limit 10, got 7. So only $15 a crab. ;(

On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.

On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.




That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.

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

On 11/7/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a
state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't
write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.




That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.



I've noticed him pulling that crap for quite a while.

This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.

Y'all have a nice time.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:06:56 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:17:09 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/6/2014 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/6/2014 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:30:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe they
should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent private sales.

Many have expressed their disagreement. That's fine. Concerns about
creating a bureaucratic monstrosity are valid but in this day and age
of computers, data base capacities and virtually instant communications,
it doesn't seem unreasonable or unobtainable to me.

To those who recite 2A infringement issues and argue "slippery slope"
concerns I remain unconvinced for the following reasons:

Federal laws have been on the books (basically since 1934), the intent
of which is to restrict certain types of firearms from being generally
available to the public. The restrictions may be in the form of
taxation to get around the authority of Congress but the result is still
restrictions. Common sense laws exist that prohibit or restrict
military type firearms and weapons as well.

A Federal law requiring that dealers be licensed exists as does the
requirement for a background check and registration for guns purchased
from a dealer. In addition, individual states have their own laws.
Some are much more restrictive than others.

So, for those arguing the 2nd Amendment and their rights to bear arms
not to be "infringed upon", I'd suggest they already are. They are
infringed upon at varying degrees, depending on what state you live in.

If those reasons are as valid as some claim, why isn't there an uproar
about eliminating *all* restrictions, background checks and registrations?

My argument is to establish reasonable laws that really don't "infringe"
on anyone's rights anymore than they already are and to make those laws
uniform throughout the country.

I think the thing that was most telling was your CNN piece that simply
proved that in spite of several laws on point, they had no problem
finding people to break them.

Do you really believe that those sellers who were willing to break a
federal law to make their sale, would hesitate to break another law
requiring "universal" background checks?

They certainly could have checked IDs as required under current law
and done a background check right there if they wanted to. I have not
been to a gun show in decades that did not have an instant check booth
right there. I can't imagine Florida is farther along on this than
Tennessee or South Carolina.
If so, it is time to drop the Floridah jokes.



Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.

Weather is beautiful here, also. But broke boat on Saturday when I went
out for the opener of Dungeness sport crab season. Commercial does not
open until the 15th, so we get a head start. Very rough, 10'+ swells,
close together. Lost one pot when I drove over it in the slop with the
kicker. Did recover the buoy. Was one of my older pots, but $50 of line
on it. Broke a thrust bearing in the jet drive and the shaft came forward
and sliced up the stator vanes. So two new stators at about $275 each, and
maybe a $400 impeller, and $250 in cutlass bearings, seals and thrust
bearing. Bearing itself is at least a $100-140. Been at least 10 years
since I changed one. So couple weeks to get all the stuff together, and
get the impellers either replaced or welded and fixed. So at least a grand.
Damn expensive crabs. Limit 10, got 7. So only $15 a crab. ;(

I think you meant to say about $180 each, if the iimpeller's bad. Damn
expensive crabs!

Sorry to hear about the troubles.

On 11/7/14 6:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a
state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller
did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the
state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't
write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.




That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.



I've noticed him pulling that crap for quite a while.

This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.

Y'all have a nice time.



This is the theater of the absurd, what with the 2A Gun Nutzis lining up
behind Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin and the Duck Dynasty boys to protect
their guns from a "guv'mint" that isn't interested in them, and yet too
pussified to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted.

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

On 11/7/2014 7:58 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 6:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a
state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller
did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is
also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the
state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't
write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as
required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive
around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.




That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.



I've noticed him pulling that crap for quite a while.

This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.

Y'all have a nice time.



This is the theater of the absurd, what with the 2A Gun Nutzis lining up
behind Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin and the Duck Dynasty boys to protect
their guns from a "guv'mint" that isn't interested in them, and yet too
pussified to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted.


Harry's really getting into this hero stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 06:55:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/7/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a
state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't
write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.




That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.



I've noticed him pulling that crap for quite a while.

This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.

Y'all have a nice time.


Seems like it would have been just as easy to live with the
disagreement as join Harry in the ridicule and name-calling.

On 11/7/2014 8:19 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 06:55:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/7/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a
state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.

That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?


A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.


18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.

I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.


What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't
write
laws. They'd be useless.

This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.


You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.

A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.

Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:

You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.

Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):

1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.

Harry's account of the event said none of the above.




That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.



I've noticed him pulling that crap for quite a while.

This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.

Y'all have a nice time.


Seems like it would have been just as easy to live with the
disagreement as join Harry in the ridicule and name-calling.


Tol' you guys 6 mos ago something was going on with dick...

Luddite says...

"This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". *Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. *I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.

Y'all have a nice time. "


Yup...That's what happens when a few bad apples like Dickson, his SugarBaby in CT and the chief apologiest for them (JohnnyMop) are allowed to infest a newsgroup.
Next thing you know rot breaks out all over.