| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#142
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:26:02 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:03:47 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:30:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced. Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful, I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms. I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms. What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless. Change has to start somewhere. Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities. With that right comes responsibility however. In any of these shootings has the owner of record not been determined? Change started way back when...when the first gun control laws were established. Those changes, and there've been many of them, have not seemingly reduced the shootings in this country. The idea that folks have a 'do nothing' attitude is simply wrong, in my opinion. We all want to *do* something, but don't know what. Like Greg has said, none of the laws in effect have prevented the shootings, and more paperwork laws won't either. Look at Chicago. There is living proof that paperwork laws and absolutely strict gun control doesn't help much. And, each and every law is, in fact, an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. However, I can put up with some infringement. Personally, I'd like to see a high school diploma requirement and an age requirement for the purchase of any gun - 21 years old sounds about right. And I'd like to see enforcement of the laws already on the books. Read some of the articles about how the laws are 'unenforced' in Chicago and you'll understand what I mean. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/u...B98851&gwt=pay https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...growing-crime/ Perhaps all of that makes sense in the big city but most states allow a kid of 15 or 16 to hunt alone. I could live with a requirement for adult supervision when a kid is under 18 (although I did a lot of hunting from 10 years on up. |
|
#143
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:17:42 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:41:33 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:24:37 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:03:47 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:30:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced. Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful, I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms. I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms. What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless. Change has to start somewhere. Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities. With that right comes responsibility however. In any of these shootings has the owner of record not been determined? Change started way back when...when the first gun control laws were established. Those changes, and there've been many of them, have not seemingly reduced the shootings in this country. The idea that folks have a 'do nothing' attitude is simply wrong, in my opinion. We all want to *do* something, but don't know what. Like Greg has said, none of the laws in effect have prevented the shootings, and more paperwork laws won't either. Look at Chicago. There is living proof that paperwork laws and absolutely strict gun control doesn't help much. And, each and every law is, in fact, an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. However, I can put up with some infringement. Personally, I'd like to see a high school diploma requirement and an age requirement for the purchase of any gun - 21 years old sounds about right. And I'd like to see enforcement of the laws already on the books. Read some of the articles about how the laws are 'unenforced' in Chicago and you'll understand what I mean. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/u...B98851&gwt=pay https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...growing-crime/ === You make a lot of good points, particularly the lack of strict enforcement of existing gun laws. Hese's another aspect however: Horrific as some of these shooting events have been, the casualty numbers still pale in insignicance compared to drug overdose deaths and drug related shooting crimes. Another thing that concerns me about this latest incident is that a convicted stalker/harasser was allowed to legally purchase a firearm, and was allowed to continue with threatening behavior. We've got to somehow get these nut cases off the street. Agree. Wonder if he lied on the ATF Form 4473, or was even required to complete one. The gun was legally purchased so he must have filled out the 4473. The questions on the 4473 are about felonies and court imposed restraining orders or domestic violence convictions. Ramos had none of those as pointed out by the 4 star cop in the interview the other day. NICS would not flag him either. Then maybe we need tougher questions on the ATF 4473. I could buy that with no problem. |
|
#144
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On 6/30/18 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:20:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:34:17 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.Â* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to beÂ* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."Â* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.Â* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.Â* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced.Â* Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful,Â* I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms.Â* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms.Â* What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless.Â* Change has to start somewhere.Â* Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities.Â* With that right comes responsibility however. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I suspect that has more to do with your desire to outlaw hunting in all forms than preventing mass shootings since millions of "kids" are given guns every year and a minuscule fraction ever do anything wrong with them. (other than murder helpless animals) There you go again. I have ne desire to outlaw hunting in all forms, as ypu phrase it. You certainly never miss a chance to criticize it but that still leaves us with the fact that "kids" are allowed to hunt alone in most states, including Maryland so that must mean they have unsupervised use of a firearm. I was 15 when I got my first shotgun. I had unfettered access to a .22 before that. Just because I am critical of "sport hunting" doesn't mean I want to outlaw it. |
|
#145
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:44:54 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. According to this, FL has a three day waiting period and some counties go up to five days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state |
|
#146
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:02:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 3:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. I am sure. It was back in 2003 though, so perhaps the rules have changed. They did the instant (phone) background check, I paid for the the shotgun but the store had to hold it for something like 5 days before I could pick it up. Bought it at a WalMart of all places. Winchester 20 gauge. It could also have been because I was not a permanent Florida resident. Don't know. I never had a Florida driver's license. Florida was kinda strange. I bought and registered a pickup truck down there with Florida tags but I didn't need a Florida driver's license to do it. I still have the shotgun. Never been fired. But now I have a minor problem. Because I bought it in Florida (well before I had a LTC permit in Massachusetts) it is technically illegal for me to have it up here. I didn't know all the rules and laws back then and it may be difficult for me to legally transfer or sell it. This state has no record that I have it. I am sure if I just turned it over to the town police (which is probably what I'll do when the time comes) they will just take it with no questions asked. Why not just register it? The way I read this, it's permissable: "Although registration is not specifically required by law, transfers of firearm ownership are required to be recorded with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS): by the seller if in state, or by the buyer if out of state. The Massachusetts EOPSS also provides the option to register a firearm, although, other than obtaining a firearm from out of state (a transfer of ownership), this is not required by law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts |
|
#147
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:56:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 10:34 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced.* Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful,* I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms.* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms.* What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless.* Change has to start somewhere. Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities.* With that right comes responsibility however. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I see no problem if the "kid" is of legal age to own the firearm and it is transferred to him along with a new registration of ownership. That leaves the original owner (gifter) with no further responsibility. Of course under the rules I have proposed if someone just gifts a firearm to someone without any documentation of the transfer, the original owner should still be held responsible if that firearm ever becomes used in criminal activity. Yes, under your proposal which would require the registration of everything. The laws in Virginia are a far cry from your proposal. There isn't even a 'requirement' that the transfer of a rifle to a kid be recorded. |
|
#148
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:17:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 3:56 PM, Tim wrote: On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 2:05 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:56:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 10:34 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced.* Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful,* I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms.* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms.* What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless.* Change has to start somewhere. Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities.* With that right comes responsibility however. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I see no problem if the "kid" is of legal age to own the firearm and it is transferred to him along with a new registration of ownership. That leaves the original owner (gifter) with no further responsibility. Of course under the rules I have proposed if someone just gifts a firearm to someone without any documentation of the transfer, the original owner should still be held responsible if that firearm ever becomes used in criminal activity. I still ask, why is documentation a mitigator in any crimes? What difference does it really make? Virtually every one of these mass shootings involve legally purchased and properly documented firearms. When you look at the bulk of the murders (around the drug trade), the guns are usually stolen and I doubt anyone will be rushing down to the police station to register a stolen gun, particularly since most are barred from owning one in the first place. Because we have to change our thinking about gun ownership, not outlaw them. You said you had a shotgun at 15 and "unfettered" access to a .22 before then. Tim just mentioned that he had a .357 at 15 and a .44 at 17. Obviously both of you were responsible and careful with them otherwise either or both of you would not be around to be posting in rec.boats today. But, let me ask you this: Do you (and Tim) think that now-a-days any 15 year old kid in your neighborhoods should have the right to have a shotgun or a .357 whatever it was? Is your confidence in other families and the parents that control them high enough to feel comfortable with kids barely beyond puberty walking around with those firearms? Not me. Many parents today don't even enforce some of the basic rules we grew up with. I do understand what your saying ass well as asking, Richard. And it's a difficult question for me to answer. You said "think that now-a-days any 15 year old kid in your neighborhoods should have the right ..." Well, around my 'neighborhood' you'll find that about any teenager has at least access to some type of a firearm. I mean, when the first day of deer season rolls around, the local schools shut down because most of the kids are going to be out deer hunting anyhow. "free day" is what the schools call it. Now to be (I take it you mean 'casually") Walking around with a firearm, I'd say not only no, but "heck no!" When I was a kid buying a .357, I had already been ingrained with a great deal of respect for people and for the firearms. You don't go flagging it around in front of people. I'd like to say I that would be true with kids in my area today. Me too. But I am not sure in today's days of violent video games and lack of strong parental control of kids that access to firearms at 15 as a general rule is a good idea. I am sure the community you grew up in was different back then and I know you had strong family influences. Sounds like that culture remains today but I am not sure that's true everywhere. Well of course it's not true everywhere! I wouldn't give 'any kid' a rifle, and I'm sure most 'responsible' adults feel the same way. But, back to what Greg said, none of this extra paperwork you propose would have stopped any of the shootings! |
|
#149
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:57:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 11:04 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:34:17 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced.* Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful,* I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms.* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms.* What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless.* Change has to start somewhere.* Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities.* With that right comes responsibility however. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. Absolutely. There should be a record of the transaction. ?? What does ?? mean? You said this: "I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed." I agreed there should be a record of the transaction. |
|
#150
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:22:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 11:03 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:30:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration.* If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use.* If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a decent start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All firearms, no exceptions. That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all. They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer within hours. What would registration do? I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms and the attendant paperwork and bureaucracy. The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs a 7/11, shoots someone, and leaves his gun on the counter as he departs. Now get off this negative attitude! There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to see implemented and enforced. Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record, regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the crime committed. Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass killings" so therefore it's not helpful, I'd like to make the point that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their firearms. I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it. It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility that goes with having firearms. 1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or criminal activities using firearms. What is required is a cultural change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms is fruitless. Change has to start somewhere. Better to recognize and accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have been enacted. I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense and sporting activities. With that right comes responsibility however. In any of these shootings has the owner of record not been determined? Change started way back when...when the first gun control laws were established. Those changes, and there've been many of them, have not seemingly reduced the shootings in this country. The idea that folks have a 'do nothing' attitude is simply wrong, in my opinion. We all want to *do* something, but don't know what. Like Greg has said, none of the laws in effect have prevented the shootings, and more paperwork laws won't either. Look at Chicago. There is living proof that paperwork laws and absolutely strict gun control doesn't help much. And, each and every law is, in fact, an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. However, I can put up with some infringement. Personally, I'd like to see a high school diploma requirement and an age requirement for the purchase of any gun - 21 years old sounds about right. And I'd like to see enforcement of the laws already on the books. Read some of the articles about how the laws are 'unenforced' in Chicago and you'll understand what I mean. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/u...B98851&gwt=pay https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...growing-crime/ I agree with you. As I tried to point out previously we can't "fix" problems with guns being used in crimes by some of the stupid laws many state legislators are imposing. It's a political reaction, that's all. Good example is Maryland. I was reading their current laws. All kinds of legislation has been passed to ban certain "assault" type rifles and to limit magazine sizes however there is still *no* minimum age required to buy a shotgun or a non-banned long rifle. I know Greg says he had (or had access to) a .22 before he was 15 years old but that was then, not now. I think we need to start approaching gun ownership more from a change in our culture standpoint rather than trying to force gun control with laws on certain types of guns. It might take some time but future generations may end up having a heightened sense of responsibility and understanding of what gun ownership means. It used to be taught by dear old Dad and organizations like the Scouts. That culture seems to be dying. My source showed an age requirement for purchase of a long gun in MD. And, I have no problem with an age requirement. Wouldn't have prevented any of the shootings, but that's OK. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![John H.[_5_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
