On 1/5/2016 10:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:10:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, said the changes were
"all about burnishing the president’s legacy and boosting Democrat enthusiasm in a
presidential election year."

I totally agree.

===

I call it political theater.


Most controversial issue are. It's how politics works and how
support for issues is gained. Some politicians do it better than others.

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
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.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

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.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:40:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.

You must have missed my follow up note. The real number is 36% of the
murders do not even make it to an arrest much less recovering the
weapon so they do not have a clue where the gun came from even if they
are all registered and the owner was the shooter.
That statistic is even worse when you consider around a third of
murders are domestic/acquaintance killings where the murderer is still
there when the cops get there so they are saying they only catch about
a third of "stranger danger" killers and gang hitters. Those guns are
in the wind. Your registration went in the river with the gun.

Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.

So you really don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.
You believe what CNN tells you to believe and you refuse to actually
look at the facts


What "facts?" Nothing relevent to this discussion.
No, I just dismissed it.

On 1/6/2016 1:16 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:11:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 7:35 PM, wrote:
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?


Maybe you missed "unsecured" in my comment (above). If a gun owner has
taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft or unauthorized use he/she
shouldn't be held responsible for what it may be used for if stolen. I
was referring to those who *don't* take reasonable precautions. That is
what those laws are designed for. The fact that you happen to be an
expert in cracking safes or defeating locks is not the point.


If you are talking about thieves, it is what they do for a living.


If your car is stolen because you left the keys in the ignition will
your insurance company pay off on the loss?

In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."

In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.

On 1/6/2016 2:25 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."


I am a gun owner but I don't consider myself a gun nut.

I never owned a firearm when we had kids living with us. Didn't buy my
first gun until 2009 and did so only at the recommendation of
a lawyer friend because I owned and ran a guitar shop and often had
large sums of cash on me. I also had been thinking about getting
a permit and gun simply because my wife and I are now older and not
quite as physically capable as we were years ago in terms of defending
ourselves. So, basically the guns serve as a potential (but unlikely)
home invasion defense. Most of the time they sit in a safe that
I can guarantee even Greg couldn't "crack" unless he used dynamite. :-)

On 1/6/2016 2:48 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.



Probably and if and when they occur (that really have nothing to do
with background checks and gun purchase loopholes in the laws) there
will eventually be an emotional over-reaction with far more draconian
restrictions ... perhaps even outright bans in many areas ... all
because the NRA and those who worship it won't budge an inch on some
fundamentally basic loopholes.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:40:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

You are talking about something less than 1% of the murders. There are
~11,000 a year and the news makers account for less than 100.

Because mass murder brings it home. 20 bodies of little
1st graders slaughtered by a legally purchased rifle tends
to do that.

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.
Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.


You finally made a statement that is *almost* correct: "It's all smoke and mirrors
until the Feds crack down on gun ownership."

Just insert the word 'illegal' in front of 'gun ownership', and you'll have gotten it
right.

Or, stick to ISIS.

--

Ban idiots, not guns!