Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:47:10 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

---------------------------------------

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's
not all BS.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their
lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the
facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is.

I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the
questioning and the time line for release of information to his
questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in
the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual
buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the
term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS
explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their
opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population
stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it....

But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this
stuff, you have to want to know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to
a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability?
Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to
you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than
to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage
already caused by private citizen purchases?

What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS
intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the
public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need?






I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply
because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to
sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid.

You don't have to say it. It's obvious. You are stupid.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:31:55 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:03:44 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Why? You think marriages should be conducted by lawyers?

Divorces are conducted by lawyers, why shouldn't marriages be?
It is the 2 sides of the same coin and represents about half of all
marriages.


You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your
way. We won't.


I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a
lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just
to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If
kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that.

You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its
unnecessary.

There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration.

At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that
involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice?
If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been
slammed with that huge tax bill.

So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should
just write off her dying wife? I guess so.


You want that all changed, as Greg appears to want?
That's just radical libertarianism.

The question is why there are that many discrimitory laws benefiting
married people? It sounds like those evil churches influencing the
government.
Since there is very little uniformity among the states about who, how
and what marriage even means, it is silly that we have that many laws
about it.


Those are federal laws, relating to taxation and fed benefits.
Ever see the tax code?

Yes and it is a product of thousands of special interests, the church
being one of them. They discriminate against single people living
together or even married people if they happen to be gay.
That is pure church dogma,

Churches have nothing to do with it, except as they influence society.
It's society's desires, forwarded via elected representatives, and the
weight of the public sense on the SC that determines what's
"discriminatory." Not you.
Let me know when the SC deems the marriage exemption unconstitutional.

The trend seems to be going toward the idea of letting any 2 or more
people being able to say they are married.

Good grief.

So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas.
The country has never worked that way and never will.
Just concentrate on waste and corruption.

As long as special interests still control congress, we will never
have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest
deduction next.


Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least
afford it. The rich do fine though.

The only question at hand now in DOMA is whether it violates equal
protection. Of course it does. It was discriminatory and
unconstitutional from the getgo. Nothing new either. Laws and actions
denying equal protection to blacks, women, Japanese-Americans come to
mind. Those were also corrected.

I agree DOMA is a violation of states rights and disrespecting the
will of the people in those states who have decided that gay marriage
is legal. Marriage is a state issue and has always been. The word is
not even mentioned in the constitution. The federal government never
had any business passing DOMA.


Nobody cares about DOMA in relation to state rights except airheads.
That's all bull****, no matter how the SC rules this time around.

That is exactly the issue in Winter. The state of New York honors
their marriage and federal law doesn't.
The thing that complicates this is they were actually married in
Canada but they did live in a gay marriage state.
If tossing DOMA assured universal gay marriage in all states, we would
not need the prop 8 case.

Who's saying getting rid of DOMA would do that? I haven't heard that
argument. Are you making that argument or are you just blowing smoke?


The real question is what happens when DOMA is struck down as I think
it will be and the SCOTUS simply punts on Prop 8, letting the appeals
court decision to strike it down, stand.
That would leave such similar laws in other states in limbo.

We may not be done with this.

Of course not. The SC will eventually be forced to step up and declare
discriminating against gay marriage unconstitutional under equal
protection. Because that's what society will demand.
The states will just fall into line, every single one of them.

We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple
contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't
we?

That's fine with me.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:45:44 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:24:07 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with federal laws. Try to keep
up.

Holy Christ! It has everything to do with federal AND state laws. Try
not to be particularly stupid.

You cited it

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Where does it say anything about federal laws. It says "No State..."

The FEDERAL law says "no state". Did you get through fourth grade?
Cause it's not obvious.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/29/13 11:47 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

---------------------------------------

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's
not all BS.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their
lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the
facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is.

I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the
questioning and the time line for release of information to his
questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in
the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual
buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the
term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS
explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their
opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population
stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it....

But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this
stuff, you have to want to know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to
a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability?
Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to
you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than
to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage
already caused by private citizen purchases?

What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS
intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the
public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need?






I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply
because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to
sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid.


You don't seem capable of pedaling your canoe in either direction.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
.. .


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.


There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They
include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance,
Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course.
Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When
I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now
she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night,
while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next
courses sooner than I thought!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.


There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They
include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance,
Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course.
Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When
I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now
she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night,
while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next
courses sooner than I thought!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news
on TV.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/30/2013 7:46 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/29/13 11:47 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

---------------------------------------

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's
not all BS.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their
lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the
facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is.

I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the
questioning and the time line for release of information to his
questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in
the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual
buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the
term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS
explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their
opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population
stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it....

But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this
stuff, you have to want to know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to
a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability?
Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to
you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than
to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage
already caused by private citizen purchases?

What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS
intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the
public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need?






I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply
because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to
sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid.


You don't seem capable of pedaling your canoe in either direction.

You don't seem capable of paddling a course in any direction other than
that charted for you by the democratic party or some union. God forbid
you find the need to backpeddle or change direction. You'd be totally lost.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.


There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me,
possibly) to take if we desire. They
include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol
cleaning and maintenance,
Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She
took the basic pistol course.
Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house,
and have for many years. When
I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be
interested. She was. Now
she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods
shooting at stumps. Last night,
while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So,
she may be taking the next
courses sooner than I thought!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news
on TV.

Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time.

Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find
something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there
pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more
miserable.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:20:00 -0400, Hank© wrote:

On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
...


BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you
covered?

===============================================


My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot
one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend
she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more
extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are
kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who
has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something
should happen to us.)

My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour
course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile,
especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have
little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little
ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership
laws.


There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me,
possibly) to take if we desire. They
include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol
cleaning and maintenance,
Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She
took the basic pistol course.
Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house,
and have for many years. When
I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be
interested. She was. Now
she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods
shooting at stumps. Last night,
while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So,
she may be taking the next
courses sooner than I thought!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news
on TV.

Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time.

Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find
something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there
pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more
miserable.

It's called 'bitterness'. Damn shame. But, it happens.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

---------------------------------------

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.


Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their
lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the
facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is.

I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the
questioning and the time line for release of information to his
questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in
the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual
buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the
term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS
explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their
opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population
stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it....

But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this
stuff, you have to want to know.

Are you really trying to convince people that the DHS didn't buy ammo
before?