2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

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.

===

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO the federal government already
has too much power, much of which was usurped over time from the
states. One size does not fit all. Creeping bureauracracy by
efficient computer just makes the bureauracracy worse.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/6/2014 12:41 PM, Wayne.B 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.

===

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO the federal government already
has too much power, much of which was usurped over time from the
states. One size does not fit all. Creeping bureauracracy by
efficient computer just makes the bureauracracy worse.



Ok, but it still doesn't make sense to me. As a believer in 2A rights
and being concerned about the "slippery slope" are you therefore an
advocate of eliminating *all* laws and restrictions? If not, it seems a
little hypocritical.

2A and Guns
 

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.

Absolutely correct.


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

Because gun owners have 'compromised' repeatedly with the gun control
advocates. Much of the compromise was to quell the whining of the
'masses' and other liberals. The continued push for more stringent gun
controls simply shows the neverending push to ban guns completely.

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.

Fine, let's adopt Virginia's laws throughout the country.

Note that my response contained no ridicule, name-calling, etc. If you
want to join up with Krause and ridicule those who don't agree with
you, you'll hear no more from me. Don't let my lack of words indicate
agreement with your position.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/6/14 1:03 PM, Poco Loco 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.

Absolutely correct.


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

Because gun owners have 'compromised' repeatedly with the gun control
advocates. Much of the compromise was to quell the whining of the
'masses' and other liberals. The continued push for more stringent gun
controls simply shows the neverending push to ban guns completely.

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.

Fine, let's adopt Virginia's laws throughout the country.

Note that my response contained no ridicule, name-calling, etc. If you
want to join up with Krause and ridicule those who don't agree with
you, you'll hear no more from me. Don't let my lack of words indicate
agreement with your position.


Funny stuff, coming from Johnny Ridicule.

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

2A and Guns
 

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.

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

2A and Guns
 

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:54:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/6/2014 12:41 PM, Wayne.B 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.

===

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO the federal government already
has too much power, much of which was usurped over time from the
states. One size does not fit all. Creeping bureauracracy by
efficient computer just makes the bureauracracy worse.



Ok, but it still doesn't make sense to me. As a believer in 2A rights
and being concerned about the "slippery slope" are you therefore an
advocate of eliminating *all* laws and restrictions? If not, it seems a
little hypocritical.


===

Good question, requires more thought than I'm willing to devote right
now.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/6/2014 1:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:54:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/6/2014 12:41 PM, Wayne.B 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.

===

We'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO the federal government already
has too much power, much of which was usurped over time from the
states. One size does not fit all. Creeping bureauracracy by
efficient computer just makes the bureauracracy worse.



Ok, but it still doesn't make sense to me. As a believer in 2A rights
and being concerned about the "slippery slope" are you therefore an
advocate of eliminating *all* laws and restrictions? If not, it seems a
little hypocritical.


===

Good question, requires more thought than I'm willing to devote right
now.


On the subject of slippery slope, I know it's out there but my question
is can a judge or lawmaker legally take that into consideration when
deciding constitutional issues? Or do you have to write/pass laws
assuming they will be followed? Just wondering out loud...

2A and Guns
 

On Thursday, November 6, 2014 1:03:27 PM UTC-5, John H. 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.

Absolutely correct.


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

Because gun owners have 'compromised' repeatedly with the gun control
advocates. Much of the compromise was to quell the whining of the
'masses' and other liberals. The continued push for more stringent gun
controls simply shows the neverending push to ban guns completely.

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.

Fine, let's adopt Virginia's laws throughout the country.

Note that my response contained no ridicule, name-calling, etc. If you
want to join up with Krause and ridicule those who don't agree with
you, you'll hear no more from me. Don't let my lack of words indicate
agreement with your position.

I guess that answers that!

2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

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. ;(

2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

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

2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

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

2A and Guns
 

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

2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

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...

2A and Guns
 

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.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/2014 10:30 AM, True North wrote:
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.


You are a joke...

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 07:30:30 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

Next thing you know rot breaks out all over.

===

How is the warranty work on your boat progressing?

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:34:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up


Right, because it didn't incorporate what you would do...stand on the
sidelines and watch a woman get slapped around. You 2A gun nutzis
are...cowards.

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

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:43:49 -0500, wrote:

I just assumed Harry would call the cops when she saw a crime so
heinous that the use of force was deemed justifiable and necessary.
Otherwise he is the aggressor and he could be charged.
By not calling the cops he is part of the problem, not the solution.
Would you call the cops if you saw someone abusing a dog?
Why is a woman and a child less worthy?


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up

===

Given Harry's track record of prevarication and creative writing, that
would be a reasonable conclusion. He did manage to troll in a great
deal of discussion about himself and set the stage for his usual
barrage of insults. Mission accomplished.

Our regularly scheduled programming will now resume.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 12:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:43:49 -0500, wrote:

I just assumed Harry would call the cops when she saw a crime so
heinous that the use of force was deemed justifiable and necessary.
Otherwise he is the aggressor and he could be charged.
By not calling the cops he is part of the problem, not the solution.
Would you call the cops if you saw someone abusing a dog?
Why is a woman and a child less worthy?


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up

===

Given Harry's track record of prevarication and creative writing, that
would be a reasonable conclusion. He did manage to troll in a great
deal of discussion about himself and set the stage for his usual
barrage of insults. Mission accomplished.

Our regularly scheduled programming will now resume.


And that would be Wayne and "the Right-Wing Regulars" enjoying their
ongoing circle jerk.

When's your next drug and gun-running trip to the Carib, Wayne?

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

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:48:43 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:34:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up


Right, because it didn't incorporate what you would do...stand on the
sidelines and watch a woman get slapped around. You 2A gun nutzis
are...cowards.

It is mostly the alleged injury. A wrist injury is more consistent
with that guy knocking you down than you knocking him down.



You're a funny guy; now you are playing orthopedic surgeon on the
internet and you don't even have a college degree in basket weaving.


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

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:11:44 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

When's your next drug and gun-running trip to the Carib, Wayne?

===

Illegal activities seem to be your specialty Harry, not ours.

When is the next meeting of your narcissism support group?

https://www.google.com/#q=narcissism

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 12:31 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:11:44 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

When's your next drug and gun-running trip to the Carib, Wayne?

===

Illegal activities seem to be your specialty Harry, not ours.

When is the next meeting of your narcissism support group?

https://www.google.com/#q=narcissism


When is the next meeting of your assholes support group?
And how many kilos of cocaine can you hide on that boat of yours?


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

2A and Guns
 

wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:48:43 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:34:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up


Right, because it didn't incorporate what you would do...stand on the
sidelines and watch a woman get slapped around. You 2A gun nutzis
are...cowards.

It is mostly the alleged injury. A wrist injury is more consistent
with that guy knocking you down than you knocking him down.

I still think the whole thing is made up. If it isn't, you did not do
that woman any favors. You should have called the cops, even if you
did confront the guy.
You find me one battered woman organization that disagrees and I will
apologize..
Without a police report the incident never happened. The abuse will
continue.

She was not in immediate danger. Slapping is not normally going to kill
her. I would have called the cops first thing, and only physically
intervened if her life depended on it. Right now, according to Harry's
tale, he could be sued for any assets he still has. Was absolutely
stupidly handled.

2A and Guns
 

True North wrote:
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.

Look in the mirror bozo.

2A and Guns
 

Poco Loco wrote:
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.

These impellers are large, stainless steel impellers. Impellers, because
they are enclosed. Would be a propeller if not in a tube. Hell, fish and
crabs are always expensive. When I duck hunted in the 1980's, Admin I had
said it was probably for food. She was flustered when I stated I could
have Duck al'orange at Maxims in Paris cheaper.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 12:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:48:43 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:34:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up


Right, because it didn't incorporate what you would do...stand on the
sidelines and watch a woman get slapped around. You 2A gun nutzis
are...cowards.

It is mostly the alleged injury. A wrist injury is more consistent
with that guy knocking you down than you knocking him down.

I still think the whole thing is made up. If it isn't, you did not do
that woman any favors. You should have called the cops, even if you
did confront the guy.
You find me one battered woman organization that disagrees and I will
apologize..
Without a police report the incident never happened. The abuse will
continue.

She was not in immediate danger. Slapping is not normally going to kill
her. I would have called the cops first thing, and only physically
intervened if her life depended on it. Right now, according to Harry's
tale, he could be sued for any assets he still has. Was absolutely
stupidly handled.



Another usenet physician...d'oh.

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

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:35:03 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 12:31 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:11:44 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

When's your next drug and gun-running trip to the Carib, Wayne?

===

Illegal activities seem to be your specialty Harry, not ours.

When is the next meeting of your narcissism support group?

https://www.google.com/#q=narcissism


When is the next meeting of your assholes support group?
And how many kilos of cocaine can you hide on that boat of yours?

===

Why don't you buy one of your own and find out?

Oh sorry, I forgot that the government took everything of yours.

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:41:52 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
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.

These impellers are large, stainless steel impellers. Impellers, because
they are enclosed. Would be a propeller if not in a tube. Hell, fish and
crabs are always expensive. When I duck hunted in the 1980's, Admin I had
said it was probably for food. She was flustered when I stated I could
have Duck al'orange at Maxims in Paris cheaper.

Every striper I ever caught cost a lot more than a couple hundred
bucks! I know what you mean.

But if we ever move to where I can keep it at home, I'll buy another
boat.

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 12:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:35:03 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 12:31 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:11:44 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

When's your next drug and gun-running trip to the Carib, Wayne?

===

Illegal activities seem to be your specialty Harry, not ours.

When is the next meeting of your narcissism support group?

https://www.google.com/#q=narcissism


When is the next meeting of your assholes support group?
And how many kilos of cocaine can you hide on that boat of yours?

===

Why don't you buy one of your own and find out?

Oh sorry, I forgot that the government took everything of yours.


That must be the recurring dream that gives you an illusionary woodie,
W'hiney, now that your Viagra has stopped working.

So, tell us...when you travel the Carib, how many kilos of cocaine to
you carry for resale?

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

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 12:59 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:41:52 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
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.

These impellers are large, stainless steel impellers. Impellers, because
they are enclosed. Would be a propeller if not in a tube. Hell, fish and
crabs are always expensive. When I duck hunted in the 1980's, Admin I had
said it was probably for food. She was flustered when I stated I could
have Duck al'orange at Maxims in Paris cheaper.

Every striper I ever caught cost a lot more than a couple hundred
bucks! I know what you mean.

But if we ever move to where I can keep it at home, I'll buy another
boat.



Herring's new waterfront lot, with onsite boat parking:

http://tinyurl.com/k2vvx6x

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

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:00:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

So, tell us...when you travel the Carib, how many kilos of cocaine to
you carry for resale?

===

Why the sudden interest in illegal drugs Harry? Are you buying or
selling?

2A and Guns
 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:08:24 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:00:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

So, tell us...when you travel the Carib, how many kilos of cocaine to
you carry for resale?

===

Why the sudden interest in illegal drugs Harry? Are you buying or
selling?

With Krause, it's more like snorting!!!

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 1:08 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:00:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

So, tell us...when you travel the Carib, how many kilos of cocaine to
you carry for resale?

===

Why the sudden interest in illegal drugs Harry? Are you buying or
selling?


Sorry, no interest in your drug transportation biz.

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

2A and Guns
 

On 11/7/14 1:16 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:27:11 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:48:43 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/7/14 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:34:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"


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



I am really starting to believe the whole thing was made up


Right, because it didn't incorporate what you would do...stand on the
sidelines and watch a woman get slapped around. You 2A gun nutzis
are...cowards.

It is mostly the alleged injury. A wrist injury is more consistent
with that guy knocking you down than you knocking him down.



You're a funny guy; now you are playing orthopedic surgeon on the
internet and you don't even have a college degree in basket weaving.

At this point it seems to be more "lie detector"

Why couldn't you just say you hurt your wrist without all of this
Harry the wonder fist" bull****.

I was even willing to go along for a while until it just got too
ridiculous to believe. You still have not said why you didn't call the
cops. I bet if someone was kicking a dog you would have. Is a woman
and a child less worthy? It says a lot about you if it is true.


And tell the cops what? That a woman who is no longer here and who I
don't know was being slapped around by a guy who is no longer here and
who I don't know? D'oh.

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