Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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


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

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



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


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

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

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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/16/14 10:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:21:39 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/16/14 8:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

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

===

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



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

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



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Been there. Several times. Red Dawn for one.

Wayne will butter his butt and tell the government troops he's a biscuit.

===

You certainly are clamoring for attention aren't you weenie boy.

We're you neglected as a child?


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

--
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 Sunday, November 16, 2014 6:21:42 PM UTC-8, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/16/14 8:16 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

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

===

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



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

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



===

At the very least I would join a resistance movement and do what I
could. If they came for me personally, I'd go down fighting. Who
would do less? A French surrender batallion? City folk from a weenie
state?



Might make a good movie.

Been there. Several times. Red Dawn for one.

Wayne will butter his butt and tell the government troops he's a biscuit.

--


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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:28:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

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

===

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



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

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


Not let 'em know what guns I own.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 16:57:01 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/16/14 4:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:31:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

===

You probably have more guns than any of us.


I wouldn't know, but it's not the number of firearms one owns that makes
one a gunnutzi, it's the objection to licensing owners and creating a
paper trail for every firearm. I am strongly in favor of both, along
with mandatory training before getting aforementioned license.

My firearms collection is fairly small by any "collector's" standard.

Bull****, Harry, it's the failure to suck up to Luddite, which you are
working at strenuously.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:19:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

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

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



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

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

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

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







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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Just not into that culture.

The feds don't know everything about my guns.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/14 8:16 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 16:57:01 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/16/14 4:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:31:45 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Aside from the societal good that will come of what you propose, the
best thing about it is that it drives gun nutzies like herring, bar,
w'hine and greg...nuttier. :)

===

You probably have more guns than any of us.


I wouldn't know, but it's not the number of firearms one owns that makes
one a gunnutzi, it's the objection to licensing owners and creating a
paper trail for every firearm. I am strongly in favor of both, along
with mandatory training before getting aforementioned license.

My firearms collection is fairly small by any "collector's" standard.

Bull****, Harry, it's the failure to suck up to Luddite, which you are
working at strenuously.

I've always favored licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms.

As a former army officer, you'd be the expert in suck up. I can't think
of a job that requires more suck up than being an officer in the military.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/17/14 8:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:19:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

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

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



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

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

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

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







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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Just not into that culture.

The feds don't know everything about my guns.

Old farts like you with spinal problems, blindness and mental
feebleness aren't on the watch list, eh?

--
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 Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:23:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

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

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

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

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



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

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

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

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






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

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


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

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

But, you have the right to your opinions.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:26:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 4:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:57:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2014 3:35 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/16/2014 2:33 PM, 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.




My ass is pretty valuable to me. What's wrong with trying to protect it?
;-)

Damn! Communication is difficult sometimes. I am not talking about
having a gun to protect your ass. I agree with that.

I am talking about the chain of custody and the responsibilities of gun
ownership. John is satisfied with typing up a bill of sale that he
figures will keep *him* off the hook should one of his transferred guns
ever be linked to a homicide or a gun crime in the future. Protects his
ass from any potential liability in his mind.

I am suggesting that gun ownership has a further responsibility. It
includes taking whatever steps necessary to avoid having one of the guns
you owned falling into the wrong hands in the first place. A background
check requirement on *all* transfers and a transfer record to a state or
federal data base by the seller or transferee for each and every
transfer of ownership will help in that direction.

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

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


I won't feel responsible for what any owner after the one I transfer
to does with the firearm.


Some don't care who the first person is.

True, but I don't get that feeling from anyone here. I believe we
would all exercise what we considered 'due diligence' when
transferring a firearm.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

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

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

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

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



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

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

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

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







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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Just not into that culture.

The feds don't know everything about my guns.



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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

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

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

===

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



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

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



Not let 'em know what guns I own.



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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

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

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

===

Reasonable gun control is a tight group. :-)

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

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



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

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

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

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






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

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


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

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

But, you have the right to your opinions.


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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

===

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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

===

I suspect that Pelosi's is bigger.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

Pelosi has a bigger dick than Harry.



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

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

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

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


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

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



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


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


Why would I want to attract police attention to myself?

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

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


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


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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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


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


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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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

Whatever...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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


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


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


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

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Need to start somewhere, don't we?

===

No.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:33:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

===

That is only because the population centers in the high density north
east and far west overwhelm the numbers in the rest of the country,
the part of the country where reason still prevails I might add.

The founding fathers of this great country envisioned this population
imbalance issue, and that is why the senate is structured the way it
is - to give low population states a voice than can not be trampled.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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

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


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

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



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


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


Why would I want to attract police attention to myself?

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

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


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


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



The question is not where or when to start...but where or when will it
end?

You seem to think all liberals are stand-up, keep their word type guys
- like you.

Remember, Krause is one of them.