Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:33:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


It's been documented many times,

It has been documented that people are breaking the law. CNN even
broke the law on camera but we did not see any prosecutions.


Harry must believe that if a lawbreaker isn't caught, there's a loophole preventing
same.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states)
won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is
usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required.



The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady)


It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to
private sales.

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:17:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I didn't refer to concealed carry, open carry or any carry. I said that
in the states that do not require a permit to *own* a firearm (the
majority), it is not illegal to own one. Period. Conversely, states
that require a permit to own a firearm (like mine) can charge you will
illegal possession if you are caught with one.

===

How many bad guys (felons, druggies, mentally disturbed) have been
caught and prosecuted with that law?

New York has a similar law for hand guns and it has frequently been
used to ensnare the innocent but unwary into a legal morass that they
didn't really deserve.

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states)
won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is
usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required.



The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady)


It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to
private sales.



===

There's no way to enforce private sales other than entrapment tactics.
Those take a lot of man power and are on legally shaky ground - a very
high price for marginal results. That's not how I want my tax money
spent.

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:13:38 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:38:22 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article QMCdnZwV5dFqu5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 10/2/2015 7:36 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article vf4u0bt5443i5mtab23sjn589hflufbta9@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



Now Luddite, do your ****-slinging at Wayne.
Tell him he's uncaring.
You can't, because he's a fellow traveler.

Why would I? Unlike you, Wayne can express his disagreements
as a mature adult minus the insults and snarky responses you
are so prone to.


That's the so-called passion you have for the
innocent victims of gun crime. Wayne doesn't want to
go to all the trouble of getting a permit, because
of "over regulation."
He doesn't give one damn **** about them, because the
poor guy doesn't want to be inconvenienced.
You think he's a "mature adult."
Well, I say he doesn't give a **** about what's going
on. He doesn't want to deal with "government
regulation."

Fellow traveler? WTF are you talking about now?

Well, you just explained it yourself.
Neither of you really care about the victims.
Apparently because you're "mature adults."
Well I do care. I don't travel with you.
I am for federal registration of firearms.
And I want that to be very inconvenient.
You should get used to mass killings, because you
sure won't change anything soft-pedaling gun control.
So just get used to it.
Won't be too long before there's another.



Nobody has explained how permits, licenses or background checks would
have stopped any of the recent shooters from getting their guns. Until
they snapped, they were pretty much squeaky clean.

===

That's because you can't solve social problems with the legal system,
not without creating a total police state anyway.

Trump Seals His Fate
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 11:20 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 10:04 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:34:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/3/15 1:04 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

Everything the government does is expensive.
It would be interesting to see exactly what the Mass budget is for
your permit program and how much is hidden in other budgets.

Bear in mind most states lose money at the DMV in spite of all of the
taxes and fees.



Well, hell, let's do away with the DMV and everything else, and, while
you are at it, pave your own damned roads.

Libertarianism...the idea that we should get rid of government and
replace it with billionaires. It's such a good concept that we can
easily produce a list of countries that have minimal government, free
trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no social safety net and no
public education system. Oh, wait...


That is as simplistic an answer as me saying you would be happier with
a soviet style government.

You certainly do not want to be modeling anything on the DMV solution
to anything.
It is simply taxation and bureaucracy with virtually no benefit.
That is BAOs solution to the "gun problem"



Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of
auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell,
why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be
standards for anything.


In California, you do not even have to be a legal resident to get a drivers
license. Why do we need such a huge empire for such a should be simple
process.



Gee, Bilious, I haven't found it anything other than simple to get or
renew a license or register a car or boat trailer. Why is the process
not simple for you?


Never said was complicated. Said why do we need such a huge empire for a
simple process.

Trump Seals His Fate
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:55:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/3/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:02:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of
auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell,
why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be
standards for anything.

The "licensing" of drivers is a joke. What does proving that you could
parallel park a car when you were 16 have to do with your ability at
80?
Titling of cars gets pretty silly when the car gets old. Boats are
even sillier. I can understand that if you have $200,000 boat, it
might make sense to track ownership somehow.
When it is a 12' jon boat, maybe worth $200 it is just stupid.
The same thing is true of a 10 year old car.

I have said this before and I will repeat it. The whole process should
be handled by the insurance companies who have all of the skin in the
game and the computer systems to handle the processes nation wide.

If insurance companies issued tags and owned them, uninsured motorists
would quickly become a thing of the past. Bad drivers would be
identified and revoked quicker too. You wouldn't have people walking
around with licenses from 2 or 3 states.
The police would still have the same computer access they have now and
the databases would have a better chance of being right.


Please, enough silly libertarianism for one day, eh?


Why don't you debate the points?

Why shouldn't "DMV" functions be managed by insurance companies? They
are the ones with the skin in the game. They pay out the claims for
bad drivers and the claims for stolen cars. What else is there?

They have already demonstrated that they can track these things better
than 51 state governments (including DC)


I'm sure the insurance companies would handle that about as well as they
have handled health care insurance, as in screw over everyone with
exorbitant fees and denial of services.


What is insurance? Sharing of risk. Why should an insurance company issue
insurance to someone when they are sick? Can you get fire insurance for
your house after it burns?

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit
requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one.


If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why
should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal,
ex post facto.
That is yet another constitutional violation.

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states)
won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is
usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required.



The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady)


It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to
private sales.



It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines.
When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought
guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across
state lines they broke another federal law.
The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun
crossed one.
There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't
they doing 30 years?

Trump Seals His Fate
 

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:12:57 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states)
won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is
usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required.



The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady)


It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to
private sales.



===

There's no way to enforce private sales other than entrapment tactics.
Those take a lot of man power and are on legally shaky ground - a very
high price for marginal results. That's not how I want my tax money
spent.

If they are really interested, it is not that hard to pick the low
fruit. You could go after the dealers who do most of their business
with straw purchasers and the people who transport these weapons.
ATF knows what the last legal sale was and when that dealer pops up
too often, they could start there. When you start piling up 5 and 10
year sentences on the table, those dealers will cooperate.