Thank you, Richard!!!
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:36:18 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 12:19 PM, wrote:

I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me
anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing
law, what would make them follow another law?


You don't seem able to comprehend the "gun show loophole." It's not just
a loophole for gunshows, either. When I sold my SIG to a Virginia buyer
in Virginia, I called the VSP to find out what I needed to do to make
the transaction kosher. "Individual to individual, we don't care" was
the response. I went through an FFL.

I am not sure who you talked to in the VSP but it is a violation of
that federal law I cited to sell a gun to a person from another state
and it is illegal to buy one from another state without at least one
FFL involved in each state.. That has been true since 1968.



Right. The problem is that with no requirements for background checks or
transaction reporting of private sales, who's gonna catch 'em?
Money is exchanged, gun is transferred with no records kept.

And what would the records provide in the way of crime solving?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 8:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:02 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 7:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:52:30 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2014 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps
wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known
about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break
the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined
person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they
cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined
silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different
than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make
was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the
cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both
state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they
crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and
saying we
need another drug law.

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw
purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by
little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.

That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that
****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting
room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



You don't know how many people turned them down other than the one
person in Tennessee.

You are right, we don't know how many people turned down the
offers. If
CNN wasn't practicing yellow journalism they would have provided that
information in their report.

I don't know either. Unlike you however, I don't "assume" what I
don't
know and make it a fact in my conclusions.

We shouldn't have to assume. They, the media, should provide the
information without our asking.

It is like the NBC guys not telling us that the put an IED next to the
truck's gas tank to make it blow up because they were unable to
make it
blow up when they crashed other vehicles into the side of the truck.

Again though, the point is missed. They still bought a small
arsenal in
two days consisting of a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, two Glock
17's
and a S&W 45 with no questions asked.

Were the sales illegal? Did they do the paperwork after the sales and
neglect to report it in the video they released.

You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.



Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.






So, are you saying Madison wasn't forward thinking enough to write that
part of the constitution?


Not only do I believe that but so do many people far more qualified than
I. Experts have been debating the wording of what he wrote and it's
applicability in more modern times for years.



Are there as many people, as qualified who feel exactly opposite and how
would you describe their opinion?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 8:33 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 7:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

===

That's your opinion because it is the party line of all weenies just
like you.



You can add me to your "weenie" file because I agree with him.

BTW, it's not the Federal Government you need to worry about so much.
State governments can and do create and enforce their own gun laws.

If everyone remains unwilling to give a bit, Florida may end up
like Massachusetts.

That's why I am an advocate of uniform and standardized laws that
everyone can live with.

BTW ... state laws for guns on board vary also. Wouldn't it be nice if
they were all the same when you travel?

There are a lot of good reasons for having State lines, and State laws..
unless you believe in one central power base. Apparently (to me anyway)
the framers didn't want that.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 8:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:20:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I don't think private sellers at gun shows or anywhere for that matter
are criminals by nature, looking to break any laws. They may not have
even known that the state law to check ID's existed. They are gun nuts,
not professional dealers.

===

You can be sure that anyone with a booth at a gun show has been
advised of their legal obligations and has signed a statement
acknowledging those obligations. The organizers take care of such
things to protect themselves from legal action.



I think the problem here is the source and ones point of view of the
source. Dick trusts the source (in this case CNN) go give you the
straight skinny so he takes the limited info they gave us as gospel. If
you take those numbers as a fair stat on illegal gun sales, you come to
about 25% dirty sales. On the other hand 1, many here don't take CNN as
fair and balanced since they have been caught red handed in the past
taking sides, secondly, the real time personal experience of each and
ever gun buyer on this group would suggest that it's nowhere near 25%,
again suggesting CNN possibly didn't play straight, and with their
history, I give the weight to that side of the story.. but then again, I
wear a tin hat, I mean, I think MSNBC is biased too :)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:38:18 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.

Actually, in spite of all the hype from the left, these are the safest
times we have ever had in this country in reference to violence,
particularly gun violence. It is just that when it happens, that is
the only thing on the news for a month ... at least when it is white
people being shot or when a white person shoots a black person.
The bulk of murders are black people shooting other black people and
that is not news.
http://tinyurl.com/pvusl5x

I think we have more gun violence than in my youth. And I lay the blame on
the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition spawned Al Capone and those type
gangs, the WOD. Has spawned new gangs. Overall we are probably safer, but
there are concentrated areas where violence is an epidemic. Comes with
drugs, not many jobs for the unskilled, and the lure of big money without
any education. But due to political correctness that can not be put
forward.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:08:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/13/2014 7:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

It is strange how some folks handle opposition when they feel they are
smarter than everyone else in the room... Even if they are, I have
always found that new blood can lead to new innovations and even new
attitudes... I think these types of folks are ripping themselves off.





Common sense is not an indicator of "smartness".

Debate and discussion is how controversial issues are resolved. When
the issue is a social problem it is the responsibility of all to
contribute to the solution. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending
the problem doesn't exist doesn't count.

In the end, those who push strongly enough win. Those who cling to the
status quo end up getting run over. Better to be a participant.

Hear, hear.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 1:27 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:20:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I don't think private sellers at gun shows or anywhere for that matter
are criminals by nature, looking to break any laws. They may not have
even known that the state law to check ID's existed. They are gun nuts,
not professional dealers.

===

You can be sure that anyone with a booth at a gun show has been
advised of their legal obligations and has signed a statement
acknowledging those obligations. The organizers take care of such
things to protect themselves from legal action.



I think the problem here is the source and ones point of view of the
source. Dick trusts the source (in this case CNN) go give you the
straight skinny so he takes the limited info they gave us as gospel. If
you take those numbers as a fair stat on illegal gun sales, you come to
about 25% dirty sales. On the other hand 1, many here don't take CNN as
fair and balanced since they have been caught red handed in the past
taking sides, secondly, the real time personal experience of each and
ever gun buyer on this group would suggest that it's nowhere near 25%,
again suggesting CNN possibly didn't play straight, and with their
history, I give the weight to that side of the story.. but then again, I
wear a tin hat, I mean, I think MSNBC is biased too :)


The CNN thing was not a documentary on the percentage of illegal gun
sales or even the number of attempts at buying. It was very simply a
demonstration of how easy it was to purchase a bunch of firearms over a
weekend with no questions asked.

That's all it was. If you want to believe it was all scripted and made
with hired actors, that's your call.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 11:51 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/14/2014 7:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

===

That's your opinion because it is the party line of all weenies just
like you.



You can add me to your "weenie" file because I agree with him.

BTW, it's not the Federal Government you need to worry about so much.
State governments can and do create and enforce their own gun laws.

If everyone remains unwilling to give a bit, Florida may end up
like Massachusetts.

That's why I am an advocate of uniform and standardized laws that
everyone can live with.

The country was comprised to have uniform and standardized laws that
everyone can live with. We have these things called states that "can and
do create and enforce their own gun laws."

BTW ... state laws for guns on board vary also. Wouldn't it be nice if
they were all the same when you travel?

Why don't we abolish Congress, we could just have the president decide
what laws he wants today and enact them by fiat.


.... oh wait, we are trying that now and how's it workin' out for you?? LOL

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 4:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2014 1:27 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:20:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I don't think private sellers at gun shows or anywhere for that matter
are criminals by nature, looking to break any laws. They may not have
even known that the state law to check ID's existed. They are gun
nuts,
not professional dealers.

===

You can be sure that anyone with a booth at a gun show has been
advised of their legal obligations and has signed a statement
acknowledging those obligations. The organizers take care of such
things to protect themselves from legal action.



I think the problem here is the source and ones point of view of the
source. Dick trusts the source (in this case CNN) go give you the
straight skinny so he takes the limited info they gave us as gospel. If
you take those numbers as a fair stat on illegal gun sales, you come to
about 25% dirty sales. On the other hand 1, many here don't take CNN as
fair and balanced since they have been caught red handed in the past
taking sides, secondly, the real time personal experience of each and
ever gun buyer on this group would suggest that it's nowhere near 25%,
again suggesting CNN possibly didn't play straight, and with their
history, I give the weight to that side of the story.. but then again, I
wear a tin hat, I mean, I think MSNBC is biased too :)


The CNN thing was not a documentary on the percentage of illegal gun
sales or even the number of attempts at buying. It was very simply a
demonstration of how easy it was to purchase a bunch of firearms over a
weekend with no questions asked.

That's all it was. If you want to believe it was all scripted and made
with hired actors, that's your call.


Again, I didn't say that, I am starting to think you are too stupid to
see beyond the hyperbole...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/14 6:41 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/15/2014 4:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2014 1:27 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:20:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I don't think private sellers at gun shows or anywhere for that matter
are criminals by nature, looking to break any laws. They may not have
even known that the state law to check ID's existed. They are gun
nuts,
not professional dealers.

===

You can be sure that anyone with a booth at a gun show has been
advised of their legal obligations and has signed a statement
acknowledging those obligations. The organizers take care of such
things to protect themselves from legal action.



I think the problem here is the source and ones point of view of the
source. Dick trusts the source (in this case CNN) go give you the
straight skinny so he takes the limited info they gave us as gospel. If
you take those numbers as a fair stat on illegal gun sales, you come to
about 25% dirty sales. On the other hand 1, many here don't take CNN as
fair and balanced since they have been caught red handed in the past
taking sides, secondly, the real time personal experience of each and
ever gun buyer on this group would suggest that it's nowhere near 25%,
again suggesting CNN possibly didn't play straight, and with their
history, I give the weight to that side of the story.. but then again, I
wear a tin hat, I mean, I think MSNBC is biased too :)


The CNN thing was not a documentary on the percentage of illegal gun
sales or even the number of attempts at buying. It was very simply a
demonstration of how easy it was to purchase a bunch of firearms over a
weekend with no questions asked.

That's all it was. If you want to believe it was all scripted and made
with hired actors, that's your call.


Again, I didn't say that, I am starting to think you are too stupid to
see beyond the hyperbole...


You are less bright than Forest Gump and without the charm.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.