On 11/14/2014 9:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Like you just calling him an "idiot" for posting his beliefs?



Troll away dick... Those weren't his feelings, it was a wide brush troll...

On 11/14/14 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 9:35 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:03:06 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

"I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the
need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe
they should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent private
sales."

This is exactly the import of the referendum Washington voters just
passed by 60%+. Our legislature is too weak to take it up so the
citizens have done it for themselves.

You would not believe the apoplexy demonstrated by gun owners here.
You'd have thought they were being castrated while their kids were
deep fat fried by "liberals."

Common sense laws covering the sale of weapons needs to happen in
this
country, otherwise there's no chance of holding idiots, assholes and
scumbags responsible for those same guns leaking into the hands of
criminals.

Background checks on every gun sale will help stem the flow of legal
weapons into criminal hands. It's not a panacea, just a step along
the way to a safer citizenry.

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

Political scientists working on behalf of parties have found ways to
neatly divide us by issue. And we're suckers for allowing ourselves
to be manipulated so expertly.

Most of the American electorate sit somewhere in the middle and have
the ability to see both sides of an issue, but the language that's
proffered by the extremes is what gets adopted in the debate.

I'm as guilty as any but I also know I sit significantly closer to the
middle than what's estimated by most of the "righties" here.

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control. The paranoia about being on a "list" is
ridiculous. The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

Therein lies your problem and Luddite's problem, both of you believe
that your views of common sense gun control is "the" solution and "the"
only solution that makes sense.



Exactly, and like most liberals they think if you don't agree with them
lock step, cause of course they are much smarter than us, that we are
just stupid... Once that happens, the bully comes out cause when you are
so wrong about something, brute force is the only way to get the rest of
us to comply...


Holy Crap! LOL!

Yup. Looney Bin.



Hey, you're the one "debating" with a psychotic!

Last week, PsychoScotty implied he'd have to get a pardon before he
could buy a regulated firearm. Better be careful up there...you're
within range of a moped tank full of gasoline.

--
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.

On 11/14/14 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:15:26 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:21:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:15:08 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:33:21 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:47:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. A rogue government can only do away
with the constitution if they have buy in from the military.

In that case, it doesn't matter how many guns you own. They have
bigger.

How many times has the US military lost a war to guys in sandals with
AK47s in the last half century? I think it was every ****ing time.
They always had bigger guns.

The guys in sandals are organized. You'd be cowering in your media
room like all your neighbors, their wives and kids. This is America,
Greg, not Afghanistan.

We taught them and the Viet Cong most of what they know.
The real difference is they are fighting for their own freedom and you
can't underestimate that.

I really do not believe this really means anything here because we are
not going to ever get that far and the people in the army are, as a
rule, the guns, guts and god folks who the left disdains.

If there was a revolution, it would be more of a military coup than
Washington sending the army against the hinterlands.
The people who like oppressive government regulation, generally dodge
the draft and would not even consider enlisting..

Right, and you'd organize yourselves into a fighting machine by
connecting via Twitter?

Command and control? Hierarchy? Leadership? Fantasies.

You'd be on your own with a few neighbors. It'd be sad if your wife
had to watch you succumb to your country's own military.

That reading thing is not your bag I guess.
Non responsive answer Harry



A more responsive answer might require taking you gunnutzies seriously.



--
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.

Bertram spews....
"Seat belts just moved dead bodies from the morgue to barely living
bodies in the intensive care units. The cost to everyone has gone up
since the seat belt laws came into effect. "

You're quite a piece of work, Bertie.
If that's the case maybe crash victims who would have gone to intensive care without seatbelts now get to resume normal life after a short hospital stay.
That is...In all categories seat belts lessen the severity of injuries.

On 11/14/2014 10:16 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/14/14 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 9:35 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:03:06 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

"I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the
need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe
they should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent
private
sales."

This is exactly the import of the referendum Washington voters just
passed by 60%+. Our legislature is too weak to take it up so the
citizens have done it for themselves.

You would not believe the apoplexy demonstrated by gun owners here.
You'd have thought they were being castrated while their kids were
deep fat fried by "liberals."

Common sense laws covering the sale of weapons needs to happen in
this
country, otherwise there's no chance of holding idiots, assholes and
scumbags responsible for those same guns leaking into the hands of
criminals.

Background checks on every gun sale will help stem the flow of legal
weapons into criminal hands. It's not a panacea, just a step along
the way to a safer citizenry.

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some
comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

Political scientists working on behalf of parties have found ways to
neatly divide us by issue. And we're suckers for allowing ourselves
to be manipulated so expertly.

Most of the American electorate sit somewhere in the middle and have
the ability to see both sides of an issue, but the language that's
proffered by the extremes is what gets adopted in the debate.

I'm as guilty as any but I also know I sit significantly closer to the
middle than what's estimated by most of the "righties" here.

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control. The paranoia about being on a "list" is
ridiculous. The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

Therein lies your problem and Luddite's problem, both of you believe
that your views of common sense gun control is "the" solution and "the"
only solution that makes sense.



Exactly, and like most liberals they think if you don't agree with them
lock step, cause of course they are much smarter than us, that we are
just stupid... Once that happens, the bully comes out cause when you are
so wrong about something, brute force is the only way to get the rest of
us to comply...


Holy Crap! LOL!

Yup. Looney Bin.



Hey, you're the one "debating" with a psychotic!

Last week, PsychoScotty implied he'd have to get a pardon before he
could buy a regulated firearm. Better be careful up there...you're
within range of a moped tank full of gasoline.


Terrifying.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:26:46 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
It really doesn't matter. Regardless of what you think, the CNN
documentary underscored an important issue, that being how easily a
Bushmaster semi-automatic, two Glock 17's and a S&W .45 could be
purchased over a weekend with absolutely no traceability of the
transaction and no record of custody of where those guns may ultimately
end up.

If those guns could be tied to crimes, guess who would have to answer to
those crimes? Laws or no laws, it behooves one to establish a chain of
custody for his own protection.

A chain of custody can easily be established with transfer documents
that require no increase in the federal bureaucracy.

jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control

Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense.
These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new
bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything.

Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA
and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh?

Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages
of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored.
Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not
help much for the people who refuse to wear it.

Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and
other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3.

Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly?

How about when you have two government agencies with regulations
diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance.

Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example?

Actual. Lots of cases. Like the EPA saying the farmer can not disk his
fends line because it is a wetland, and if he does, they will fine him a
$100k, while the fire dept says they will fine him if he does not disk.
Lots of contrary regulations. Some even from the same entity. And while
you reduce gun deaths by 1/3, where does that 1/3 come from? Armed
criminals, who ignore the law anyway. Or suicide, who just use a different
method?

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.

That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

--
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.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:20:12 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:27:32 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:18:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:05:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

===

What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the government is
abrogating the constitution slowly, inches at a time, and always with
seemingly good intentions.

Or political intentions. How about Congress being too ****ing scared
to debate and declare war against ISIS? They were more interested in
golf and cavorting with their wealthy donors. Hmmm, where have I
heard that complaint before?

Declare war against ISIS?
How will you know when you won?
We "won" in Iraq and we hanged the bad guy. How did that work out for
you?

Ha, funny that you've flip flopped and now consider Iraq an abject
failure, eh?

We broke it, we bought it. ISIS is an organized army without a
country's flag. Doesn't mean that we cannot target them and demolish
their capabilities.

Amazing that you can sitch sides as if it were your idea all along.

ISIS is simply a bunch of unruly thugs.

Don't you subscribe to Boating All Out?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:59:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:03:06 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

"I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe
they should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent private
sales."

This is exactly the import of the referendum Washington voters just
passed by 60%+. Our legislature is too weak to take it up so the
citizens have done it for themselves.

You would not believe the apoplexy demonstrated by gun owners here.
You'd have thought they were being castrated while their kids were
deep fat fried by "liberals."

Common sense laws covering the sale of weapons needs to happen in this
country, otherwise there's no chance of holding idiots, assholes and
scumbags responsible for those same guns leaking into the hands of
criminals.

Background checks on every gun sale will help stem the flow of legal
weapons into criminal hands. It's not a panacea, just a step along
the way to a safer citizenry.

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

Political scientists working on behalf of parties have found ways to
neatly divide us by issue. And we're suckers for allowing ourselves
to be manipulated so expertly.

Most of the American electorate sit somewhere in the middle and have
the ability to see both sides of an issue, but the language that's
proffered by the extremes is what gets adopted in the debate.

I'm as guilty as any but I also know I sit significantly closer to the
middle than what's estimated by most of the "righties" here.

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control. The paranoia about being on a "list" is
ridiculous. The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

Therein lies your problem and Luddite's problem, both of you believe
that your views of common sense gun control is "the" solution and "the"
only solution that makes sense.




Criticizing a solution means you acknowledge a problem.
What's your solution?



http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf