On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?


--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.

On 6/22/2015 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.

How about one, not a bunch?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:48:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.


===

A nut case set on wreaking havoc can always find a way.

On 6/22/15 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever
ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.




Not to worry: after the next gun massacre, we can all pray to jesus for
solace instead of doing something about our easy access to firearms and
our racism. Works for some.

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:06:07 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/22/15 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever
ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.




Not to worry: after the next gun massacre, we can all pray to jesus for
solace instead of doing something about our easy access to firearms and
our racism. Works for some.

Works for millions. BTW you have had easy access to firearms. If became 'illegal' would you surrender them?

On 6/22/15 8:25 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:06:07 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/22/15 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever
ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.




Not to worry: after the next gun massacre, we can all pray to jesus for
solace instead of doing something about our easy access to firearms and
our racism. Works for some.

Works for millions. BTW you have had easy access to firearms. If became 'illegal' would you surrender them?



Of course. I don't *need* firearms...they're just a hobby, like playing
golf, flying model airplanes, RV'ing, or pretending there's a god.

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:59:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:48:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.


You have lowered the bar to "a single life".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School...010%E2%80%9312)

Knives and cleavers were the weapons of choice.
Cain killed Able with a rock.