On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.






We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week.

On 6/21/15 7:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving
the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.

But that might restrict the ability of those who shouldn't have
firearms...this is 'Merica, buddy, and 2nd Amendment and the NRA,
dontcha know?

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 7:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving
the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.

But that might restrict the ability of those who shouldn't have
firearms...this is 'Merica, buddy, and 2nd Amendment and the NRA, dontcha know?

How do you pass a background check? Two bankruptcies, tax liens.

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.

In article , says...

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:

It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.

Sure, that's all true. But the real solution to gun deaths is
dissolving the "romance of the gun."
It's a simple killing instrument, and repellent to lovers of life.
You've fallen in love with it, as have other here.
And you're obviously part of the "gun culture."

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:22:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article , says...

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:

It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.

Sure, that's all true. But the real solution to gun deaths is
dissolving the "romance of the gun."
It's a simple killing instrument, and repellent to lovers of life.
You've fallen in love with it, as have other here.
And you're obviously part of the "gun culture."


Who? Krause? If what you say is true, he'd be a hypocrite.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step.

And that would accomplish what? We would still have nutcase people.

On 6/21/2015 10:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving
the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.


I agree. It's really not a big deal and it certainly doesn't inhibit me
from buying a gun. In fact, because a background check is required
for the permit in the first place, there is no waiting period afterward
when you want to purchase on. I can go to the gun shop, pick out a
handgun, pay for it and take it home the same day.

Of course if you are of the mindset that the purpose of registering a
firearm to an owner is to create a database so the government knows
who to confiscate them from someday, there's really no sense in having
this discussion.

The only complaint I have about the gun laws in MA is the previously
mentioned "approved" list and the stupid way the AG's office and the
state testing labs conflict. But, that's a different issue.

On 6/21/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.


Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.




Right, because we can't do anything about anything. Your answer to
virtually every significant issue. Insane libertarianism.