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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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...

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!

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.