[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:33:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Fine, pass such a law and figure out a way to make it stick. Hint--
internet search engines are not necessarily hosted in your state or even
in the US. If they're not in the US there is absolutely nothing that US
law can do about them.

What do internet search engines have to do with anything I've
suggested? What I've suggested would have to be state laws. The NRA
knows this, and that's why the NRA concentrates on state legislators
and showers them with campaign fund donations and threats of support
for cooperative candidates in future elections. The fish in the small
pond are cheaper to buy.


You seem to be big on passing more and more and more and more laws,
without regard to whether any of them actually accomplish anything other
than killing trees.

More and more? Where does that come from? I would prefer to kill a
few trees if it saves a few human lives.

You're the one who is portraying firearms purchasers as being
automatically suspect and unsafe to be around. If that is the case then
you should be suspicious of yourself and your motives. Why _do_ you
need guns anyway?

I haven't portrayed firearms purchasers in any way. I do think that
the people who look to purchase guns from private individuals at flea
markets and through Craigslist are somewhat suspect because they may
be trying to avoid the requirements that they would face by buying a
gun through an authorized firearms dealer. It's not like authorized
gun dealers are short of supply.

I don't *need* a gun. I inherited a .38 Colt revolver from my father.
I purchased a .22 rifle. The .38 is stored away, but the .22 has been
used several times. My son and I have done some target shooting with
it.

Can you dispute it? With a straight face?

Have you ever looked beyond "80 to 90 percent" to find out what
"stricter gun controls" they want? And then compared those to the laws
actually in force?

I don't think there's a consensus. Some want stricter requirements
for purchase, some want registration of all guns, some want specific
restrictions enforced. All want more than there is.

Dragging this back to photography, I've met these gun owners:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Hobbie...ction-Shooting

So that's what mother-stabbers and father-rapers look like. I always
pictured them more like Arlo Guthrie.

You aren't very good at presenting any kind of argument in your favor.
Throwing in offensive terms that have nothing to do with the subject
isn't convincing in any way.

Tony, until you can read your own words and see how crazy they are,
there's no point to continuing this. You don't even see the
implications of your own statements.

You need to learn to totally drop the argument that "the legislature is
owned by". I have heard that it is owned by the Japanese, the Arabs,
the Jews, the Chinese, the automakers, the banks, the defense
contractors, Hollywood, and just aboaut any other entity with which
someone disagrees. People other than you have long since figured out
that such assertions are the mark of a crackpot. But you go right on
with them.

As for "offensive terms", all I can say is "whoosh".

On 9/17/2013 3:24 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:49:31 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/17/2013 1:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:41:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-17 08:23:10 -0700, George Kerby said:




On 9/16/13 9:33 AM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:25:25 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.09.06 22:13 , PeterN wrote:
On 9/6/2013 4:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.09.05 22:25 , Michael Benveniste wrote:
On 9/5/2013 1:21 PM, Bowser wrote:

Let's see what you've got. For Sale is due October 6th, 2013.

I won't be in Washington D.C. this month, so I can't submit a picture
of the Capitol or the White House.

They sold out a long time ago.

True. But it's on ongoing sale.

Confirmed then: they are prostitutes.

Now, now, there's no need to insult prostitutes. I'll take them over
politicians any day.


Is there a difference?

Have you ever been satisfied with any encounter with a politician?
With a prostitute there is always the promise of some sort of
satisfaction, however fleeting that might be.

Actually, I've had one experience in dealing with a politician, and no
experience at all dealing with a prostitute. My US Representative did
meet with me, and did take care of a problem for me. He was quite
efficient.


that was one politician that help.

Well, I asked one to help and he did so.

When over 90% of the people surveyed want to ban gun ownership to people
with mental problems, whey hasn't backround check legislation passed.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

That isn't an example of a experience with a politician. While I
agree with you on the need - although I would take it further and have
much more stringent gun controls - you brought up comparing a personal
experience with a politician vs a personal experience with a
prostitute.



If I told you some of my personal experiences with politicians, it would
really drive the discussion too far OT. Remember, I had a partner who
was one, had some who were my clients, and used to go on the rubber
chicken circuit, as well as go the the $2,000 a person cocktail parties.

--
PeterN

On 9/17/2013 5:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:49:31 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/17/2013 1:40 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:41:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-17 08:23:10 -0700, George Kerby said:




On 9/16/13 9:33 AM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:25:25 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.09.06 22:13 , PeterN wrote:
On 9/6/2013 4:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.09.05 22:25 , Michael Benveniste wrote:
On 9/5/2013 1:21 PM, Bowser wrote:

Let's see what you've got. For Sale is due October 6th, 2013.

I won't be in Washington D.C. this month, so I can't submit a picture
of the Capitol or the White House.

They sold out a long time ago.

True. But it's on ongoing sale.

Confirmed then: they are prostitutes.

Now, now, there's no need to insult prostitutes. I'll take them over
politicians any day.


Is there a difference?

Have you ever been satisfied with any encounter with a politician?
With a prostitute there is always the promise of some sort of
satisfaction, however fleeting that might be.

Actually, I've had one experience in dealing with a politician, and no
experience at all dealing with a prostitute. My US Representative did
meet with me, and did take care of a problem for me. He was quite
efficient.


that was one politician that help.

Well, I asked one to help and he did so.

When over 90% of the people surveyed want to ban gun ownership to people
with mental problems, whey hasn't backround check legislation passed.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

That isn't an example of a experience with a politician. While I
agree with you on the need - although I would take it further and have
much more stringent gun controls - you brought up comparing a personal
experience with a politician vs a personal experience with a
prostitute.

Besides, background check legislation was enacted 20 years ago, so the
politicians can be forgiven for not passing the same law again.


Cows and horses can easily jump through the holes in that legislation.

--
PeterN

On 9/18/2013 11:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

While I would not advise Grandma to advertise expensive items of any
sort on Craigslist if the sale involves strangers coming to Grandma's
house when only Grandma is there, there are certain items that are
more likely to attract the attention of those "mean ugly looking"
people. Guns is one such category.

Heck, just ban private sales of everything unless they happen at a gun
shop. Gotta protect Grandma you know.

Yeah, that goes along with the NRA bull**** about "only outlaws will
have guns".

Congress deals with the reality that the NRA dreams up.

You go on believing that.

Like something like 80 to 90 percent of the population, I believe in
the need for stricter gun controls. The NRA, though, has dreamed up
the "reality" that our representatives should not represent us. The
dream is accompanied by generous donations to campaign funds and
threats that they will support any opposing candidate in the next
election.


And indeed the NRA was behind the recall of two CO congresspeople.

--
PeterN

On 2013-09-18 21:29:55 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/18/2013 11:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

While I would not advise Grandma to advertise expensive items of any
sort on Craigslist if the sale involves strangers coming to Grandma's
house when only Grandma is there, there are certain items that are
more likely to attract the attention of those "mean ugly looking"
people. Guns is one such category.

Heck, just ban private sales of everything unless they happen at a gun
shop. Gotta protect Grandma you know.

Yeah, that goes along with the NRA bull**** about "only outlaws will
have guns".

Congress deals with the reality that the NRA dreams up.

You go on believing that.

Like something like 80 to 90 percent of the population, I believe in
the need for stricter gun controls. The NRA, though, has dreamed up
the "reality" that our representatives should not represent us. The
dream is accompanied by generous donations to campaign funds and
threats that they will support any opposing candidate in the next
election.


And indeed the NRA was behind the recall of two CO congresspeople.

I believe they were members of the Colorado State Legislature, the
State Senate to be exact, not Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tes-heres-why/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

I really don't see why you're trying to "discuss" these things with Tony
to begin with... He can never be wrong, didn't you know that?


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:40:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:28:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist?

What rules? No rules exist today. There should be rules, but no
rules will ever be put into effect in Florida. The NRA owns the
Florida legislature. This is the state that tried to pass a law that
a pediatrician should be fined $1 million - that's no typo - for
initiating any discussion with a patient or patient's family about gun
safety practices in the home...the "Docs and Glocks" law that was
struck down by the courts.

This is also the state that passed legislation that forbade cities
from passing any local ordinances regarding gun control. No city in
Florida can pass a local ordinance banning the carrying - open or
concealed - a weapon in a children's park or school. Any gun law must
be a state law.

How
about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for
advertising that are not subject to editorial control.

All I'm advocating is that *some* reasonable restrictions on the sale
of guns should be imposed. There is no anticipation that all avenues
can - or should be - closed. I think it's reasonable to ban gun sales
at flea markets where anyone can walk up and purchase any weapon of
any kind. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to ban, by law,
that "Grandma" can't sell her deceased husband's handgun to a friend
or relative.

And, by the way, I would exempt collector items like this one:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...6-21-07-XL.jpg
I inherited it from my father, but have since given it to my daughter.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

Your argument is that Grandma selling something on Craigslist is
dangerous for Grandma. Now it is up to you to explain why selling a
firearm on Craigslist is more dangerous to Grandma than selling a camera
or a bicycle or a fishing rod.

Up to me? All it takes is a modicum of common sense to understand why
advertising the fact that you have a gun for sale can attract people
who would not respond to an ad for a camera or a fishing rod.
Craigslist has a search option, and the bad guys aren't searching for
"Nikon" or "Daiwa".

I see. So the only people who might want to buy a gun are criminals.
Gotcha.

Nothing about the suggestion prohibits anyone from selling or buying a
gun. All it does is impose a restriction on where the gun is bought
or sold. Guns could still be sold through or to, and bought from,
authorized sellers that follow the laws.

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

What has he written that made you write that last sentence?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-09-19 03:18:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:40:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:28:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist?

What rules? No rules exist today. There should be rules, but no
rules will ever be put into effect in Florida. The NRA owns the
Florida legislature. This is the state that tried to pass a law that
a pediatrician should be fined $1 million - that's no typo - for
initiating any discussion with a patient or patient's family about gun
safety practices in the home...the "Docs and Glocks" law that was
struck down by the courts.

This is also the state that passed legislation that forbade cities
from passing any local ordinances regarding gun control. No city in
Florida can pass a local ordinance banning the carrying - open or
concealed - a weapon in a children's park or school. Any gun law must
be a state law.

How
about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for
advertising that are not subject to editorial control.

All I'm advocating is that *some* reasonable restrictions on the sale
of guns should be imposed. There is no anticipation that all avenues
can - or should be - closed. I think it's reasonable to ban gun sales
at flea markets where anyone can walk up and purchase any weapon of
any kind. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to ban, by law,
that "Grandma" can't sell her deceased husband's handgun to a friend
or relative.

And, by the way, I would exempt collector items like this one:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...6-21-07-XL.jpg
I

inherited it from my father, but have since given it to my daughter.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

Your argument is that Grandma selling something on Craigslist is
dangerous for Grandma. Now it is up to you to explain why selling a
firearm on Craigslist is more dangerous to Grandma than selling a camera
or a bicycle or a fishing rod.

Up to me? All it takes is a modicum of common sense to understand why
advertising the fact that you have a gun for sale can attract people
who would not respond to an ad for a camera or a fishing rod.
Craigslist has a search option, and the bad guys aren't searching for
"Nikon" or "Daiwa".

I see. So the only people who might want to buy a gun are criminals.
Gotcha.

Nothing about the suggestion prohibits anyone from selling or buying a
gun. All it does is impose a restriction on where the gun is bought
or sold. Guns could still be sold through or to, and bought from,
authorized sellers that follow the laws.

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

What has he written that made you write that last sentence?

Are you blind, just stubborn, or injecting yourself into a thread
regarding opinions on US gun control which has nothing to do with
Swedes?

Just read the thread rather than ask what Tony has written. It appears
in the line above the comment you are asking about.
Your request makes you appear like a petulant girl refusing to speak to
somebody standing right next to her and using an intermediary to
conduct a conversation.
"I'm not speaking to him, so you tell me what he said, and I'll tell
you what I want him to hear."

Sheeesh!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/19/2013 12:45 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-09-18 21:29:55 -0700, PeterN said:

On 9/18/2013 11:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on
Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop
and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be
safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

While I would not advise Grandma to advertise expensive items of any
sort on Craigslist if the sale involves strangers coming to Grandma's
house when only Grandma is there, there are certain items that are
more likely to attract the attention of those "mean ugly looking"
people. Guns is one such category.

Heck, just ban private sales of everything unless they happen at a gun
shop. Gotta protect Grandma you know.

Yeah, that goes along with the NRA bull**** about "only outlaws will
have guns".

Congress deals with the reality that the NRA dreams up.

You go on believing that.

Like something like 80 to 90 percent of the population, I believe in
the need for stricter gun controls. The NRA, though, has dreamed up
the "reality" that our representatives should not represent us. The
dream is accompanied by generous donations to campaign funds and
threats that they will support any opposing candidate in the next
election.


And indeed the NRA was behind the recall of two CO congresspeople.

I believe they were members of the Colorado State Legislature, the State
Senate to be exact, not Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tes-heres-why/




Yes. I said that from memory. My example was misstated, but the
principal is the same.

--
PeterN

On 2013-09-19 07:59:37 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:09:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-09-19 03:18:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:40:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:28:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:59 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

It is only one, very limited, form of reality. A state law could
require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed
retail gun seller. There certainly is no shortage of them in this
state.

Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun
laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea
that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist
anyway. Now what?

Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. If Grampa's
estate include meth lab equipment, a stash of marijuana, a computer
loaded with image files of naked children, or anything obtained
illegally, she might innocently offer them for sale. We don't pass or
not pass laws based on people's knowledge of what is, or is not,
legal.

Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do?

Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any
medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. We
already have restrictions in place on advertisers that the medium must
observe. We require certain contractors to have a license number to
advertise. We require sellers of automobiles who are dealers to
reveal that they are dealers. There are many other restrictions in
place.

Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist?

What rules? No rules exist today. There should be rules, but no
rules will ever be put into effect in Florida. The NRA owns the
Florida legislature. This is the state that tried to pass a law that
a pediatrician should be fined $1 million - that's no typo - for
initiating any discussion with a patient or patient's family about gun
safety practices in the home...the "Docs and Glocks" law that was
struck down by the courts.

This is also the state that passed legislation that forbade cities
from passing any local ordinances regarding gun control. No city in
Florida can pass a local ordinance banning the carrying - open or
concealed - a weapon in a children's park or school. Any gun law must
be a state law.

How
about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for
advertising that are not subject to editorial control.

All I'm advocating is that *some* reasonable restrictions on the sale
of guns should be imposed. There is no anticipation that all avenues
can - or should be - closed. I think it's reasonable to ban gun sales
at flea markets where anyone can walk up and purchase any weapon of
any kind. I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to ban, by law,
that "Grandma" can't sell her deceased husband's handgun to a friend
or relative.

And, by the way, I would exempt collector items like this one:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...6-21-07-XL.jpg
I

inherited

it from my father, but have since given it to my daughter.

That would probably be safer for Grandma. For Grandma to offer the
gun on Craigslist and meet with a total stranger is putting Grandma in
danger. Worse, if Grandma is so naive to allow the stranger to come
to her home. Nor do we want Grandma toting the gun to a flea market
to sell it.

rolling eyes

Do you hear yourself? Yeah, gotta protect grandma from all those mean
ugly looking mother-stabbing father raping strangers if she wants to
dispose of grandpa's guns. Why don't you pass a law that says that she
has to take his cameras or golf clubs or fishing tackle to a gunshop and
get a background check run on the buyer as well? Wouldn't that be safer
for her as well?

If you want to make a case for something, do it with some connection
to a logical reason for your position. There is no logical connection
for a background check on the sale of fishing equipment.

Your argument is that Grandma selling something on Craigslist is
dangerous for Grandma. Now it is up to you to explain why selling a
firearm on Craigslist is more dangerous to Grandma than selling a camera
or a bicycle or a fishing rod.

Up to me? All it takes is a modicum of common sense to understand why
advertising the fact that you have a gun for sale can attract people
who would not respond to an ad for a camera or a fishing rod.
Craigslist has a search option, and the bad guys aren't searching for
"Nikon" or "Daiwa".

I see. So the only people who might want to buy a gun are criminals.
Gotcha.

Nothing about the suggestion prohibits anyone from selling or buying a
gun. All it does is impose a restriction on where the gun is bought
or sold. Guns could still be sold through or to, and bought from,
authorized sellers that follow the laws.

Tony, put some more tinfoil in your hat and wipe the foam off your
mouth.

What has he written that made you write that last sentence?

Are you blind, just stubborn, or injecting yourself into a thread
regarding opinions on US gun control which has nothing to do with
Swedes?

Just read the thread rather than ask what Tony has written. It appears
in the line above the comment you are asking about.
Your request makes you appear like a petulant girl refusing to speak to
somebody standing right next to her and using an intermediary to
conduct a conversation.
"I'm not speaking to him, so you tell me what he said, and I'll tell
you what I want him to hear."

Sheeesh!

Sheesh yourself! Eric does not have me killfiled, and presumably has
read my posts. Eric is a Kiwi, not a Swede.

I think you intended this reply to Jonas' post, not to Eric's.

You are correct, and I extend my apologies to all concerned, especially Eric.

Eric's question is entirely reasonable. My comments have been
reserved and rational. They have not been critical of gun owners or
of the ownership of guns. I have supported what most Americans
support: some restrictions on the sale of guns.

The big issue and loophole in the background checks is the mental
health question. The majority of firearms in the USA are not used in
crime or insane shootings, but are owned by mostly responsible, law
abiding citizens. Even drug addled criminals armed with illegally
obtained guns, aren't crazy enough to shoot up a school, movie house,
or military establishment.

The problem with this type of discussion is that some, but not all,
pro gun people feel that *any* suggestions of *any* tightening of our
gun laws is tantamount to suggesting that federal troops confiscate
all guns and are therefore the suggestion of a tinfoil-hat-wearing
left-wing liberal crackpot.

There are some truly stupid provisions in some of the suggested
restrictions on the weapons and configuration of weapons. The key is
background checks and enforcement of the current laws.
A big issue is how to enforce the gun control laws which are already on
the books, especially when a disqualifying factor comes into play after
an earlier approval. An individual might not be a convicted felon, or
have a documented mental health issue when they first successfully pass
the background check. I know that the California DOJ is unable to fully
enforce the current laws by matching gun registrations with recent
felony convictions. Mental health professionals are not compelled to
advise the DOJ of a patient's mental health status due to
confidentiality laws.
Then in California we have the issue of individuals with restraining
orders placed against them where the Law prohibits them from possessing
a firearm. Again, there is no check between the Courts and the
California DOJ firearms owner database, and no manpower to enforce the
restriction.

Until mental health professionals are able to file a report indicating
they believe a patient has stability issue and/or violent tendencies,
and the various State law enforcement agencies are able to make a gun
ownership check against a database, and act on that knowledge.

As has been pointed out, the DC shooter, the Colorado movie house
shooter, the Newtown school shooter, the Giffords Arizona shooter, all
had profound undocumented mental health issues and were able to sail
through the background checks. The DC shooter was even able to avoid
disqualification even though he was involved in two prior shooting
incidents where he showed irrational behavior.





--
Regards,

Savageduck