On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:45:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Since it has virtually no affect
on responsible gun ownership, why not?

That is typical northeastern thinking.
People out west are not interested in driving a hundred miles with
their neighbor to an FFL just so he can sell him his shotgun.

We are trying to impose a failed solution to urban crime on people who
do not have that crime problem.
We might as well install parking meters in the Everglades to fix
parking problems in downtown Boston.

On 1/5/2016 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:54:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Understood. Just pointing out that Harry is absolutely correct in
stating that there are many ways of acquiring a gun without any kind
of background check. That's just not right, IMO.

Yeah, the easiest way is to just steal it.


And if the owner allows it to be easily stolen by not taking reasonable
precautions to prevent the theft, he or she should share in a degree of
liability if the stolen gun is used in a crime.

Not talking about being "held up" or otherwise having the gun taken
beyond reasonable control. I am talking about leaving it laying around,
unsecured and having it swiped. That is not responsible ownership.

Gun ownership is a right. The 2nd has been interpreted to mean that.
But a "right" is not devoid of responsibility.

On 1/5/2016 4:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:45:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Since it has virtually no affect
on responsible gun ownership, why not?

That is typical northeastern thinking.
People out west are not interested in driving a hundred miles with
their neighbor to an FFL just so he can sell him his shotgun.

We are trying to impose a failed solution to urban crime on people who
do not have that crime problem.
We might as well install parking meters in the Everglades to fix
parking problems in downtown Boston.


If 90 percent of the US population favor universal background checks
for gun purchases, it's certainly not restricted to "northeastern
thinking". I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.

On 1/5/2016 5:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/5/2016 4:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:45:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Since it has virtually no affect
on responsible gun ownership, why not?

That is typical northeastern thinking.
People out west are not interested in driving a hundred miles with
their neighbor to an FFL just so he can sell him his shotgun.

We are trying to impose a failed solution to urban crime on people who
do not have that crime problem.
We might as well install parking meters in the Everglades to fix
parking problems in downtown Boston.


If 90 percent of the US population favor universal background checks
for gun purchases, it's certainly not restricted to "northeastern
thinking". I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.


The king rules, for the time being.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

GCA 68 forbids purchase out of state and all of these purchases were
outside of Georgia where the CNN people live. (private or FFL sale)
Taking those illegally purchased guns across a state line is another
felony, each time.
I posted the statute numbers the last time we had this discussion.


My understanding of his executive action is that *all* transactions
will require a background check, FFL dealer or casual seller.

So much for your other note about a rare casual sale.

As for the state laws, yes, I think I recall it mentioned that the
seller was supposed to verify the buyer's address to make sure he
was not from out of state. Only one of the sellers did so, IIRC.

Most states mirror the federal law. Yours actually goes far beyond but
you know that

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:59:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:54:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Understood. Just pointing out that Harry is absolutely correct in
stating that there are many ways of acquiring a gun without any kind
of background check. That's just not right, IMO.

Yeah, the easiest way is to just steal it.


And if the owner allows it to be easily stolen by not taking reasonable
precautions to prevent the theft, he or she should share in a degree of
liability if the stolen gun is used in a crime.

Not talking about being "held up" or otherwise having the gun taken
beyond reasonable control. I am talking about leaving it laying around,
unsecured and having it swiped. That is not responsible ownership.

Gun ownership is a right. The 2nd has been interpreted to mean that.
But a "right" is not devoid of responsibility.

Now we are blaming the victim. Even the states with "gun protection"
laws usually include a trigger lock in the prescribed protections.
That as nothing to do with theft protection or even much more than a
casual use. I was able to defeat the trigger lock that came with the
last pistol I bought in a few minutes ... non-destructively, using
stuff you would find in most people's desk drawer.
Even if you have one of those $400 safes, a guy with an angle grinder
will be in it in a few minutes. They are usually 16 gauge steel.
It all depends on how valuable the collection is doesn't it?

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:

We are trying to impose a failed solution to urban crime on people who
do not have that crime problem.
We might as well install parking meters in the Everglades to fix
parking problems in downtown Boston.

Good analogy!

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:59:54 PM UTC-6, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Gun ownership is a right. The 2nd has been interpreted to mean that.
But a "right" is not devoid of responsibility.

Absolutely correct!

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 4:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:45:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Since it has virtually no affect
on responsible gun ownership, why not?

That is typical northeastern thinking.
People out west are not interested in driving a hundred miles with
their neighbor to an FFL just so he can sell him his shotgun.

We are trying to impose a failed solution to urban crime on people who
do not have that crime problem.
We might as well install parking meters in the Everglades to fix
parking problems in downtown Boston.


If 90 percent of the US population favor universal background checks
for gun purchases, it's certainly not restricted to "northeastern
thinking". I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.

When you are making up statistics, you can say pretty much anything
can't you. It was less than 40% tonight when our TV station did a poll
and the snowbirds are here so it is not just "Florida rednecks"


BTW who ever said "majority rules"?

Are you ready to take a vote on school busing or gay marriage?

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:49:03 PM UTC-6, Sing Free wrote:
'John H.[_5_ Wrote:
;1052329']On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 8:49:25 AM UTC-5, amdx wrote:-
My wife ask me to buy her a Sig Sauer P238 Nitron.
I'm looking over websites and found Top Gun Supply.
Has anyone purchased from TOP GUN?
What paperwork is involved for an internet purchase?
We have Florida CC permits.

Mikek-

Forgot to mention... I bought this one for my wife. She loves it.

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...8-equinox.aspx
I bought my wife a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm and she loves hers
also.




--
Sing Free

Those are a nice pistol. My nephew has one which I've fired several times. I like it with the exception of one feature, in that it's hammerless. Im too old school. LOL. Otherwise....