Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 9:26 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

I've never regarded you as a weenie but if you want to be one, I
can't stop you.



Wayne, there is no question that Massachusetts has gone overboard in
some of it's gun control measures IMO. The worst in my mind is the
convoluted and mysterious way in which the types and models of handguns
are "approved" for sale in the state. It's a case of government
over-reaching .... or a case of outright bribery and corruption. I am
not sure which.

Although it doesn't really affect what I do I think limits on magazine
sizes doesn't make a firearm any safer nor does a requirement for a 10lb
trigger pull. IMO, those are "real good" laws that don't really add to
any safety issues.


The only gun control regulations that make sense to me a

A gun handling and safety course requirement that includes an overview
of federal, state and local laws governing the use of firearms and:

A background check for a license and an instant background
check when making gun purchases, and:

The registration of purchased firearms tying it's serial number
to the original and subsequent owners.

I'd love to see reciprocal recognition of licenses or permits throughout
all the states. It may be possible someday if all
the states had the minimum requirements of background checks and
registration.

I don't see any of those requirements as being unreasonable or an
infringement on the right to own a firearm. I see them as being
responsible gun ownership.

The guy calls you a weenie, and you're talking to him?
Give it up. You'll find no joy here.



I've been called worse.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 8:49 AM, True North wrote:


Don, referring to a recent post you made regarding "contributions" made
to a participant in this newsgroup:

I request that you keep any knowledge of that circumstance to yourself.
You don't know what the story was and you are misrepresenting it here.

It was a long time ago, had nothing to do with motorcycle racing and I
was not alone in lending some help during a rough time.

Some things should be off the table in terms of discussion. Ok?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 19:36:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

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.


The subject had to do with the paperwork you'd like to see to enable
authorities to establish a 'chain of custody' in the even the firearm
was used to commit a crime.

Do you not remember all the pushing you've been doing on this issue?
Now you're wanting to go back and argue about the 'milita' definition?
Well, now the 'militia' consists of farmers, fisherman, business
owners, business workers, government workers, and all the retirees
therefrom, and anyone else I've missed.

As to your 'chain of custody', please explain why you think it's
necessary - again. Try to use some arguments that haven't been
debunked.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 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.



The Constitution has been interpreted, re-intepreted, added to and
subtracted from since the beginning. There's nothing particularly
sacrosanct about the 2nd Amendment. A few more mass shootings at
schools, movie theaters, sporting events, shopping centers, et cetera,
and the pressure for universal licensing and registration will be upon
us, no matter what the gun nutzies in rec.boats and the NRA want.

I'm already "licensed," as are you, Richard. I have no problem supplying
state or federal authorities with the serial numbers of firearms I
legally own and may someday sell to other individuals.
I'm certainly not depending upon the likes of Herring, BAR, Wayne, or
PsychoSnotty to defend us from the government.

Gosh...are you two holding hands? Such togetherness.

I'm already 'licensed' too, just as you and Richard are. I have a
problem providing the federal authorities any more information than
necessary to perform their function, to include serial numbers, names,
addresses, etc., etc. of guns I legally own and may transfer by sale
or gift to those whom I feel qualified to own a gun.

I certainly don't need a couple of liberals telling me their
interpretation of the Constitution.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:33:54 -0500, "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?

Fine, let's all push for nationwide adoption of the Virginia state
laws.

Then everyone would be happy.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 01:28:26 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:44:36 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:44:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Been to lots of Virginia gun shows. No one tried to sell me a gun,
other than dealers who wanted the fed form completed.

===

That has been my experience in Florida also. One guy at a small booth
told me that he had been warned by BATF agents to not engage in
private sales at the gun show. That shows that there is some
enforcement going on.

To be honest, there are not really that many guns for sale at a gun
show anyway. It is more like a hunting, camping and survival supplies
show with more than a little general merchandize you would expect to
see at the flea market.,
Most of the guns seem to be for sale from dealers, hyping their
business.

That's also true of the Virginia shows. I've yet to see anyone trying
to make an individual transaction. All dealers, all requireing the
background check.

I might say Harry's full of ****, but that wouldn't be nice.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 08:38:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



The only gun control regulations that make sense to me a

A gun handling and safety course requirement that includes an overview
of federal, state and local laws governing the use of firearms and:

Which would have to be approved by the government, require paperwork
for proof of attendance, require the bureaucracy to manage the
paperwork, and of course require recertification every three years.


A background check for a license and an instant background
check when making gun purchases, and:

Which is already a requirement for purchase from a dealer. Give
individuals the ability to get the instant background check by putting
in a social security number.


The registration of purchased firearms tying it's serial number
to the original and subsequent owners.

Why? If the gun is used to commit a crime the police want the guy who
used it.

I'd love to see reciprocal recognition of licenses or permits throughout
all the states. It may be possible someday if all
the states had the minimum requirements of background checks and
registration.

I'd love to see Virginia's laws adopted by all the states.

I don't see any of those requirements as being unreasonable or an
infringement on the right to own a firearm. I see them as being
responsible gun ownership.


Would the requirement for a voter ID card be an infringement on the
rights of voters?

*Any* additional demands on those involved in the transfer of a
firearm is an 'infringement'. The question has to do with the degree
of infringement.

Where does it end? You indicate happiness with lots of paperwork.
Bloomberg wouldn't like your solution at all. Many others would push
for a total ban on guns and confiscation.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:18:28 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/14/2014 8:50 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/14/14 8:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:32:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You think the unlicensed individuals selling firearms walk around with
signs?

===

I saw a guy with a sign that said "Certified Asshat". Was it you?


Obviously you were looking in the mirror.

Not likely. Reference to Krause the Asshat might be found on the
Maryland shooters newsgroup where he was banished. Curse those moderated
groups, eh Harry?

Poor Harry.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:05:15 -0500, "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.

Talk about naive.

How would another law stop them? Who would catch them if they didn't
report the transaction? You reckon all those folks in Chicago, etc.,
would start reporting transactions?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 02:03:59 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:05:15 -0500, "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.

Who would catch them if there was another law?
The wording of the federal law is sufficient to prosecute both the
buyers and sellers in that CNN piece and also prosecute the guys who
took them across state lines. It is just not anything the BATF is
willing to pursue.
That is not really an investigatory agency. Most of their time is
spent simply trying to audit the transactions that are required to be
recorded now. They barely get to each dealer once a year, if that and
it is a cursory inspection of records at best.

Occasionally they will identify a suspected "bad dealer:" and tear his
records apart, warranted or not but most of the time it is like the
DMV. They just plod along.
The abuses of the BATF Swat teams seems to be largely in the past but
they still happen.
A dummy hand grenade seems to be the biggest offense these days.
Nobody seems capable of looking at the bottom and figuring out it is
hollow inside,.The blue spoon is lost on them too,

Amen.