|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:51:18 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: My idea of common sense gun control is to hit what you're aiming at. === Roger that. Gun control is a tight group. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without an instant check. === And to me that seems perfectly reasonable given that Virginia was one of the key states in the founding of this country and the resulting constitution and bill of rights. Do you have a problem with any of that? If you want to live under British colonial rule I'd be happy to take up a collection for your plane ticket. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/14 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. What's the matter, Wayne? Will universal registration of firearms interfere with your Carib gun running business? -- 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 11/14/2014 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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. -- 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 11/14/14 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. -- 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 Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:31:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: In other words ... a paper trail of ownership. === Why is that so important to you? What crime does it prevent? Why would we be safer? To me it is just a way of making big government even bigger. And of course, as you could reasonably conclude, I already think that it is too big. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:07:37 -0500, BAR wrote:
If a state, other than yours, choses to have different laws and regulations for the purchase of and transfer of firearms why should you care? You have chosen to live in a state that highly regulates the purchase and transfer of firearms. You should feel safe and be happy that the government is protecting you and reducing the death by firearm in your state. === Absolutely right. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. === Oh no, that could not be. You're talking about the culture of the Democratic party and we all know where that discussion leads. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. A few more yellow journalism pieces and the 1st admendment is gone? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
"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. And it still sounds the same. Government out of control? Bring your firearm to the confrontation! |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 8:59 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:40:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, KC wrote: On 11/14/2014 11:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/14/14 11:05 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:40:07 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular, a "gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with any background checks. In another of his posts, he had a statistic that said less than 1% of the guns used in crimes came from gun shows. I don't know for a fact but I suspect that 1% number refers to *reported* gun show sales by a FFL. It's the only way the data could have been documented. I don't think it includes "no questions asked" private sales at gun shows. How could it if there are no records? Well, if that's the case then "no questions asked" in the context of this discussion is only a hypothetical too? sigh If you are referring to the CNN documentary, they showed and reported that the sellers didn't even ask the buyer's name let alone any ID. You can believe that or not believe it, but that's what they reported. Probably easier for you to just declare the report as being a made-up hoax like Greg and it will satisfy you. I never called it a made up hoax, only a carefully edited piece that threw away all the footage that was not proving the point they started out to prove and getting about 70 seconds out of hours of tape to prove it. They told you they shopped at 5 shows in 4 states over at least 2 days they showed footage of 4 sellers at 2 shows and talked about 5 guns from those 4 sellers,. Do you think there were only 5 guns for sale at 5 shows? Aren't you even intellectually curious enough to ask what happened the rest of the times they tried to buy a gun? No. The stated purpose of the documentary was to demonstrate how easily guns could be purchased with no questions asked. They bought four guns with no questions asked. (They also said they were refused by three sellers, one in each of the three states they visited.) I think purchasing the four guns with no questions asked proved their point. That's all. Unlike you, I don't read anything else into it. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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? |
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/15/2014 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... 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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
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. === I've never regarded you as a weenie but if you want to be one, I can't stop you. 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 is extremely unlikely. There are a lot of people in Florida who would advocate seceding from the US before they'd let that happen. Let me understand this however. As a resident of a state with highly restrictive gun laws, some of which seem to make little or no sense, you think it is your duty to export that nonsense to other states where sanity still prevails? 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? === I've never felt the need to carry a gun on the boat in this country. If I did feel the need, I could always carry a long gun. Most likely I'd just stop cruising however. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/15/2014 7:27 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
That is extremely unlikely. There are a lot of people in Florida who would advocate seceding from the US before they'd let that happen. Let me understand this however. As a resident of a state with highly restrictive gun laws, some of which seem to make little or no sense, you think it is your duty to export that nonsense to other states where sanity still prevails? You can't even clean up your property in that state without special permissions. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/15/2014 7:27 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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. === I've never regarded you as a weenie but if you want to be one, I can't stop you. 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 is extremely unlikely. There are a lot of people in Florida who would advocate seceding from the US before they'd let that happen. Let me understand this however. As a resident of a state with highly restrictive gun laws, some of which seem to make little or no sense, you think it is your duty to export that nonsense to other states where sanity still prevails? 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? === I've never felt the need to carry a gun on the boat in this country. If I did feel the need, I could always carry a long gun. Most likely I'd just stop cruising however. 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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
FlatulentOne spews....
"**** you, Donnie." Not a chance....your L'il Snot and his SugarDaddy, Scott Dickson, are more your type. Happy hunting. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/15/14 8:49 AM, 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. Was that an utterance from FlaJim? What a jerk. -- 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 8:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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. Meant to type "feel good" not "real good". Can't even blame that on a spell checker. :-) |
Thank you, Richard!!!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com