Both of mine said, "Yea!"

Here's who said what....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
..cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237

--
--

MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.4

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net...at/my_boat.htm

On 7/23/09 8:51 PM, Gene wrote:

Both of mine said, "Yea!"

Here's who said what....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237



One of ours said NO and the other did not vote on this issue.

I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.


--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:16:35 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:09:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.

I find myself agreeing with Harry on this. I do believe a well
structured CCW program is a good idea but it is not up to the feds to
do it. This is a state's rights issue.
If New York or Massachusetts wants to ban guns, fine with me. I don't
have to live there. If the residents think their rights have been
taken, do what Heller did, get the SCOTUS to throw out the law and
vote to throw out the politicians who made the law..
That is the American way.

Ditto. I'd make some comment about gay 'marriages' also, but I won't.
--

John H

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:09:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 7/23/09 8:51 PM, Gene wrote:

Both of mine said, "Yea!"

Here's who said what....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237



One of ours said NO and the other did not vote on this issue.

I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.

Bloody hilarious that Republicans would scream about states rights
until a carry permit law comes up. Hypocrite mother ****ers pimping
for the gun lobby.

jps wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:09:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 7/23/09 8:51 PM, Gene wrote:
Both of mine said, "Yea!"

Here's who said what....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237


One of ours said NO and the other did not vote on this issue.

I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.

Bloody hilarious that Republicans would scream about states rights
until a carry permit law comes up. Hypocrite mother ****ers pimping
for the gun lobby.


Well, we all know the GOP fondness for "states' rights" has to do with
segregation.


--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:39:31 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:07:45 -0700, jps penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:09:26 -0400, H the K
|wrote:
|
|On 7/23/09 8:51 PM, Gene wrote:
|
| Both of mine said, "Yea!"
|
| Here's who said what....
|
| http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
| .cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237
|
|
|
|One of ours said NO and the other did not vote on this issue.
|
|I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
|fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
|should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.
|
|Bloody hilarious that Republicans would scream about states rights
|until a carry permit law comes up. Hypocrite mother ****ers pimping
|for the gun lobby.

It isn't about states rights.... unless you are trying to allow states
to abridge the US Constitution....

Isn't that exactly what they're trying to do?

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:07:45 -0700, jps penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:09:26 -0400, H the K
|wrote:
|
|On 7/23/09 8:51 PM, Gene wrote:
|
| Both of mine said, "Yea!"
|
| Here's who said what....
|
| http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
| .cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237
|
|
|
|One of ours said NO and the other did not vote on this issue.
|
|I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
|fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
|should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.
|
|Bloody hilarious that Republicans would scream about states rights
|until a carry permit law comes up. Hypocrite mother ****ers pimping
|for the gun lobby.

It isn't about states rights.... unless you are trying to allow states
to abridge the US Constitution....


The 10th amendment comes to mind.

Gene wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:42:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:07:45 -0700, jps penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:09:26 -0400, H the K
|wrote:
|
|On 7/23/09 8:51 PM, Gene wrote:
|
| Both of mine said, "Yea!"
|
| Here's who said what....
|
| http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI..._call_vote_cfm
| .cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00237
|
|
|
|One of ours said NO and the other did not vote on this issue.
|
|I agree with the NO votes. So long as there is no single standard or in
|fact any sort of commonality in standards for issuing these permits, it
|should be up to the states to decide where they stand on the issue.
|
|Bloody hilarious that Republicans would scream about states rights
|until a carry permit law comes up. Hypocrite mother ****ers pimping
|for the gun lobby.

It isn't about states rights.... unless you are trying to allow states
to abridge the US Constitution....

The 10th amendment comes to mind.

I think the 2nd amendment came first.....

I think the 1st amendment came first!!!!!!

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:59:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:04:59 -0400, NotNow wrote:

The 10th amendment comes to mind.

I think the 2nd amendment came first.....

I think the 1st amendment came first!!!!!!

We didn't defeat the British by yelling at them, we shot them.

What foriegn army are we defending against these days?

We couldn't shoot those Saudi piloted planes out of the sky with our
most advanced weapons systems.

The most frightening threat I've heard recently comes from the thought
that Cheney was trying to convince Bush to use US Military troops for
home soil police work.

Is that what we're defending ourselves against?

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:29:12 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:10:09 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:59:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:04:59 -0400, NotNow wrote:

The 10th amendment comes to mind.

I think the 2nd amendment came first.....

I think the 1st amendment came first!!!!!!

We didn't defeat the British by yelling at them, we shot them.

What foriegn army are we defending against these days?

The Cambridge police?

We couldn't shoot those Saudi piloted planes out of the sky with our
most advanced weapons systems.

We could, we just wouldn't. Remember the Iranian airliner we had no
problem dispatching?

The problem was that it happened too quickly to react in NY. We
weren't prepared.

The most frightening threat I've heard recently comes from the thought
that Cheney was trying to convince Bush to use US Military troops for
home soil police work.

Oh like the 15 US Army regulars (along with the Texas NG) who were at
Waco?

I thought they were all ATF agents. Never heard they were NG troops
or Army. That's ****ed up.

Is that what we're defending ourselves against?

We are defending ourselves against garden variety criminals that the
government seems powerless to stop but if we did find ourselves
invaded by a foreign power, the US would be a hard target.
Bear in mind it was the US who taught most of the "insurgents" we have
had trouble with for the last half century just about everything they
know when they were on "our side". (Vietnam, South America and the
current middle east cluster****)

Well said.