On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:41:20 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Or, will John's guns end up in the millions of readily
available guns with no record of where they came from?

Until (if) that gun is used to commit a crime, why does it matter? And when (if) it is used to commit a crime, then the person using it is the one that deserves punishment.

If all it's ever used for is to shoot paper targets and squirrels, it's none of their business.

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 12:20:36 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 5:02:40 AM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/16 3:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:45:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:35:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



So what? It still demonstrated how easy one with a hair across his
ass
can buy a gun. Or two. Or three.


The point is, if someone was willing to break an existing federal law,
why wouldn't they break a new federal law?


Because a chain of custody that automatically exists because of the
background check allows a trace as to where that gun came from, who
owned it, who sold it, when and to whom.


That assumes we know where all of the guns are now.


Where and when do you start to address a problem? You seem to want an
overnight solution otherwise "nothing can be done".

Part of that process is already in place. If you purchase a firearm from
a federally licensed dealer a quick background check is done and
a record of the transaction is kept. Nobody seems to be complaining
much about that. If that process prevents even a few people from
getting a firearm (which it *has*) who should not be sold one (felon,
etc.) why not extend the same requirement to private sales or to the
"grey" area of quasi-dealer (gun show) deals? I've seen statistics that
suggest that about 40 percent of gun acquisitions are done without a FFL
being involved therefore no background check is conducted and no records
of the transaction are kept.

Will it stop all illegal gun transfers? Of course not.
Will it stop all gun related crime? Absolutely not.
But, it's an honest attempt at addressing a problem without
sighing and simply accepting that "nothing can be done".
Furthermore, it does not "impinge" on anyone's right to bear arms.

I'd like to point something else out from a personal point of view.
Although politically I have always been an Independent, my fundamental
leanings have almost always been towards conservatism as represented
by the GOP of years ago. I don't subscribe to everything the GOP has
stood for or promoted in the past but fundamentally I am conservative by
nature. The discussions and some of the comments made by some
participants of this newsgroup has enlightened me to something however.

On 1/7/2016 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:41:20 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Or, will John's guns end up in the millions of readily
available guns with no record of where they came from?

Until (if) that gun is used to commit a crime, why does it matter? And when (if) it is used to commit a crime, then the person using it is the one that deserves punishment.

If all it's ever used for is to shoot paper targets and squirrels, it's none of their business.



I see a gun as having a connotation to it that other potential weapons
don't have. A knife, a bow and arrow or club doesn't have the same
reputation that a gun has. Doesn't mean they are used exclusively for
killing but basically, that's what they are for, be it a squirrel or a
person. For that reason I feel they should have more attention paid to
who can buy or acquire one.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15
and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not
being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives.

You replaced it with a mini14 so there was no significant change.

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 5:25:19 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/7/2016 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:41:20 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Or, will John's guns end up in the millions of readily
available guns with no record of where they came from?

Until (if) that gun is used to commit a crime, why does it matter? And when (if) it is used to commit a crime, then the person using it is the one that deserves punishment.

If all it's ever used for is to shoot paper targets and squirrels, it's none of their business.



I see a gun as having a connotation to it that other potential weapons
don't have. A knife, a bow and arrow or club doesn't have the same
reputation that a gun has. Doesn't mean they are used exclusively for
killing but basically, that's what they are for, be it a squirrel or a
person. For that reason I feel they should have more attention paid to
who can buy or acquire one.

That's in your mind. One of my friends was a Marine sniper. He doesn't own a gun now. Has knives hidden in every room of the house. You don't want to break in to his house.

A bow and arrow is nothing but a killing machine. It's just not glorified by our media like guns are. Except for Walking Dead. That crossbow is just nasty!

On 1/7/16 5:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15
and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not
being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives.

You replaced it with a mini14 so there was no significant change.


Which has nothing to do with my point. I wouldn't have been upset if I
had not able to buy a Mini-14. That is the point. I wouldn't mind if the
purchase of all semi-auto rifles above .22LR and handguns was made
illegal, and if those out there could be turned in in some reasonable way.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/7/2016 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:41:20 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Or, will John's guns end up in the millions of readily
available guns with no record of where they came from?

Until (if) that gun is used to commit a crime, why does it matter? And
when (if) it is used to commit a crime, then the person using it is the
one that deserves punishment.

If all it's ever used for is to shoot paper targets and squirrels, it's
none of their business.



I see a gun as having a connotation to it that other potential weapons
don't have. A knife, a bow and arrow or club doesn't have the same
reputation that a gun has. Doesn't mean they are used exclusively for
killing but basically, that's what they are for, be it a squirrel or a
person. For that reason I feel they should have more attention paid to
who can buy or acquire one.


The rulers have always tried to have arms control laws. Hitler even
bragged his was the first truly disarmed country. Go back to the Middle
Ages. Crossbows were banned from the peons. Because a crossbow bolt could
penetrate armor. Old England required the lords and barons, etc. to be
able to supply armed men to the king. Did not require the man to be armed
when not being conscripted.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:43:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/7/16 5:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15
and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not
being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives.

You replaced it with a mini14 so there was no significant change.


Which has nothing to do with my point. I wouldn't have been upset if I
had not able to buy a Mini-14. That is the point. I wouldn't mind if the
purchase of all semi-auto rifles above .22LR and handguns was made
illegal, and if those out there could be turned in in some reasonable way.

You do seem to be acknowledging that it wasn't going to "help save
lives" tho or you wouldn't own it.
At least BAO seems to be true to his convictions.

On 1/7/16 7:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:43:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/7/16 5:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15
and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not
being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives.

You replaced it with a mini14 so there was no significant change.


Which has nothing to do with my point. I wouldn't have been upset if I
had not able to buy a Mini-14. That is the point. I wouldn't mind if the
purchase of all semi-auto rifles above .22LR and handguns was made
illegal, and if those out there could be turned in in some reasonable way.

You do seem to be acknowledging that it wasn't going to "help save
lives" tho or you wouldn't own it.
At least BAO seems to be true to his convictions.


Not relevant.
You realize of course I have gone through the federal background check
for all my firearms and in addition the state police background check
and waiting period for my handguns.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:51:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/7/16 7:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:43:04 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/7/16 5:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15
and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not
being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives.

You replaced it with a mini14 so there was no significant change.


Which has nothing to do with my point. I wouldn't have been upset if I
had not able to buy a Mini-14. That is the point. I wouldn't mind if the
purchase of all semi-auto rifles above .22LR and handguns was made
illegal, and if those out there could be turned in in some reasonable way.

You do seem to be acknowledging that it wasn't going to "help save
lives" tho or you wouldn't own it.
At least BAO seems to be true to his convictions.


Not relevant.
You realize of course I have gone through the federal background check
for all my firearms and in addition the state police background check
and waiting period for my handguns.

So did most of the mass shooters, what's your point?