Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 11:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:06:18 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/15/2014 10:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:41:25 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/15/2014 4:49 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:




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...

Name calling unnecessary. Let them do it.


Sorry, it was a reaction to continually having words put in our mouth....

I'm not the one deserving an apology.


I was reacting to what luddite said above, he just keeps spewing
harryisms like "If you want to believe it was all scripted and made
with hired actors, that's your call." as if we don't follow his
opinion, that the only other option like harry saying if you don't
follow him, you must want to beat up women, etc....

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 1:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:35:36 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/15/2014 10:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 07:55:46 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/15/2014 7:26 AM, True North wrote:
FlatulentOne sez....
"I've been trying to ignore your remarks because you seem to have issues.
But you crossed the line. You are an ungrateful little snot. And you
know what I mean. "


Bingo!
You're finally making some sense.
It was my impression a few years ago that Richard made a substantial contribution to the MickeyMouse racing team and who knows what else to help out the little PeterPan/Tinkerbell deadbeat on his mis-adventures.
You'd think L'il Snot would keep this in mind.
On the other hand, maybe we just think differently up here. Every year we thank the good people of Boston and the state of Mass for the help they generously gave us 97 years ago in our hour of need.

**** you, Donnie.
Fix your boisenberry. It has line length issues.

Go to 'View' and click on 'Word Wrap'. That worked for me.

I don't see a word wrap option.

Ah, you're not using Agent. Maybe under 'message views' or some such?

Agent just sizes the lines to fit the window in which the posts
appear.

Word wrap is automatic to the window size. At the moment, my window is
full screen. That is how I see Donnie's super long lines that don't seem
to have any line breaks set. Donnie's blueberry doesn't behave well.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

FlatulentOne farts..
"Word wrap is automatic to the window size. At the moment, my window is
full screen. That is how I see Donnie's super long lines that don't seem
to have any line breaks set. Donnie's blueberry doesn't behave well."

It looks just fine on my 7" playbook screen.
Sure the problem isn't at your end?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/14 8:18 PM, True North wrote:
FlatulentOne farts..
"Word wrap is automatic to the window size. At the moment, my window is
full screen. That is how I see Donnie's super long lines that don't seem
to have any line breaks set. Donnie's blueberry doesn't behave well."

It looks just fine on my 7" playbook screen.
Sure the problem isn't at your end?


Looks fine on my computer monitor. FlaJim. Herring, and their lovechild,
Psychoscotty, have less technical expertise than the Three Stooges, who
were at least funny.


--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 8:18 PM, True North wrote:
FlatulentOne farts..
"Word wrap is automatic to the window size. At the moment, my window is
full screen. That is how I see Donnie's super long lines that don't seem
to have any line breaks set. Donnie's blueberry doesn't behave well."

It looks just fine on my 7" playbook screen.
Sure the problem isn't at your end?

Pretty sure. Everyone else's line break is set to about 75 characters.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.




I agree with the NRA that a little regulation leads to excessive
regulation but I'm with you on universal background checks. I have sold
guns to friends and even though I know them, I don't know where they
will end up down the road. I would prefer to transfer them through a
dealer with a background check to limit my liability when it's out of my
hands. This may not stop the gang bangers from acquiring guns, but it
will help a little.

That said, many states are trying to effectively ban guns solely due to
their features, calibers, functionality, and history without any regard
to their purpose. The tough part is how do we give a little without
giving a lot? Microstamping cartridges and some other crazy ideas are
over the top, ineffective, and costly. Maybe the new Congress will do
the right thing.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

True North wrote:
FlatulentOne spews....

"**** you, Donnie."


Not a chance....your L'il Snot and his SugarDaddy, Scott Dickson, are more your type.
Happy hunting.
Get a real computer, Donnie. Writing your own quotes is moronic.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Poco Loco wrote:
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.


The way I see it is if a gun is used in a crime and still has a serial
number on it the first step would be for the police to contact the
manufacturer. From there they would know the dealer who sold who will
give them the buyers name. When they contact the buyer they will be
looking for the gun and I would prefer to know who I sold it to if I
didn't have it. If it was sold privately, I only have a bill of sale
and a copy of their drivers license (not required but that's what I
do). By transferring through a dealer we aren't forcing registration
but we a taking ourselves completely out of the loop.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Poco Loco 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.

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?

That's the problem. "Street guns" are going to change hands without
regulation no matter what laws are passed. Recording a sale through an
FFL will protect the rest of us if any of our guns fall into the wrong
hands later.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

True North wrote:
On Saturday, 15 November 2014 10:37:37 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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?
I apologize to you if my comments caused you some concern, I'm sure you know that wasn't my intention.
Anything I comment on has already been posted in this newsgroup...I have no secret source of information.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't converse with any of the newsgroup participants privately...except for a couple of welcome calls from Tim per year...and maybe a yearly e-mail from Harry when a certain circumstance arises.
My motivation is to expose certain posters for their true character... after numerous attacks, threats etc against me, my wife and son, let alone repeated posting of personal information and google images of a house they claim to be mine.
As far as those two... nothing is off the table..except of course low life attacks against their families. Even I wouldn't stoop that low.
In the future I will refrain from mentioning your name in my exposure of their flaws.


A "yearly" email form Harry? Who are you kidding?

Your motivation has always been obvious and not for the welfare of the
group as you *finally* admit.

Your personal information wouldn't end up here unless you ****ed someone
off or if you hadn't posted other people's personal information first
and created your own mess. Ever consider that?

"Even I wouldn't stoop that low" is a sad statement for an adult of your
age.

In your endeavor to exposing "their flaws" you should consider how that
has worked out for you so far and govern yourself accordingly.