Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/2014 8:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:19:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/16/2014 3:29 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or
changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.







I guess I am middle of the road on this one and admit I pretty much take
Luddites side on this one. I have no problem with the govt knowing where
these things are, just like cars and explosives... Even don't have a
problem with a system that says I can't have a gun cause I smoked a
joint 35 years ago, well, maybe a little but I don't need guns anyway.
My problem is the system being fixed so heavily in favor of the far left
who believes in using information like that as a weapon against me... My
honest question last week was serious. Do you think a judge should take
the inevitable slippery slope and continued attempts by the left to
erode the constitution thing into consideration when interpreting a law
that in it's worse case "could" be used by the left to build a database
and eventually go for confiscation?


Careful. Some here will accuse you of drinking Kool-Aide made from the
same groundwater as me.

If this country ever deteriorated to the point where the government
decided to confiscate everyone's guns, there's not much anyone is going
to do about it. Even John with his ever increasing arsenal of weapons
doesn't stand a chance.

The whole concept of background checks and registration is intended to
start the process of making guns less available to the criminal, not to
the general population. It isn't intended to create a confiscation
list, but that's all you'll hear.

I have guns primarily for home defense because I am getting to be an old
fart and a gun is a hell of a lot more efficient than a baseball bat.
The chances of ever having to use a gun in self defense is pretty slim
though.

I go to the range occasionally to practice and stay mentally aware of
the operation and safe handling of the guns I have.

I've attended a few of the monthly meetings the club has but they really
didn't appeal to me much. Not all, but a high percentage of the people
just sit around discussing gun laws, the 2A and how the government is
trying to take their guns away.

Just not into that culture.

The feds don't know everything about my guns.



All they need to do is subscribe to rec.boats. :-)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/2014 8:14 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Those opposed feel it just creates a record of who owns guns so they
know what door to knock on when the government comes to confiscate them all.

That's a little too far-fetched for me.

===

It has happened countless times around the world. We've just been
lucky so far.



Ok. So let's assume it happens here someday.

What are you going to do about it?
Shoot 'em?



Not let 'em know what guns I own.



A ten minute search on Google groups would give them a pretty good idea.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/2014 8:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:23:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:18 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:29:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 2:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:32:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I think your example is a little extreme, but makes a good argument I
suppose for those opposed to *any* reasonable gun control laws or changes.

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

In all seriousness any changes should have a valid law enforcement
purpose and not just be a "feel good" piece of legislation. I think
we've already established that the police do not really care about
where a gun came from when they are investigating a crime. Therefore
your proposed registry and database serves no legitimate purpose, and
may very likely have unforseen consequences at some future time. Not
only that, it sets a dangerous precedent which is contrary to the 2A.

Are you under the impression that your proposed database will somehow
lead to some group that is supplying illegal guns to street criminals?
You've never really articulated just what benefits are expected. It's
very easy to think of a lot negatives however.



Where have all the guns obtained illegally and/or owned by criminals
come from that have been manufactured since 1935?

They were stolen or purchased via a private sale, most likely with no
records or traceability.

My argument is that a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has a legally
obtained firearm should have some level of interest of where
that gun may end up in the future someday. The arguments presented here
seem to indicate that responsibility ends when you get rid of the
gun, regardless of how you got rid of it.

If gun owners are concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it would seem to me that a more
cooperative and responsible attitude would be beneficial instead of
"no" to anything.






I have an interest in the next owner of my firearm. I don't have an
interest in the owner after him.

I am '...concerned about the government (state or federal)
coming down in a heavy handed way in order to limit the availability
of guns...' period.


You've made both of your points and limit of interest very clear.
Personally I think it's self serving and selfish, but you have the right
to your opinion.

I expect, if you asked for a show of hands, you'd find several of us
right here who are, in your opinion, self-serving and selfish.

But, you have the right to your opinions.


The whole difference here is some of us trust the Govt. to do the right
thing, others here are sane... :) That is the gist of the whole argument.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:36:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

The idea of an old fart like you making a stand against the federales
with your popguns is...humorous. Go for it!

===

Same to you harry when you make a stand against your real and imagined
enemies, the ones you claimed when you got your Maryland CCW (maybe).

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:39:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

Really Krause. And what will you tell the government you are? Pelosi's penis?

===

I suspect that Pelosi's is bigger.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/14 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:39:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

Really Krause. And what will you tell the government you are? Pelosi's penis?

Pelosi has a bigger dick than Harry.



Dunno. Haven't compared. :)
But mine still works...bet yours doesn't.

--
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 11/17/2014 11:14 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:18:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 11:31 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:59:57 -0500, Harrold wrote:

BTW why would I need a bill of sale for guns I own?
I might understand it for one I sold, if it traced back to me somehow
but I probably only have 2 that could be and I have no plans to sell
them.


To help your lawyer prove that a gun wasn't in your possession when a
crime was committed with it.

How does a piece of paper do that? Cops put the gun in your hand with
forensic evidence.



If the gun can't be traced to me, how go they even show up at my door
in the first place.


I get a kick out of how you continue to give reasons that registration
is a good idea, while arguing against it.


Why would I want to attract police attention to myself?

I also get a kick out of how both you and John are only concerned about
the gun ever being traced back to the original owner. That's not the
benefit of registration.

The "too big to manage" argument doesn't hold up either. There are
several examples of huge data bases managed by the federal and state
governments that run smoothly and efficiently. One is a reporting
system here in MA that registers a firearm to a new owner when
transferred to him in a private sale. All done on-line and doesn't cost
a penny,


Everything costs money. there ain't no free lunch.
The more accurate the database, the more it costs.
The reason why most of your on;line experiences seem to be free is
because of advertising. Do you really want the gun registration
database to be advertiser supported with all of the data to be for
sale to anyone who will pay for it?
If the government operates this database it will cost a lot of money
to maintain and for what?
Criminals will want guns that are untraceable and all it takes to
break that chain of custody is one theft or loss.
The receiving stolen property charge will disappear in the cloud of
felonies most of these guys get arrested for and you can generate that
with a simple theft report.


Need to start somewhere, don't we? Again you are arguing against yourself.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/2014 11:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


The majority of the US population favors background checks and
registration.


So what, that's not how laws are made or interpreted by judges.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Not responding to anyone's quotes per se, but we elected a billionaire republican for governor. And retained a liberal senator (Durbin). Governor Quinn was lame and took a real shellacking in the poll booth. Durbin didn't carry down state but was really popular in the north where the true state population resides.

Whatever...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/2014 11:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/17/2014 11:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


The majority of the US population favors background checks and
registration.


So what, that's not how laws are made or interpreted by judges.


Indeed it is. Lawmakers in Congress tend to listen to their
constituents because they like to be re-elected.