On 1/6/2016 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:56:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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?


The "gun show" rhetoric is really flawed since the transactions CNN
participated in were outside the actual gun show.
They had to go on a 4 state road drip to find a couple of people who
were willing to break the law. So what? They started this quest with
the conclusion in mind and searched for the proof on a 600 mile drive.
I am sure there were plenty of law breakers right in downtown Atlanta
who would have sold them an illegal gun. They could have picked up
some illegal drugs and got a hooker in the same area.



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

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?

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.

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.


===

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone with basic machine shop skills
and tools can make a decent gun? If you start making guns difficult
to buy, it's not hard to imagine a large underground cottage industry
starting up - very similar to what happens with illegal drugs. Are
you also going to regulate lathes, milling machines and grinders?

On 1/6/2016 2:55 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.


===

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone with basic machine shop skills
and tools can make a decent gun? If you start making guns difficult
to buy, it's not hard to imagine a large underground cottage industry
starting up - very similar to what happens with illegal drugs. Are
you also going to regulate lathes, milling machines and grinders?


I think we are getting a little carried away here. First of all,
nobody, including me, is advocating that guns be banned. All I am
suggesting is that a system of record keeping be put in place that
keeps track of who owns and is responsible for them and where they go if
sold or transferred. That and a background check either at time of
purchase or transfer or, as done here in MA, at time of permit issuance.

It may seem intrusive to some but I've never felt that part of the
system here is a intrusion on my rights. It seems reasonable and
logical to me. But I also realize I am not of a criminal mindset,
however it's nice to know that the couple of guns that I have sold went
to a person who is at least legally qualified by permit and background
check to receive them.

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:55:18 -0500,
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.


===

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone with basic machine shop skills
and tools can make a decent gun? If you start making guns difficult
to buy, it's not hard to imagine a large underground cottage industry
starting up - very similar to what happens with illegal drugs. Are
you also going to regulate lathes, milling machines and grinders?

The world is awash in totally unregulated "parts" too so you don't
need to make the whole gun. There are guys selling AR lowers that are
9x% complete (still just a chunk of metal) Then you drill a couple
holes, grind out a spot or two and buy a "parts kit" for the rest.
To be legal you get a BATF form 1 ... or not.

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.