Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:22:46 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:27:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:26:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



No problem as long as the gun had been reported as stolen (or lost) in a
timely manner, as prescribed by law. Quite sure that law exists already
in most states.

That is true and I would even promote increasing the penalties for
possessing a stolen gun. In most places it will just be "property" and
one of the charges that gets traded away or simply absorbed in a
concurrent sentence.
You still might have the issue that people don't know their gun is
missing for quite a while. If this is a daily carry gun or something
you have hanging on the wall, it will be apparent right away but most
people are required by law to have their guns locked away.
I have one gun safe that I may not open more than once or twice a year
and it is far out of sight.



I would argue that as a responsible gun owner it is your duty to know
where your guns are at all times.

"Gee, I know I had a 1911 .45 around here someplace. Wonder were it went?"


Some of us do not take our guns out and caress them every day like
Harry.

I am in a state that requires that my guns be locked up and I do not
have any reason to actually get them out unless I am planning on going
someplace to shoot.
That might only be once a year with something like my skeet gun and I
haven't actually fired my .44 in 30 years.

What part of "I have one gun safe that I may not open more than once
or twice a year and it is far out of sight" is so hard for you to
grasp?

That's what I was wondering. In the Army, the guns in the arms room
are inventoried by serial number daily. I have to admit I don't open
my safe daily to inventory my weapons.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:38:52 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

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.

I heard on the radio yesterday, that something like 42% of suicides are
male with prostrate and testicular cancer mostly. But are Cancer victims.

Just read Grisham's recent book, "Sycamore Row". I won't give away the
ending, but it's not for someone who's suffering from lung cancer.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 3:16 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/25/2014 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:23:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.


You are certainly talking about "taking away anybody's right to own
firearms". Then the question becomes "who gets to decide"?



Well, luddite already decided I shouldn't have one long ago.. Like most
libs, "good for me, not you"...


I think I said that if some of your comments made in this newsgroup were
reviewed by a permitting agency or by your local police department,
you'd have a problem being approved.

Hot heads who think everyone's out to get them shouldn't have guns.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:22:16 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:16:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

That's what I was wondering. In the Army, the guns in the arms room
are inventoried by serial number daily. I have to admit I don't open
my safe daily to inventory my weapons.

We were not that tight on the ship. We did a count once a week when we
were doing magazine temperatures. I am not sure they ever did a serial
number verification. I know they were logged in but I doubt anyone was
actually worrying about the serial numbers of the ones on the rack as
long as the count was right.

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.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:22:46 -0500, wrote:

I am in a state that requires that my guns be locked up

===

That raises the interesting question of how you are supposed to store
a home defense gun.

I think it's yet another "feel good" law.

Ping: KC
 

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?

Ping: KC
 

On 11/25/2014 4:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:22:46 -0500, wrote:

I am in a state that requires that my guns be locked up

===

That raises the interesting question of how you are supposed to store
a home defense gun.

I think it's yet another "feel good" law.



In a safe when not under your direct control.

My handguns are all in a safe during the day unless I am using or
cleaning them.

At night, one of them is on a side table, within easy reach from my bed.

Ping: KC
 

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?

Yup. Pistols, rifles, machine guns. Lotta **** in a Combat Engineer
Company. That was a wheeled battalion. A mechanized company also has
APC's and lots more machine guns. Don't know if the mech company still
has the Combat Engineer Vehicle.

01 P98152 A PISTOL 9MM AUTO M9 2
01 R97175 A RIFLE 5.56MM M164A2E4
I103AA 2 109
02 L91975 A MG CAL.50 HB FLEX 2
3 3 3 0 0
02 M74823 A MT MACH GUN MK64 MOD9
I016AB 2 3 3 3 0 0

02 M92362 A MACH GUN GREN 40MM
I016AA 2 3 3 3 0 0
02 M92841 A MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B
I101AA 2

Ping: KC
 

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.

Ping: KC
 

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.

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.

Ping: KC
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:27:42 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

Didn't you guys have to qualify or familiarize annually?

Having worked with Army Reserve units, I would easily believe what you
said. Sometime I'll tell you about the Reserve Diving Detachment I had
'grounded' in San Diego.

Ping: KC
 

In article ,
says...

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.

The Supreme Court has ruled requiring voter ID is constitutional.
Way back. And it's fine with me.
Voter suppression is addressed by the DOJ.
IOW, you don't have a constitutional argument against being required to
jump through hoops to own a gun.

Ping: KC
 

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.


Of course you do. You have to.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/26/2014 7:51 PM, Roger wrote:
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.


Of course you do. You have to.

He couldn't repeat it, some of the words were too long :)