Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.


You're using a PC with Agent and he's using a discontinued tablet with a
hybrid operating system.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

True North wrote:
On Saturday, 15 November 2014 12:45:52 UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:16:58 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/15/14 10:53 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:37:37 -0500, "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?

Since when has honesty meant anything to White or Krause?

One of the few remaining delights of rec.boats is to see vile posts like
these from right-wing trash like Herring and others and then shortly
afterwards see posts from them whining about the "atmosphere" here.
Who's whining? Luddite had a rightful complaint. Don was out of line.
Nothing new there.

And, since when has honesty meant anything to you or Don White. You
two make up lies and then feed each other from your own troughs.
I think we've been darn accurate profiling you.
"Bang on"... as y'all like to say down there.
BTW I apologized to Richard...why is it any of your business to continue bringing up this issue in the newsgroup?

There's that "we" again. OK it was "we've" this time.

"profiling"? Are you a wannabe cop like Zimmerman?

No one I know has ever said "Bang on" nor have I read it here in the
posts I do read.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


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.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.





Thank you for accurately describing the flaws and antiquity that exist
in our gun control procedures and laws.

The requirement for the paperwork records
to be maintained by licensed dealers was established in 1934.
Maybe it's time to think about modernizing them?

I just opened Notebook and created a file with my name, address, phone
number, email address, a fictitious handgun model, 9 digit serial number
and the date.

Total file size was about 100 bytes.

Assume 300 million of these files existed in a data base. Not much of a
server required to maintain all those files.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/2014 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:


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.

Cops seldom even care where a gun came from. Maybe some day they might
but I am not sure what purpose it would actually serve.
If the gun is not fairly new, it will usually have "been around" and
there will be gaps in the ownership chain.
4473s are not required to be sent to DC and the dealer can destroy
them after 20 years. If the dealer goes out of business or simply
dies, his 4473s and his "bound book" may just languish in a dusty box
until his family throws them out..
The current system was purposely designed NOT to be a registry.

Let's take, for example, one of the guns Harry bought in Virginia.
Harry has the gun, there is a Maryland dealer with the 4473 in his
files but if Harry doesn't say who he is and know how to get in touch
with him, there is no way to find him. If you do, there will be a
direct link to the dealer in Virginia and the person who sold it to
him but if they can't locate that person, the trail goes cold again.
If they do find him and he can't locate the dealer he got it from you
are still dead in the water. Every private owner is a break in the
chain and there is no national database linking them.

That all assumes every transaction went through a FFL to begin with
and that those dealers and their records still exist.

I doubt more than 10% of the dealers I bought guns from over the years
are still in business or that the FFL holders are even alive.
Most were used when I got them (from a dealer) and the chance of
getting back to the manufacturer is nil.

I have some that were sold in a number of private transactions before
I bought them. They are total dead ends.




Maybe not. Ballistics checks on those guns might tie them to unsolved
crimes. I hope you keep your bills of sales for gun purchases.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 10:42 PM, Roger wrote:
No one I know has ever said "Bang on" nor have I read it here in the
posts I do read.

That phrase is in the Queen's English urban dictionary.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/15/2014 10:42 PM, Roger wrote:
True North wrote:
On Saturday, 15 November 2014 12:45:52 UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:16:58 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/15/14 10:53 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:37:37 -0500, "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?

Since when has honesty meant anything to White or Krause?

One of the few remaining delights of rec.boats is to see vile posts
like
these from right-wing trash like Herring and others and then shortly
afterwards see posts from them whining about the "atmosphere" here.
Who's whining? Luddite had a rightful complaint. Don was out of line.
Nothing new there.

And, since when has honesty meant anything to you or Don White. You
two make up lies and then feed each other from your own troughs.
I think we've been darn accurate profiling you.
"Bang on"... as y'all like to say down there.
BTW I apologized to Richard...why is it any of your business to
continue bringing up this issue in the newsgroup?

There's that "we" again. OK it was "we've" this time.

"profiling"? Are you a wannabe cop like Zimmerman?

No one I know has ever said "Bang on" nor have I read it here in the
posts I do read.



We don't say "y'all" either, don needs to get out more.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Assume 300 million of these files existed in a data base. Not much of a
server required to maintain all those files.

===

A database and accurate registry is total anathema to those who firmly
believe in the 2nd ammendment and its original intent. Why? Think
about France and the Scandinavian countries after they were overrun by
the Germans in WW2. Think about East Germany and Poland after they
were annexed by the USSR. Think about eastern China after they were
overrun by the Jappanese. Think about Venezuela after their former
democracy was co-opted by a left leaning ultra socialist dictator.
Think about the possibility of widesperad rioting and civil
insurrection in this country.

Can't happen here? I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 07:40:31 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/15/2014 10:42 PM, Roger wrote:
No one I know has ever said "Bang on" nor have I read it here in the
posts I do read.

That phrase is in the Queen's English urban dictionary.

===

It is very British, no question about that. Americans would typically
say something like "spot on" or "right on the money" or "dead nuts
on".

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:03:46 -0500, Roger wrote:

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.

As long as I have a record of transfer, I don't really care if the
cops come by.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 22:24:43 -0500, Roger wrote:

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.




I don't think either of those guys own mirrors.