|
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!!!
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. |
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!!!
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
|
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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? BATF does have an online system but that does not address the 300 million guns that were traded in the old paper based system, maybe a billion or more 4473s rotting in file cabinets around the country. 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. I agree that the size of each file may not be a big deal but nobody uses flat text these days. A blank 4473 in PDF is 74KB and that is the format of choice these days.. They would want all the signatures and stamps on the file. The way the government does things would require a couple hundred new people to get this system going and once you have them, you can't get rid of them. This will not be a cheap program to administer and to what end? If the transfer was legal, law enforcement has no real reason to look at the seller and if it was illegal, the record won't exist anyway. We had a case locally a couple years ago regarding a motorcycle. Person bought it, seller filed the change of ownership papers, and new owner rides in to a barb wire fence with passenger. Seller was going to lose their house, etc, as they could not prove they sold the vehicle. Luckily, 3 years later as old state files were going to be disposed of, the paperwork was found. How many people will get sued because they were an owner of record of a firearm used in a crime? Paperwork does not get filed properly. Computer crash. Etc. we had campground reservations in Denali. The computer showed I had made a reservation, but no reservation could be found. Infallible computers? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
Harrold wrote:
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. I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still done in the inner city. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
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. Just for the sake of argument: The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a "militia". As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-) Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/16/2014 11:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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. Your homemade bill of sale *might* keep you off the hook if a gun you previously owned ever ends up being used in a crime and it's traced back to you, but there's no guaranty of that. Anyone can make up a bill of sale or transfer document and claim they sold or gave the gun away. It also doesn't tie that firearm to subsequent owners. Cars used to be able to be sold with a simple bill of sale. Now you need the title in most states. The title reflects a chain of custody or ownership and proves that the vehicle was obtained legally and not stolen. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/16/14 12:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote: 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. Just for the sake of argument: The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a "militia". As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-) Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away. Wayne is just regurgitating the gun-nutzi nonsense. -- 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 11/16/14 12:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
Harrold wrote: 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. I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still done in the inner city. I have the original bill of sale on paper and electronically for every firearm I've ever bought or sold, along with a photo of each showing the serial number, and receipts and FFL documentation. When my dad died in the 1970s, I gave his firearms to one of his old buddies, a New Haven cop. I should have kept his High Standard target pistol, made locally. :( -- 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 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill wrote: Harrold wrote: 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. I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still done in the inner city. I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks. I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business. Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business by Bass Pro Shop. I don't have paperwork on any of them. Another good reason for a state by state or national data base. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote: 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. Just for the sake of argument: The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a "militia". As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-) Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away. ....unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be the ultimate purpose of the legislation below? Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly). The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles, car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.” http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf |
Thank you, Richard!!!
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:55:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/16/2014 11:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. Your homemade bill of sale *might* keep you off the hook if a gun you previously owned ever ends up being used in a crime and it's traced back to you, but there's no guaranty of that. Anyone can make up a bill of sale or transfer document and claim they sold or gave the gun away. It also doesn't tie that firearm to subsequent owners. If I have the guy's signature, description, and address at the time of transfer (based on a driver's license or personal knowledge) the cops will have a good start. There's still a requirement to prove me guilty of the crime. (Unless my name is Bill Cosby and Harry Krause has already found me guilty.) Your paperwork doesn't tie that firearm to subsequent owners either, unless they are very law-abiding. Cars used to be able to be sold with a simple bill of sale. Now you need the title in most states. The title reflects a chain of custody or ownership and proves that the vehicle was obtained legally and not stolen. I don't think there are any references to cars in the Constitution. Now the paperwork for cars is used primarily for taxes and fees. How big a bureaucracy has that created? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill wrote: Harrold wrote: 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. I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still done in the inner city. I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks. I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business. Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business by Bass Pro Shop. I don't have paperwork on any of them. Another good reason for a state by state or national data base. Only if he needs the paperwork. Greg - do you need the paperwork? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:57:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Not having a clue who owns guns isn't going to prevent riots and civil insurrection. === Of course not, but that isn't the point. If the country was in a state of anarchy wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend your home, family and neighbors without fear of prior confiscation? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/16/2014 1:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote: 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. Just for the sake of argument: The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a "militia". As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-) Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away. ...unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be the ultimate purpose of the legislation below? Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly). The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles, car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.” http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf To answer your question, the ultimate purpose of this proposed legislation is to drive people like yourself nuts. :-) In some ways, this proposed legislation sounds similar to the way handguns have been regulated here in Massachusetts since 1998. Every model that a manufacturer wants to sell here must meet certain criteria in terms of safety, as determined by a state testing agency and the whim of the Attorney General. It's why I can't legally buy a Kimber .45 and many other gun models. They don't pass the safety criteria established by the state. This is a component of the argument I've been making John. Eventually legislation like this will be coming to Virgina and other states with lax gun control laws, regardless of how legitimate the regulations are. Look at what just happened in your neighboring state of Maryland. Their new laws aren't too far away from those here in Massachusetts. So, rather than trying to fight the tide, why not give a little? Background checks and a gun registry in exchange for dropping much more restrictive legislation? Everyone can claim victory and relax. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/16/2014 2:12 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:57:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Not having a clue who owns guns isn't going to prevent riots and civil insurrection. === Of course not, but that isn't the point. If the country was in a state of anarchy wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend your home, family and neighbors without fear of prior confiscation? That was my point when I said that background checks and registration wasn't a means to confiscation. It's a means to start limiting the number of guns available "on the street". Won't happen overnight, but it's a start. If the country was in a state of anarchy, all bets are off. I might be able to defend my family and property against an intruder or two but certainly not a marching mob. 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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill wrote: Harrold wrote: 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. I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still done in the inner city. I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks. I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business. Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business by Bass Pro Shop. I don't have paperwork on any of them. Another good reason for a state by state or national data base. Only if he needs the paperwork. Greg - do you need the paperwork? That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:25:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I finally got around it by having the police visit my house, verify the VIN number and take copies of the documentation I had. The DMV accepted it and created a title for it. === At one time, and it may still be true, you could title just about anything in Georgia by showing a bill of sale. You can then transfer the Georgia title to the state of your choice. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:12:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/16/2014 1:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:50:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2014 11:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote: 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. Just for the sake of argument: The "original intent" of the 2A remains a topic of debate. Agreed, the SCOUS recently rendered a ruling in terms of how it should be interpreted but for at least 50 years prior constitutional scholars and legal beagles have felt otherwise. Goes back to what constitutes a "militia". As for all those countries that were over-run ... I really don't think the USA is in any danger in the near future. Even if it was .. what difference would it make? (to quote a famous Secretary of State). :-) Rioting and civil insurrection in this country is a possibility I guess but registration of firearms isn't going to take your guns or mine away. ...unless Bloomberg has his way, or Rep. Robin Kelly....what would be the ultimate purpose of the legislation below? Regulate Guns Like Other Potentially Dangerous Consumer Products (H.R. 2464 -- Rep. Robin Kelly). The Improving Gun Safety Standards Act would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to include firearms in the definition of “consumer product”—thereby permitting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue consumer safety rules for firearms in the same manner as other potentially harmful consumer products like fireworks, bicycles, car safety seats and cribs. Firearms are currently specifically excluded from the statutory definition of “consumer product.” http://robinkelly.house.gov/sites/ro...lyReport_1.pdf To answer your question, the ultimate purpose of this proposed legislation is to drive people like yourself nuts. :-) In some ways, this proposed legislation sounds similar to the way handguns have been regulated here in Massachusetts since 1998. Every model that a manufacturer wants to sell here must meet certain criteria in terms of safety, as determined by a state testing agency and the whim of the Attorney General. It's why I can't legally buy a Kimber .45 and many other gun models. They don't pass the safety criteria established by the state. This is a component of the argument I've been making John. Eventually legislation like this will be coming to Virgina and other states with lax gun control laws, regardless of how legitimate the regulations are. Look at what just happened in your neighboring state of Maryland. Their new laws aren't too far away from those here in Massachusetts. So, rather than trying to fight the tide, why not give a little? Background checks and a gun registry in exchange for dropping much more restrictive legislation? Everyone can claim victory and relax. Go with the liberal flow to please the liberals...in the short term. If and when the anti-gun liberals in Virginia get powerful enough to change the law, then I'll live with it. Doesn't mean I'll agree with it, or think it's the right way to go. You have a lot more faith in that 'give a little' argument than I do. I'd really like to see the testing which showed Kimbers 'unsafe' in your state. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:33:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/16/2014 2:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:17:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/16/2014 1:13 PM, wrote: On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:40:27 -0600, Califbill wrote: Harrold wrote: 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. I can not find a bill of sale for luggage I bought 6 months ago that went bad. How are we to keep track of a bill of sale, even if we had one, for a gun bought 50 years ago? I sold a Ruger RedHawk to a ,friend of a friend in about 1970, and replaced with a Colt that was for sale on a note on the wall of the Martinez gun range same year. Was not required to have FFL transfer, receipt, or even to know someone in those days. You plopped down pictures of dead presidents and took possession. Same way it is still done in the inner city. I doubt I could even come up with the name of the dealers I bought most of my guns from and if you went there it might be a Starbucks. I don't know of a single one of them that is still in business. Even my 2 most recent purchases were from dealers run out of business by Bass Pro Shop. I don't have paperwork on any of them. Another good reason for a state by state or national data base. Only if he needs the paperwork. Greg - do you need the paperwork? That's fine John if all you are interested in is protecting your own ass. I thought that was one of your main arguments for the paperwork - to keep the cops off my ass. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com