Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.


That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?

On 1/8/2016 7:59 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody
records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a
record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing
that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report
the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about
all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to
how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI

On 1/8/2016 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.


That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?



Because due to the influence of the Tea Party what decent conservative
even wants the job? Without it's blessing he or she doesn't stand a chance.

The result is Trump.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:37:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I wonder if IAFIS also includes all the former military whose fingerprints reside
somewhere. Seems like 70 million would be a small number if that's the case.


According to the website I got the info from, yes, it does. Not sure
when it started though. The IADIS system was put in place in 1999.
Could be that our fingerprint records are not included.



That gets back to those smudgy cards I was talking about then.
I am sure that is all they have on me and I have been fingerprinted a
lot.
I still think fingerprints are an archaic art form. These days we have
the ability to use DNA in a similar fashion and it seems to be a far
better ID technology.
Unfortunately it may be too good. You can find out too much from DNA
and privacy people are concerned.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:24:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

It is certainly the fear they use to enforce it but I doubt there are
very many guns that actually get traced unless a president gets shot.
It is like that Maryland deal where they are keeping a fired casing
from every gun sold. Has that ever caught a criminal?
I think there is just a warehouse somewhere outside of Baltimore with
a half a ton of useless once fired brass

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:26:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Voters determine who leads the government.

Then I guess we are not 90% in favor of the new gun laws because most
of the people in Congress know the voters would crucify them if they
passed them. That is why we have these executive actions ... from a
guy who says he will never face a voter again.
I still remember him telling Putin that.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:33:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.



If you recall that was tried with boats years ago as part of a "luxury"
tax. Didn't last long. In fact, Congress passed it in 1991 and Bush
41 signed it into law. It was canned two years later.

Wow. A boating reference.

Two in one night. I am amazed.

I do think the luxury tax is not comparable tho because it was
defeated because it killed jobs.
A registration tax would be seen like the myriad of other "sin taxes"
and we already got used to paying registration taxes on the other
things we register (houses, cars, boats and now even toys.)

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:02:30 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 7:39 PM, wrote:

Sorry, I guess I am old ;-)
The only tome I have had a digital fingerprint was at Busch Gardens
and they had problems with it. I kept being rejected.
Maybe my fingers are a little different than the general public.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/finger%20wound.jpg

My wife said "good thing you don't have an I phone"


Maybe you shouldn't sandpaper your fingertips. ;-)

Hole saw

It is a lot better now tho but my fingerprint will never be the same.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:52:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI



The thing is you can legally buy the parts you worry about blowing up
without any paperwork or restrictions at all. The serialized part can
just be the piece that holds the trigger in a lot of designs. An
enterprising person could figure out how to make some very capable
guns with minimal actual machining, just using off the shelf parts.
I know a guy (the same guy who showed me the PVC silencer) who was
making a small 9mm sub machine gun from parts with a minimal amount of
actual machining. I got away from there because I look horrible in
orange ;-)

I never heard how it turned out.

I am still surprised at how many people who are selling "almost ready"
AR lowers. Everything else in an AR is just a "part". I would worry
more about that than most of the stuff we are talking about here.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:58:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:

That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?



Because due to the influence of the Tea Party what decent conservative
even wants the job? Without it's blessing he or she doesn't stand a chance.

The result is Trump.


It is not just the republicans. Do you think Bernie and Hillary are
the best the left could come up with?
We have created such a hostile political environment, I doubt anyone
who is not crazy would even think about running.