Ping: KC
 

In article ,
says...

On 11/25/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.



True but guns are readily and easily obtainable to
virtually anyone that wants one and for any reason.
Why not make them less easily obtainable unless you
have a demonstrated lack of criminal background?

Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.

The only answer is to make owning a gun an "arduous" process.
And stiff penalties for illegal gun possession.
Those who want them can still get them, but there will be a lot less
guns floating around. Yeah, floating around. Virtually every gun used
in crime started its life with a "legal owner," a Joe Putz or Greg
Fretwell, or Harry Krause.
Even suicides would decrease because that's usually an impulse move.
The only thing stopping it is the gun nuts. They'll lose in the end.
I won't deeply care unless somebody I care about gets shot.
Hasn't happened yet. But I don't have trouble voting for anybody
who want guns severely restricted.
I'll still be able to get one if I want to. Of course I'm sane.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 6:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/25/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.



True but guns are readily and easily obtainable to
virtually anyone that wants one and for any reason.
Why not make them less easily obtainable unless you
have a demonstrated lack of criminal background?

Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.

The only answer is to make owning a gun an "arduous" process.
And stiff penalties for illegal gun possession.
Those who want them can still get them, but there will be a lot less
guns floating around. Yeah, floating around. Virtually every gun used
in crime started its life with a "legal owner," a Joe Putz or Greg
Fretwell, or Harry Krause.
Even suicides would decrease because that's usually an impulse move.
The only thing stopping it is the gun nuts. They'll lose in the end.
I won't deeply care unless somebody I care about gets shot.
Hasn't happened yet. But I don't have trouble voting for anybody
who want guns severely restricted.
I'll still be able to get one if I want to. Of course I'm sane.




Your sanity is your opinion. It won't fly in the opinion of many here
because your ideas "infringe" on their rights.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:14:12 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:43:40 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:41:54 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

You probably didn't have a dedicated armorer whose job it was to
inventory and repair weapons. We had an armorer at the company level.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/05427L000.htm

Yup, still one there.

===

And *that* is a lot of stuff: road graders, cranes, gen sets, a
gazillion radios, etc, etc.

Were weapons listed in there someplace?

Oh, now they call what used to be the mechanized battalion, ENGINEER
COMPANY, ENGINEER BATTALION, HEAVY DIVISION/

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/05337F000.htm

Looks like they don't call them 'Mechanized Infantry' anymore.

===

I was in HQ Company for the 411th Engineering Brigade based out of Ft
Tilden, NY for the 2nd half of my Army Reserve stint. I don't think I
ever saw a weapon the whole time other than the Nike Missile base that
was hidden away in the sand dunes.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 6:04 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:14:59 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:
F*O*A*D
- show quoted text -
"You think and write like you never went to high school."


I agree with this post.

Just like you agree with licking krauses dick on a daily basis.


laughing at Pete and Re-Peat... lol. Not an original thought between the
two of them... They just copied what I wrote, lol.. morons..

Ping: KC
 

In article ,
says...



Your sanity is your opinion. It won't fly in the opinion of many here
because your ideas "infringe" on their rights.

Despite their protestations, nothing in the constitution protects them
from jumping through hoops. So tough ****.

Ping: KC
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/25/2014 6:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/25/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.



True but guns are readily and easily obtainable to
virtually anyone that wants one and for any reason.
Why not make them less easily obtainable unless you
have a demonstrated lack of criminal background?

Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.

The only answer is to make owning a gun an "arduous" process.
And stiff penalties for illegal gun possession.
Those who want them can still get them, but there will be a lot less
guns floating around. Yeah, floating around. Virtually every gun used
in crime started its life with a "legal owner," a Joe Putz or Greg
Fretwell, or Harry Krause.
Even suicides would decrease because that's usually an impulse move.
The only thing stopping it is the gun nuts. They'll lose in the end.
I won't deeply care unless somebody I care about gets shot.
Hasn't happened yet. But I don't have trouble voting for anybody
who want guns severely restricted.
I'll still be able to get one if I want to. Of course I'm sane.




Your sanity is your opinion. It won't fly in the opinion of many here
because your ideas "infringe" on their rights.

What the hell. Maybe Holder and company will supply arms to those who
should not have them. Or there will be importers selling unregistered
weapons of all capabilities. Sort of like drugs. They are illegal, been a
war on drugs for years, and there is plenty available. Price has not kept
up with inflation according to studies, which means via supply and demand
there is more being imported than is required. Look at Mexico. Guns are
heavily controlled. And look at the amount of East Block fully automatic
weapons they are using. Fast and furious and the U.S. Supplying weapons is
a drop in the armory. Maybe a high quality handgun for a leader, but most
are probably AK variants. We have not sold that many full auto weapons to
the public ever.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:17:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 11/25/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.



True but guns are readily and easily obtainable to
virtually anyone that wants one and for any reason.
Why not make them less easily obtainable unless you
have a demonstrated lack of criminal background?

Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.

The only answer is to make owning a gun an "arduous" process.
And stiff penalties for illegal gun possession.
Those who want them can still get them, but there will be a lot less
guns floating around. Yeah, floating around. Virtually every gun used
in crime started its life with a "legal owner," a Joe Putz or Greg
Fretwell, or Harry Krause.
Even suicides would decrease because that's usually an impulse move.
The only thing stopping it is the gun nuts. They'll lose in the end.
I won't deeply care unless somebody I care about gets shot.
Hasn't happened yet. But I don't have trouble voting for anybody
who want guns severely restricted.
I'll still be able to get one if I want to. Of course I'm sane.


I agree. Guns should be taken away from criminals. Make illegal
ownership a violation of the law. Then enforce it.

Start in Flint, then Detroit, then New Orleans, Chicago, etc. Don't
forget Washington, DC. Pass a 'stop and search' law allowing the cops
to stop and search anyone.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:21:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 6:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/25/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:24:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you were a criminal would you rather rob a bank with a gun registered
to you or with one that is completely untraceable?


I doubt it really makes any difference unless you drop the gun.
Maybe you need a better example.

If you want to talk about most gun deaths, (suicide and acquaintance
murder) who owns the gun is not really significant at all. These are
not "who done it" crimes.



True but guns are readily and easily obtainable to
virtually anyone that wants one and for any reason.
Why not make them less easily obtainable unless you
have a demonstrated lack of criminal background?

Background checks and gun registration won't cure
all gun violence. Never said they would. They may
help contribute to less gun violence someday however
without taking away anybody's right to own firearms.

The only answer is to make owning a gun an "arduous" process.
And stiff penalties for illegal gun possession.
Those who want them can still get them, but there will be a lot less
guns floating around. Yeah, floating around. Virtually every gun used
in crime started its life with a "legal owner," a Joe Putz or Greg
Fretwell, or Harry Krause.
Even suicides would decrease because that's usually an impulse move.
The only thing stopping it is the gun nuts. They'll lose in the end.
I won't deeply care unless somebody I care about gets shot.
Hasn't happened yet. But I don't have trouble voting for anybody
who want guns severely restricted.
I'll still be able to get one if I want to. Of course I'm sane.




Your sanity is your opinion. It won't fly in the opinion of many here
because your ideas "infringe" on their rights.


Good point.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:56:35 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...



Your sanity is your opinion. It won't fly in the opinion of many here
because your ideas "infringe" on their rights.

Despite their protestations, nothing in the constitution protects them
from jumping through hoops. So tough ****.

Jumping through hoops is an infringement - just think 'voter ID'.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:56:50 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:56:35 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...



Your sanity is your opinion. It won't fly in the opinion of many here
because your ideas "infringe" on their rights.

Despite their protestations, nothing in the constitution protects them
from jumping through hoops. So tough ****.

Funny, but if we are talking about voting, simply showing an ID is
voter suppression.

There we go again. Oughta read everything first.